Player only Open Source Livecode version?

[Batninja]

Hi and sorry if my question is naive.

How possible would it be to take the Livecode open source package and produce a version that hides everything except the File Open/save/save as stack commands and possibly any custom menus that were added to make a LiveCode Player Mac/Win app?

My reason for asking is that I often have simple stacks that I would like to share to end-users but they don’t really warrant publishing on the Mac/Win app stores. It would be great to be able to share say an .lcp stack that a user could double click and launch with a LiveCode Player that had been already installed from Livecode.org or even better from the Mac and Win app stores.

I expect this might be a big ask, especially as I do not have anything like the skills to do this, but perhaps it would be easy for one of the experts here?

Thanks for all and any feedback.
Roger

[jmburnod]

Hi Roger,
You may use a standalone to open stacks.
I use this to share bêta versions.
You may create your own menus open, save etc... and share code between your stacks.
Best regards
Jean-Marc

[bogs]

How possible would it be to take the Livecode open source package and produce a version that hides everything except the File Open/save/save as stack commands and possibly any custom menus that were added to make a LiveCode Player Mac/Win app?

Jean-Mark is quite correct that you can use a launcher stack to launch other stacks, however I'm not sure that is all your asking about.

If you meant using the open source version of Lc to produce a situation where only the code for the launcher would need to have it's source revealed on request (the bold / italic / underlined above), then no, that isn't possible.

If someone requested the source for the stacks you are launching, I'm pretty sure the licensing would still require that you show it *if* they were written in the community version of Lc. If the stacks themselves are written in say, the Indy version of Lc, and you just wrote the launcher in the community version, then you would not have to disclose the launched stacks code.

I am not positive that this is the case, but it would seem to make sense since the community version of Lc has a mixed open / closed source as well. Perhaps someone with more direct knowledge can answer with more details.

[Batninja]

Ooh yes thank you! I have indy and will explore making a Player to run a stack.

Thanks

[AxWald]

Hi,

you may want to read the LC EULA, §3 talks about this. A few quotes:

3. b) [...] For the avoidance of doubt, You may not use the Licensed Edition to create or distribute Created Software for other users who are using the Community Edition of LiveCode.

3. e) You are prohibited from creating or distributing Created Software with the primary purpose of being used as a generic Player application for Created Software built with any edition of LiveCode.

There's more about the mixing of "licensed" and "community" code; my knowledge of "Legalese" is limited & I'm not sure what's meant there exactly . But it's an interesting reading, for sure.

Seems RunRev itself doesn't really embrace the idea of a "generic player".

Have fun!

[bogs]

3. b) [...] For the avoidance of doubt, You may not use the Licensed Edition to create or distribute Created Software for other users who are using the Community Edition of LiveCode.

3. e) You are prohibited from creating or distributing Created Software with the primary purpose of being used as a generic Player application for Created Software built with any edition of LiveCode.

I *think* the bold and underlined above is important, I think Roger is talking about specific software stacks (his own). If I'm not very much mistaken, Richard takes a similar approach mentioned in several of his posts.

Again, though, I could be mistaken, this is only my interpretation.

[Batninja]

Right, looks like I could release an Indy player just for my Indy stacks, i.e. not generic or open source, but looks like a bit of a mission so I think I’ll leave it. Hey ho and thanks.