Why is the geometry manager still borked in 2021?!

[LCMark]

@bwmilby: Yes - exactly - there is no issue with commercial licensees suggesting improvements / fixes to source-code present in the commercial editions of LiveCode. Members of the LiveCode community did that for a long time before there was a LiveCode Community Edition, and have done since that product ceased to be.

More generally, it is important to point out there is a very big distinction between 'the LiveCode community' (a group of people) and 'LiveCode Community Edition' (a GPL-licensed product). It is worth noting that the former has existed (in some form or another) for getting on for nigh on 3 times as long as the latter. So it would be most helpful if certain individuals would stop (purposefully?) conflating the two

[richmond62]

Gosh, you have to love someone who uses 'conflating'.

As you will notice at least one thorn in the side of the community is still very much here.

[FourthWorld]

@bwmilby: Yes - exactly - there is no issue with commercial licensees suggesting improvements / fixes to source-code present in the commercial editions of LiveCode. Members of the LiveCode community did that for a long time before there was a LiveCode Community Edition, and have done since that product ceased to be.

More generally, it is important to point out there is a very big distinction between 'the LiveCode community' (a group of people) and 'LiveCode Community Edition' (a GPL-licensed product). It is worth noting that the former has existed (in some form or another) for getting on for nigh on 3 times as long as the latter. So it would be most helpful if certain individuals would stop (purposefully?) conflating the two

Thank you for the clarification, but the concern is not specific to any given license.

The author of code is the copyright holder. Where is the current CLA to transfer rights when submitting code?

[LCMark]

@FourthWorld: It’s called asking the individual concerned ‘Do you agree to assign copyright of your submission to LiveCode Ltd.’. This has never been a problem before, and if anyone did raise objection we would just politely decline and delete any remnant of their submission and move on.

The explicit CLA-bot we had on the GitHub repositories was there to make it crystal clear that there was such a CLA and that signing it was required for the submission to be considered (dual licensing makes this a necessity - but original - non-fork - open source projects without a copyright assigning CLA can get into serious trouble in the future - see OpenSSL and it’s up-until-v3 GPL incompatibility!).

We could potentially add a clause or two to the commercial license agreement to try and make the status of the visible source code and required implicit copyright assignment of submissions of derived works crystal clear (assuming it doesn’t implicitly / indirectly already)… Although it might just end up like crystal which has been through a dishwasher, rather than some you want to put on display… So we’d just end up back at explicit agreement with any individual looking to submit changes anyway.