Rev licensing - post factum rulings ???

[J. Landman Gay]

Mathewson wrote:

> The question is, am I breaking RR's new rules about
> customised splash screens (that contain NO acknowledgement
> of RR - although there is a large sheet of paper on the
> wall pointing out that all the programs I use have been
> authored using Runtime Revolution) that have been
> handed-down after my work was completed? And, as I am using
> what are outdated development tools am I now supposed to
> abide by RR's new rules or the ones contained in the
> license agreements attached to the products I use?

It is hard for me to believe how misconstrued this licensing discussion 
has become. It seems so very simple to me. The rules are straightforward:

1. You can't create a competing IDE. This has always been the case.
2. You can't create a generic, public "player" application.

Everything you describe in your situation is perfectly fine. RR does not 
require a customized splash screen on any app you create. RR does not 
require anything at all different than what you have been doing all along.

The only change -- which isn't really a change, but is now being 
enforced -- is that you cannot create a generic player app that is 
distributed for the sole purpose of providing "player" capabilities for 
stacks unrelated to your own software.

Aside from StackRunner (which is Ken Ray's product, not Richard's) no 
one else in the history of Revolution has ever created such an animal 
and no one else is affected.

-- 
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com