Rev licensing - post factum rulings ???

[J. Landman Gay]

Thomas McGrath III wrote:
> Chipp, Jacque,
> 
>     "Additionally, with all editions the end user of the Created  
> Software cannot edit scripts without purchasing or owning a Licensed  
> Edition. You may not     attempt to get round any of these limitations  
> or encourage users of your Created Software to attempt to do so."
> 
> This seems to say your users "cannot edit scripts"....
> 
>     "You are prohibited to create or distribute Created Software to be  
> used as a generic rapid application development tool. "
> 
> This however seems to say that any "generic rapid application  
> development tool" is prohibited. To me that would mean any tool that  
> allows the rapid development of an application.
> 
> I am curious as well as to what this means? If a standalone created  
> copies of it self as in a presentation producing software then would  
> the finished app not be an application and the standalone that  created 
> it be a generic rapid application development tool.

No, that isn't a generic RAD app, it is simply a copy of something you 
have previously built with a RAD app. The word "generic" is meaningful 
here. The license intends to prohibit you from creating a competitor to 
Revolution itself; that is, you cannot build a software development IDE 
and attach their engine to it, and sell it as a generic development tool 
where the user can create new apps. In other words, you cannot make 
money off their engine in a way that allows others to script and build 
standalones without purchasing Rev.

The scripting limits that are imposed on standalones pretty much make 
this all moot anyway, because it is almost impossible to build a 
standalone that allows users to script new features or behaviors. The 
best that one can do is to create apps that have specific pre-scripted 
behaviors, and there is no restriction on that.

This isn't any different than before, it has always been in the license 
agreement.

> 
> 
> Also, it seems the copyright notice is now required:
> 
>     "You must include the following copyright notice where other such  
> notices appear. In the event that such other notices do not appear in  
> the Created     Software, this notice must be placed in a reasonable  
> location."
> 
> 
> This will severely affect my software and what I plan on doing.

This has been in the license before too. I'm not sure why it would 
affect your software. Most of us put the notice in tiny print at the 
bottom of an "about" box or similar. You aren't even required to put it 
in there; you can put it as a footnote at the end of your documentation, 
or wherever you display your own copyright, or any other reasonable 
place. Lots of companies require this.


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