Rev licensing - post factum rulings ???

[J. Landman Gay]

Chipp Walters wrote:
> Jacque,
> 
> Thanks for your clarification! I can breathe easier now.

Good, because we sure wouldn't want to find you passed out on the floor 
-- at least, not without a really good time as an excuse. ;)

> I assume below 
> you're not referring to either MC or Constellation regarding IDE's as 
> they both require a licensed Revolution engine to run.

Exactly. Additions to Rev that simply enhance, or even replace, some of 
the existing IDE stacks are fine. (It makes sense that Runtime wouldn't 
be selling Constellation if it were against their license.) The MC IDE 
is also okay, as is devolution or custom plugins or whatever.

> Also, the 'single 
> app' you're referring to of course is StackRunner?

Yup. Everybody else is legal. And Ken is cool with it, he understood 
(and agreed with) the licensing decision very early on. This fits with 
Ken's general coolness factor anyway, so it probably wasn't much of a 
stretch for him. ;)

> 
> -Chipp
> 
> J. Landman Gay wrote:
> 
>> In reality, Runtime only wants to protect its own software; thus, no 
>> competing IDEs, and no competing Player. "Player" in this sense means 
>> only those apps, like StackRunner, that have little function of their 
>> own except to open other stacks and, in particular, to run them as 
>> though they were standalones.
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> In the entire history of Revolution, there has been only a single app 
>> produced that would cross the licensing terms.
> 
> </snip>
> 


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