AutoHotkey Community
It is currently May 26th, 2012, 8:34 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » General » Offtopic

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 8
  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
  Print view | E-mail friend Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Warclone
 Post subject: OK to sell?
PostPosted: July 29th, 2005, 4:14 pm 
I've created some scripts using AutoHotkey that can save this company a lot of money. I was considering liscensing (selling) it to them, and I wanted to check and make sure that was legal, given the free open source nature of AutoHotkey?


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
BoBo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: July 29th, 2005, 6:04 pm 
AFAIK, there's nothing against it. Scripts you've cretated fully on your own are your property. AutoHotkey itself (its code) is provided under the GPL and therefore underlies some restrictions, which you should check out first.

So, go on Warclone and beat William Gates III :lol:


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
Chris
 Post subject:
PostPosted: July 30th, 2005, 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 2nd, 2004, 3:36 pm
Posts: 10720
My understanding is that scripts you've written (or for that matter anything you've written) are under your copyright by default. Of course you can reassign or give up the copyright by releasing the work as public domain, etc.

Since they're under your copyright, you can license or sell the scripts, even if they're in compiled EXE form.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Litmus Red
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 3rd, 2005, 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 25th, 2005, 10:20 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Richmond, Virginia
The GNU Public License website discusses this issue at the following address:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Below is part of what is said there.

Quote:
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of ``free software'', we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Litmus Red
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 3rd, 2005, 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 25th, 2005, 10:20 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Here's another good quote, this time from ...

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... singTheGPL

Quote:
Question:

Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?

Answer:

No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.

The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Litmus Red
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 3rd, 2005, 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 25th, 2005, 10:20 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Richmond, Virginia
And another. This one from ...

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... mmercially

Quote:
Question:

If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially?

Answer:

You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.

These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Litmus Red
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 3rd, 2005, 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 25th, 2005, 10:20 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Richmond, Virginia
AutoHotkey is under the GNU public license. Any executable you make using AutoHotkey is also under the GNU public license, because the executable contains code from a GNU-protected application. Right?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
corrupt
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 4th, 2005, 4:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2004, 1:28 pm
Posts: 2543
I was wondering about that too since compiled scripts seem to contain the entire AutoHotkey executable code + the script...


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Chris
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 4th, 2005, 4:57 am 
Offline

Joined: March 2nd, 2004, 3:36 pm
Posts: 10720
Litmus Red wrote:
Any executable you make using AutoHotkey is also under the GNU public license, because the executable contains code from a GNU-protected application. Right?

No, because the EXE doesn't contain AutoHotkey's source code. Therefore, when you distribute a compiled script, you're not distributing any GPL source, and thus your application isn't subject to the GPL unless you want it to be.

In other words, when you build an app with AutoHotkey, there are no restrictions on selling it, nor do you have to release your script's source code. This is because it is similar in principle to having built the app with a GPL C++ compiler.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Litmus Red
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 4th, 2005, 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 25th, 2005, 10:20 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Cool. Thanks Chris.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Warclone
 Post subject: Thanks
PostPosted: August 4th, 2005, 2:54 pm 
Thanks a ton for all the info, guys.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
Nemroth
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 4th, 2005, 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 7th, 2004, 9:20 pm
Posts: 275
Location: France
Litmus Red wrote:
Any executable you make using AutoHotkey is also under the GNU public license, because the executable contains code from a GNU-protected application. Right?

No. I'm (of course) agree with Chris. I think it's also a simple question of logic.

AHK is developped under Visual C++ from Micro$oft. So the code of AHK is generated using a MS app, and so using MS code...

If an app (yours) developped with an other app witch is under GPL (AHK) must be itself under GPL, that means logically that an app developped with Micro$oft code (AHK) must belong to ... Micro$oft !!!

So if AHK is the property of MS, your app, developped with an app witch is developped with an MS app, belongs too to MS...

If you go further, is your love letter, writen under Word, belongs to MS ? :D :D :D


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Litmus Red
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 4th, 2005, 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 25th, 2005, 10:20 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Thanks, Nemroth. I was questioning whether or not an executable file generated by AHK contains AHK code -- as in the AHK program itself. By "code from a GNU-protected application" I didn't mean code generated by AHK.

I should have been more specific.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
corrupt
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 5th, 2005, 1:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2004, 1:28 pm
Posts: 2543
Litmus Red wrote:
I was questioning whether or not an executable file generated by AHK contains AHK code -- as in the AHK program itself
It does AFAIK... That's why I was curious. If a compiled program only contains code to support the source code that's a bit different but compiled AHK applications seem to be autohotkey.exe with the source to the script tacked on and encrypted. It's not much different than creating a self-extracting zip file that executes the script on extraction (unless I'm misunderstanding...). I can live with the answer though ;) :D .


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Litmus Red
 Post subject:
PostPosted: August 5th, 2005, 3:23 am 
Offline

Joined: July 25th, 2005, 10:20 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Richmond, Virginia
corrupt wrote:
...compiled AHK applications seem to be autohotkey.exe with the source to the script tacked on and encrypted.

But a few posts up Chris Mallett, the creator of AHK, said...

Quote:
...the EXE doesn't contain AutoHotkey's source code.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 8
  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Board index » General » Offtopic

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jrav and 3 guests

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group