AutoHotkey Community

Not sure if anyone else has noticed this (though given the lack of proliferation of the SarcMark, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case).

A friend of mine actually got the sarcmark as a laugh, to see how it worked/integrated to a system. Turns out, it runs a trayapp called 'SarcMark.exe', which I'm almost 100% certain is a cutdown version of Autohotkey, to the extent that right clicking on the sarcmark.exe tray app icon offers "Suspend Hotkeys" and "Pause Script", and selecting either of which presents the standard red autohotkey S or H icons.

I'm no expert but since AutoHotKey is released under the GNU, isn't there some sort of clause requiring that any derivative works (such as SarkMark) make their source code available also?

Will include screengrabs of the right click selection/tray icons if requested.

A bit of background for those unfamiliar with SarcMark. It's a new quotation mark, designed to replace the fullstop or exclamation point in a sentence to indicate it's of sarcastic nature. I for one, am over the moon that someone invented this, because sarcasm was sooo hard to detect on the internet before!

You can see the website at sarcmark.com (where, after combing the pages, it seems there are absolutely no references to the autohotkey project at all).

Ah, just brushed up a bit on AHK and turns out "Convert any script into an EXE file that will run on computers without AutoHotkey." is one of the features. So obviously the guy has just done this. Still, doesn't feel right that he's just doing this, packaging it with a tiny custom .png and selling the results whilst not even mentioning AutoHotKey anywhere, and acting on his site as if the "proprietary software" is all his own creation.

Maybe this is all allowed under the terms of the GNU license - I'm no lawyer. Can anyone else shed some light on this?

Regardless, I'm still not a fan of the SarcMark, the creator just seems like a lazy arse who saw an opportunity to make a quick buck.

http://www.autohotkey.com/forum/viewtop ... light=sell although I doubt is is made with AutoHotkey because it runs on Mac and various handheld devices.

_________________
AHK FAQ
TF : Text files & strings lib, TF Forum

Ah okay, that pretty much cleared it up. Also, the implementations on different devices (which you have to buy separately, at full cost) are different from that on a Windows PC, which is the platform where they're using AHK.

I wanted to hassle the guy about seeing his source code, but since it seems to be okay under the license to do that, I guess I'll just let him keep ripping off the easily misled. Shame.

It is possible to decompile all compiled AutoHotkey scripts as far as I know as long as you try hard enough, search the forum it is virtually impossible to protect the source code of AutoHotkey scripts.

_________________
AHK FAQ
TF : Text files & strings lib, TF Forum

From near the top of the license.txt included with AutoHotkey:
Chris has stated that the script part of a compiled script should be considered separate from the interpreter part, and therefore not a derived work and not subject to the GPL. However, the GPL definitely applies to the interpreter - the base executable part (AutoHotkeySC.bin) of the compiled script. My interpretation of the above (and more detailed sections within the GPL) is that anyone distributing a compiled script is required to display the GPL license (whether or not it applies to the compiled script as a whole) and let users know where to obtain the source code (of AutoHotkey). However, I am not a lawyer.

Btw,

It most definitely is created with AutoHotkey (v 1.0.47.6).

Installs the following files/folders:


No AutoHotkeySC.bin file, so I guess it is ok, even if it is a bit shady, especially since the author doesn't mention AutoHotkey anywhere.

Nothing too special anyway, since all it seems to do is insert the "sarcasm symbol" as a font/pic with a hotkey.

It seems the author is giving it away for free now. I'm grabbing a copy courtesy of Mr. Aaa Bbb

Part 1: Downloading and installing the software
The download page requires you to enter your name and your country. I've just filled the form with phoney information.

Part 2: The SarcMark folder
It contains three executables: SarcMark.exe, SarcMark_Graphics.exe and COM.exe.

Part 3: Dissection
To my surprise the author didn't even bother protecting his program with a password!
SarcMark.exe contains the script itself. It contains a copy of the COM.ahk standard library. The coding style is quite horrible, without even using indentation. There's even EncodeInteger() and DecodeInteger()!
SarcMark_Graphics.exe contains part of the above script.
COM.exe just contains a compiled version of the COM.ahk standard library.

Part 4: Conclusion
From what I can understand the author is some person who just discovered AutoHotkey and wanted to make a quick buck. As a newbie he thought he also needed to compile the #include files he was including.

_________________
fincs
Highly recommended: AutoHotkey_L (see why) (all my code snippets require it)
Formal request to polyethene - I support the unity of the AutoHotkey community
Get SciTE4AutoHotkey v3.0.00 (Release Candidate)
[My project list]

If you make a compiled .exe made with Autohotkey, the talk has been that you don't have to display the GPL.

The compiled or uncompiled script, would be considered yours. You can sell your compiled or uncompiled script.

If you are including original Autohotkey files and .exes, then the talk has been that you have to display the GPL and you can't sell those.

Well, that is how I understood it.

^ I agree. I see AutoHotkey as a tool.

Do you mention Microsoft Visual Studio when you make something in it?
Do you have to use whatever license that Microsoft used to make Microsoft Visual Studio when you make something in it?
Do you have to use what ever license that your favorite text editor uses when you type something in it?
How about the same type of questions with photo editors?
Or even using Crayola crayons?
How about the hammer and saw used to make a house?
...

Those are rhetorical questions that I'm sure you know the answer to. There are very few instances where a tool has rules that must be followed for things made with it.

It is a nice thing to display Made in AutoHotkey.
It is a nice thing to give stuff away for free.
It is a nice thing to be able to afford Things(Burgers, House, CustomRig, DLS)

Things(Food, Shelter, Computer, Internet, Clothes =0)
{
MsgBox, Yes, I made Clothes optional.
}

BTW, I didn't make SarcMark but one day it would be nice to release something for money myself. Also I would compare the SarcMark to many iphone apps - 90% of them are just useless but people buy them anyways.

What talk? Did you read my previous post? Distributing source code and displaying the GPL are two very different things. I've seen barely any discussion about displaying the GPL.

As a matter of fact, I do. However, there is no such requirement in Microsoft's licensing terms.
If compiled executables include machine code copyright by Microsoft (which I'm sure they do) and Microsoft required it in the Visual Studio licensing terms, I suppose you would have to. However, I suppose that wouldn't be wise from a marketing viewpoint.
Text editors generally don't include (even small) parts of themselves in the output.
Crayons do, but not "intellectual property".
Do your hammer and saw have licensing terms? Are you distributing copies of your hammer and saw?

As a matter of fact, if COM.exe, SancMark.exe and SancMark_Graphics.exe are compiled ahk scripts, they necessarily include an almost verbatim copy of AutoHotkeySC.bin. That's how compiled scripts work.

Lexikos, there was a massive debate about this some time ago... OK to sell?

http://www.autohotkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4720

What I said, was a point brought up in the debate. That point was that the uncompiled or compiled script was OK to sell.

What was not OK to sell was the AutoHotkey.exe or AutoHotkeySC.bin by itself or redistributing it without respecting the GPL.

Clearly, an uncompiled script is the separate work of the author and can be copyrighted.

Where people get confused is the issue of a compiled script.

Thee Chris, came out and answered that question.

Litmus Red:

Chris:

So, per Chris, your compiled script IS OK to sell.

This also makes logical sense. If I build an application using Microsoft Visual Studio, it does not mean Microsoft now owns my application. So as is obvious, people sell application they make with Visual Studio. Now if I try to sell Microsoft Visual Studio as if it were my own application, like ACME Visual Studio, then that would be illegal.

Some other points are that AutoHotkey itself owes a lot to Microsoft, as they wrote the code for the C runtime library. Furthermore, Chris would not seek to take any action against person selling a compiled script created from AutoHotkey.

True.

With IronAHK, the AutoHotkey .NET/Mono fork, that will not be the case. It will be as secure as any .NET application and you should be able to use various obfuscators or security mechanisms with it.

Please read my posts carefully. I explicitly stated the GPL applies to the interpreter part of the compiled script, i.e. not the script part. My argument implied that the GPL still applies to the interpreter part, even if it does not apply to the script part (and as a consequence does not prevent you from selling scripts or withholding the source code of your script).

For instance, if I were to add features to AutoHotkey_L, write and compile a script with these features, then distribute said script, I would be required to also distribute the source code for the features I had added to the interpreter, but I would not be required to distribute the source code of my script. (I once theorised that this makes some possible forms of script protection infeasible without violating the GPL.)
His initial answer was incorrect, as further discussed in that thread.

Food for thought (rhetorical):
Take AutoHotkey.exe and YourScript.ahk, and put them in YourScript.zip. What is the license of YourScript.zip? If the zip as a whole is not licensed under the GPL, does that mean the requirements imposed by the GPL for AutoHotkey.exe no longer apply?

(FYI, I personally dislike the GPL and couldn't care less whether SarcMark includes a copy of it.)