AutoHotkey Community

[Thalon]

@Dewi Morgan
It prevents decompiling in the classic way, but it's still rather simple to get the code due to the kind how AHKs interpreting works...
_________________
AHK-Icon-Changer
AHK-IRC
deutsches Forum
SacredVault

[SKAN]

Dear Mr.Chris,

I create a text file containing valuable information that can be sold.
The file is large for internet transfer and so I compress it to an EXE with a GPL freeware software. Since my text has become a part of the EXE, does it mean it is infected by GPL ?

Similarily:
A script is created for a single FileInstall of a large text file. The said script will contain code to validate the end-user through registry/internet etc..
Will GPL defeat the purpose by infecting my source code ?

I create an installer ( for entirely different software ) with AHK, and so all the resources are embedded into one setup.exe. Does it mean everything will be under GPL and so I have to throw out the code? .. even for the non-AHK s/w ?

If everything other than HotKey/HotStrings/Commands needed for Basic automation is moved to a AutoHotkey.DLL ( covered under GPL ) and my compiled script contains MyScript.AHK + Newer binary code ( newly written to be not under GPL ), CAN I SELL IT COMFORTABLY?.
Fineprint will say: The end-users have to fetch the copy of AutoHotkey.DLL on their own. ( by pressing OK before URLDownloadToFile, ofcourse )

Our forum has many C developers around. Cannot the 40+ commands ( IIRC ) from AU2 be rewritten ? Even at a speed of two commands per week we can have our own clean version by 5 months!

After reading the whole thread, I am feeling a bit uncomfortable of the future..

[Chris]

I've already given my views on the subject. It's my wish that anyone can sell their own scripts in compiled form (of course, it's clear that anyone can sell them in uncompiled form).

However, in my opinion the GPL is murky on some points, especially those having to do with when and what it "infects". If you have concern about it, it's probably best that you seek advice from someone with greater GPL expertise, especially in the realm of legal precedents that clarify the GPL.

I do not wish to rewrite the GPL parts of the code at this time (which includes AutoIt, some GNU code, and perhaps some GPL code from other authors). It would probably take several weeks full-time, and several months part-time (part-time is all I would do). In addition, in at least one case (the GNU strcasestr() function) it would probably reduce performance. (But that function is "GNU Lesser GPL", so maybe that helps.)

A better approach might be to ask the copyright holders of the code I didn't write to re-license it under a non-viral license such as BSD-style.

[SKAN]

Please excuse me for being pesky! My previous post was very vague.

[Chris]

It's the same answer for "selling" because the only reason I mentioned "selling" is that most people who sell compiled scripts don't wish to release the source.

It's my wish that you can keep the source closed, and I believe there is enough room for interpretation in the GPL to allow it. However, if you want more assurance (e.g. in the extremely unlikely event that one of the authors other than I decides to sue you someday), you should consult a GPL expert.

[SKAN]

[TeeTwo]

You only charge for your own work, As far as I interpret the GPL conditions software or code under its domain can be given away no charge. I would think it would take a zillian lawyers to work out just what the conditions really are. I am not a lawyer but I find so many contradicting statements.

I think the best guide is "You cannot sell what does not belong to you", that's theft. Giving away something that you got freely well thats where the zillion lawyers come in.

Who wants a free copy of AHK? actually its not free , I pay internet charges to get a copy. Maybe a letter drop would spread the word and the community would not have to pay at all for their copy. So satisfying the GPL, you could accuse the internet service providers for profiting on free software.

Air is free? bullocks, its polluted these days. Where are those damn lawyers when you want them.
_________________
(The guy from Oz)
http:/InkMon.org
Inkmon4 & Inkmon5 for 4 and 5 colour printers

[engunneer]

the ISP is not getting money for the free software. they are allowed to charge for the cost to get you the software. for example, i can sell CDs with AHK on them, but I am only allowed to charge what it cost me to make and distribute the CD, to cover my cost. I can't profit from it. (IANAL)
_________________
Unless otherwise noted, all code is untested.
Common Answers: 1.(Loops, Viruses, etc.) 2. Search 3.RTFM

[Frisky27]

And at the end, Thank you so much Chris for making sense out of it for everybody, but there is still 1 unclarity I believe.

It is known that we can sell our scripts. (good)

but, as we sell our scripts, do we need to distribute with it a copyright notice?

Thanks Chris, I hope you're the one who answers this for me =)

[CircuitryMaker]

There are restrictions and every bigger software company tries to intimidate it's users by telling them that special "behaviour will be prosecuted" and so on.

But face it: With no money, how do you want to win this ? Left alone the fact that a licence like the GPL or whatever is highly doubtful legal.

As for all in the opensource area it is based on trust.

This means that if anyone sells one's own program, makes millions with it and the GPL does not allow it - the millionar won't give a **** about the programming language creator's reminder, if given afterwards.

I am asking whether I can sell it because I respect it. But if I didn't there wouldn't be any drawback except the programmer to be annoyed.

[algi]

From reading through this thread I got the impression that at least in practice there is no legal threat against compiling an AHK script and distributing it without the source and charge money for it.

Here are some follow up questions:
1. Must I still include some sort of license with the compiled script?
2. how about the various functions and small script snippets that are posted in threads in the AHK forum - can those be used in a compiled and perhaps for-profit distributed script?
3. Must I mention the creators of those functions/snippets in the source code?
4. And/or in some licence?

Sorry for the many questions but I've been making AHK scripts for my personal use for some time but have only recently begun to distribute them around, mostly to friends but I think I'll distribute them a wider than that in the future. Not for money but I might want to use /nodecompile in some situations. And I'd still like to know what is in principle required and not (and appropriate and not) even in cases where I charged money for the compiled script.

[Guest]

[Thalon]

My code is always free to use.
If the code in the forum isn't it has to be mentioned in this way (so a type of general terms and conditions).

Thalon
_________________
AHK-Icon-Changer
AHK-IRC
deutsches Forum
SacredVault

[algi]

Your two replies seem to give very different answers concerning the "default case" where code snippets and extra functions are posted in the forum without any attached information.

Guest thinks for-profit must be explicitly allowed, otherwise not allowed.
Thalon thinks for-profit must be explicitly disallowed, otherwise allowed.

Can anyone else weigh in on this? Then there's also the case of non-open source freeware. What do you two think about "default case" forum code being used for that? Must it be explicitly allowed or is it enough that it isn't explicitly disallowed?

Here's a thought: maybe the forum posting script should have some standard checkboxes for posters to tick to describe the desired license for their posted code?

[Lexikos]