96 replies to this topic

[Chris]

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.

[Litmus Red]

The GNU Public License website discusses this issue at the following address:

http://www.gnu.org/p...hy/selling.html

Below is part of what is said there.

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.

[Litmus Red]

Here's another good quote, this time from ...

http://www.gnu.org/l... ... singTheGPL

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.

[Litmus Red]

And another. This one from ...

http://www.gnu.org/l... ... mmercially

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.

[Litmus Red]

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?

[corrupt]

I was wondering about that too since compiled scripts seem to contain the entire AutoHotkey executable code + the script...

[Chris]

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.

[Litmus Red]

Cool. Thanks Chris.

[Nemroth]

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 ?

[Litmus Red]

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.

[corrupt]

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 .

[Litmus Red]

...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...

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