Another open source license

[MrPanda]

For sure this is one of my wish list as i think many developers want to destribute their project closed source if they desire to.Gpl is not helping as they force you to make any project open source.Everytime im thinking that, closed source apps seems to be more successful than open source im not always talking about commercial apps though.Even the commercial way the progress is high.Lately i had a conversation with my teacher about if a developer should release an idea (programm maybe or service) open source or not.My teacher insists that its better to release something as open source as he told me that anyone can make progress and make one step further for his bussiness by getting helped by other devs.And i replied that yea thats true but i said imagine working all day about a new project that you are going to release open source but with a tag price, that means that everyone can take your code modify it and redistribute it for free and legal.My point is that you still lose an income and sure maybe later get in trouble the bussiness.He replied that close source may contain spyware and any other evil things.He is right this is why i replied him noone wants to get in trouble to use spyware etc.i gave him some closed source examples like adobe.Overpriced and really great products and the sales are ok.Those devs worked hard to keep the food in the table for their families.The main idea of AHK is to be open source and thats can be done with bsd license etc.i know AHK is scripting language to automate things, in some ways is like python that doesnt mean that with these languages cool programms cannot be made.i would like to see some autohotkey apps to be available in windows store.I think windows is the future even in smartphones technology.Propably they develop windows on smartphones to run executable files etc.Freedom has no restrictions freedom lets you do whatever you want with your software that menas everything close source - open source semi-open source or whatever.

[Guest]

I understand it is a wishlist, but if I recall correctly you can't just change the license, large or significant parts of the code would probably have to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. At least not for the reason of simply changing the license.

[evilC]

A compiled AHK script still contains the source in a viewable form (If you know what you are doing). AFAIK there is no way to stop someone from viewing the source code of an AHK script, compiled or not.

He replied that close source may contain spyware and any other evil things

A common misconception. This is not something unique to closed source. More likely, yes, but not exclusive to closed source. If the person executing the code does not understand the language, then being able to see the source will not tell that person if the code is malicious or not.

[MrPanda]

A compiled AHK script still contains the source in a viewable form (If you know what you are doing). AFAIK there is no way to stop someone from viewing the source code of an AHK script, compiled or not.

He replied that close source may contain spyware and any other evil things

A common misconception. This is not something unique to closed source. More likely, yes, but not exclusive to closed source. If the person executing the code does not understand the language, then being able to see the source will not tell that person if the code is malicious or not.

If you know what you are doing you can view any source.But i think you misunderstood the reason i started this topic.i didnt create this topic to talk about if i can view the source instead i i have one thing in my wish list which is an another license.As i said gpl license (current license) force you to make your projects open source even if you dont want to and maybe this is half-truth in our case)Anyway for developers is not good to not have other choice by releasing always open source progs.This is about future.
The half of your reply is a bit off topic i think.
P.S i have seen some AHK progs that have been relased to the public and they are closed source.Most of them are still alive.

[evilC]

AHK is GPL, AFAIK that does not mean that anything written in AHK must be GPL, it just means that AHK itself (Or forks thereof) must be GPL.

If you know what you are doing you can view any source

Not to my knowledge. You cannot see the source of a C application, you can only decompile it, but then you would not get the source (ie you would not see the original variable names etc)

And i replied that yea thats true but i said imagine working all day about a new project that you are going to release open source but with a tag price, that means that everyone can take your code modify it and redistribute it for free and legal

That seems to imply that by not revealing the source, you protect yourself from plagiarism, which you do not (With AHK anyway). In fact, with closed source, in some ways you have less protection from plagiarism, because you will have trouble proving that they copied your code (ie you cannot say "You copied my code, but I cannot show you a check-in on GitHub to prove that I wrote it before you")

[MrPanda]

Can we stop talking about cracking ?its offtopic

AHK is GPL, AFAIK that does not mean that anything written in AHK must be GPL, it just means that AHK itself (Or forks thereof) must be GPL.

Who can confirm that.If is that true then my topic is useless.

In fact, with closed source, in some ways you have less protection from plagiarism, because you will have trouble proving that they copied your code (ie you cannot say "You copied my code, but I cannot show you a check-in on GitHub to prove that I wrote it before you"

you cant prove anything at all as gpl allow to users to obtain your code.That means they can transalate to another language and you cannot proof anything because they gonna make it close source and modified.

Anyway have you anything important to say you talk too much about cracking as we all know that we have seen popular apps have been reversed such as Ms office
Why replying at first place you could have said your opinion about that topic and the license by saying only this

AHK is GPL, AFAIK that does not mean that anything written in AHK must be GPL, it just means that AHK itself (Or forks thereof) must be GPL.

which is your opinion and thank you.
Im still waiting someone who can confirm your state.
There is differnce between keeping close source and giving your source to everyone allowing them to redistribute it.Not everyone in this planet is cracker....Its nice thing to have more choices as developer.

[evilC]

you cant prove anything at all as gpl allow to users to obtain your code.That means they can transalate to another language and you cannot proof anything because they gonna make it close source and modified.

Language is irrelevant. If they copy your algorithms in another language, that is still plagiarism.
My whole point was that if your code is publicly visible in a code repository with a check-in date that is prior to theirs, you have proof that you wrote your code before they wrote theirs. I wasn't talking about stopping someone from knowing how it works, I was talking about proof of authorship.

Anyway have you anything important to say you talk too much about cracking as we all know that we have seen popular apps have been reversed such as Ms office

What part of this are you not understanding? You CANNOT obtain SOURCE (ie the ORIGINAL code, EXACTLY as it appeared in the original author's editor) of MS Office by decompiling it. You CAN with a compiled AHK script.

AHK is GPL, AFAIK that does not mean that anything written in AHK must be GPL, it just means that AHK itself (Or forks thereof) must be GPL.

which is your opinion and thank you

No it isn't my opinion. It's the law. AutoHotkey is released under the GPL. That does NOT mean that any code that you write in AutoHotkey must be GPL. That would be like saying that if you wrote a book using OpenOffice (An open source word processor), that you must open source the book (ie give it away for free)

[nnnik]

My whole point was that if your code is publicly visible in a code repository with a check-in date that is prior to theirs, you have proof that you wrote your code before they wrote theirs.

If you think that that is proof you're going to have a bad time

[evilC]

Not in the UK. You can copyright something simply by sending it to yourself by registered mail and not opening it.

See Poor Man's Copyright
What I mentioned is merely a digital version of this.

[qwerty12]

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... reterIsGPL

EDIT: Misread the question. This thread is talking about scripts bundled with an AHK exe. My bad. My amateur opinion (I'm not a lawyer in any shape or form and nor do I have any connection to the AutoHotkey project) is that if linking to a GPL library (I don't mean LGPL) makes your program GPL, then, well, you can come up with your own conclusions about what having your script embedded in a segment of the EXE means...

EDIT 2: This seems more relevant: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... uleLicense

Also, a recent discussion on the same topic: https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=18386

[evilC]

Lexikos does not release his AHK scripts as GPL, he uses Public Domain.

[MrPanda]

What part of this are you not understanding? You CANNOT obtain SOURCE (ie the ORIGINAL code, EXACTLY as it appeared in the original author's editor) of MS Office by decompiling it. You CAN with a compiled AHK script.

i agree and i understood what you said. i just want to clarify that you cannot call your shelf protected at any language.Anyway lets close this topic you created inside my topic.

Language is irrelevant. If they copy your algorithms in another language, that is still plagiarism.
My whole point was that if your code is publicly visible in a code repository with a check-in date that is prior to theirs, you have proof that you wrote your code before they wrote theirs. I wasn't talking about stopping someone from knowing how it works, I was talking about proof of authorship.

i know its still plagiarism but the victim many times still dont know that someone stole the code.

No it isn't my opinion. It's the law. AutoHotkey is released under the GPL. That does NOT mean that any code that you write in AutoHotkey must be GPL. That would be like saying that if you wrote a book using OpenOffice (An open source word processor), that you must open source the book (ie give it away for free)

Now back to the topic can you give me any proof about that law?where is written?can you post him here ?
As far as i know anything that contains gpl must be released under gpl with some exceptions of course written in gpl site.I hope you right if is that true this gonna be really positive.
Sorry about my engilsh im not native english speaker.

[qwerty12]

Lexikos does not release his AHK scripts as GPL, he uses Public Domain.

AutoHotkey_L itself is GPLed, though.

[MrPanda]

I found that i dont know if this helps and i dont know if is this something possitive or not.
From gpl site :
If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses? (#IfInterpreterIsGPL)
When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone.
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide “bindings” to other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities it uses through these bindings. So if these facilities are released under the GPL, the interpreted program that uses them must be released in a GPL-compatible way. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of such a binding mechanism; libraries that are accessed in this way are linked dynamically with the Java programs that call them. These libraries are also linked with the interpreter. If the interpreter is linked statically with these libraries, or if it is designed to link dynamically with these specific libraries, then it too needs to be released in a GPL-compatible way.
Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes. These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically linked together.
A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on.

[evilC]

He is talking about scripts, not the AHK binary itself.

The text he linked seems to be the pertinent legalese:

a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses? (#IfInterpreterIsGPL)
When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no

The AHK source (Which is released under GPL) interprets your script.

Unless of course, AHK uses "Bindings", which I am not sure about. But as the other threads linked to, which also discuss the subject, all seem to be agreeing that you do not need to release your AHK scripts as GPL, and that the author of AHK does not release his scripts as GPL, I think it is fairly safe to assume that you do not need to release your scripts as GPL.

[qwerty12]

Ah. I thought this was another "if I make a commercial AHK application and "compile" it with AHK to produce a single EXE, will my resulting EXE be GPL licensed" thread. In that case, the #IfInterpreterIsGPL page answers the question asked, IMO.

I think the bindings part refer to DllCalling in AHK. Most DllCall invocations are usually to access the WinAPI and the functions comprising that are certainly not GPL-licensed. What I think the page is saying if your script calls functions from a GPL-licensed library, then your script does fall under the GPL license.

[guest3456]

yes #IfInterpreterIsGPL answers this

that still doesn't change the fact that the GPL is an absolutely horrific license. nonetheless, Chris originally released his AHK as GPL, and since AHL_L is derivative, it too must be released as GPL. cest la vie. unless you want to rewrite all of Chris's work, you're stuck

[MrPanda]

so distributing closed source apps is allowed?
yes the worst part of this license is that anything it touches must be gpl too.Though popularity has fallen for this license.

[guest3456]

so distributing closed source apps is allowed?

yes, as long as you're not using other people's GPL code in it, such as functions they've created, etc

[Guest]

Just for reference some further discussion (incl Lexikos)

* https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=6325
* https://autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic ... 371#p89371