Why we abandoned open source: LiveCode CEO on retreat despite successful kickstarter

Open source business model problems for modern-day HyperCard

Interview An easy to use programming language that was made open source in 2014 after a successful crowdfunding campaign is going back to closed source after too many customers switched to using it for free.

LiveCode Community, open source under the GPLv3, was archived on GitHub and future development will be closed source.

In the official announcement, LiveCode CEO Kevin Miller says: "99 per cent of the work on LiveCode is done by our in-house team. With a large section of the LiveCode community using the free open source edition, the cost of maintaining this vs the reward for doing so is not a balanced equation."

I don't think you can say that after eight years we didn't give it our best shot. And that code is still out there if people want to use it

Subscriptions are per-platform and now start at £7.99+VAT per month for one platform, for applications that run only while the subscription is active, or £239+VAT per year for one platform with the ability to build standalone applications.

LiveCode CEO Kevin Miller breaks the news to open source users

LiveCode CEO Kevin Miller breaks the news to open source users

"We've been taking a close look at the LiveCode business model," adds Miller. "We've been an open source platform for round about eight years … we've seen user base grow consistently during that period and some of you have even made contributions to the platform. However a lot of our user base has moved to using the open source edition… unfortunately that leaves us in a position where we don't have the level of resources that we need to take the platform forward."

Miller says that "if you are an open source user and you truly cannot afford the licence, please get in touch and we will sort you out."

LiveCode is a rapid application development environment originally inspired by HyperCard, a scripting environment for the Mac back in the eighties and nineties.

The development system was introduced in 2001 as Revolution and was renamed LiveCode in 2001. The company behind it was Runtime Revolution Ltd, also known as RunRev Ltd, based in Edinburgh, which was renamed LiveCode Ltd in 2015.

The company has had considerable impact in computer science education in Scotland, and in its 2013 kickstarter noted that "almost a quarter of secondary schools in Scotland are now teaching with LiveCode."

LiveCode creates applications that run on Windows, Mac, Linux (including Raspberry Pi), iOS, Android, and web. LiveCode syntax is English-like, and the company argues that "every semicolon or bracket required by a language introduces another potential source of error."

In 2013 RunRev launched a Kickstarter crowdfunding project to fund making LiveCode open source. "Our vision is that this new next-generation LiveCode will be free and open source. It will run on every popular platform and device. It will let you write programs in English. And by being open, its English language programming will be extensible to any computing problem out there. That's a world first," said the blurb.

The project was to include a new visual editor. The Kickstarter raised nearly £500,000, more than the initial goal of £350,000.

Why does open source work for some platforms but not for LiveCode? "LiveCode is focused on being very easy to use," Miller tells The Reg. "The idea is that you're writing your apps in a language that's as close to English as possible… you're not going into the nitty gritty details of memory management and the things associated with a lower-level language.

"The open source project, the LiveCode engine itself, is written in C/C++ so it is that lower-level language which is the very thing that a lot of our user base is trying to avoid."

This meant a mis-match between the users and those with the ability to contribute. There were some C++ developers in the community, said Miller, but "there weren't enough of those."

Miller tells us that while the Kickstarter funding was significant, it was not enough to sustain the project. "It wasn't anywhere near our annual revenue even in that one Kickstarter campaign," he says.

He feels that "I don't think you can say that after eight years we didn't give it our best shot. And that code is still out there if people want to use it."

Were any of those original funders disappointed now to lose what they sponsored? "There's been some people that have been disappointed," he says.

"At the same time, there's a lot of people who use the platform commercially who are keen to see us take it forward a bit faster."

He also tells The Reg that the funding was less than it first appeared, since much of it was from those using the platform commercially who got a licence in return for their pledge.

Is he concerned that a fork might appear? "There has been a suggestion, and if it happens, that's fine, but I think that for all the reasons that it didn't happen during that eight years, it would be a bit odd if it suddenly happened now."

According to Miller, "we're just trying to make this really affordable." Open source has won Live Code a larger user base, some of whom may now drift away, but this is a small company unlike other larger-scale cases we have seen where formerly open source projects have changed their licences and terms. ®

Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022