OpenXTalk Forums

-
https://web.archive.org/web/20041011152 ... yerosx.dmg

https://web.archive.org/web/20051214135 ... rsetup.exe

https://web.archive.org/web/20051214135 ... player.tgz
- -
https://web.archive.org/web/20041206023 ... tents.sitx

https://web.archive.org/web/20060215020 ... ntents.zip

The file structure of the DMG is interesting:
- -
What, later on, ended up inside RR & LC Mac app packages are 'exposed' here, with the app being a very small thing indeed.

I'm guessing that as those versions are dated around the 2005 era, we are talking MacOs X 10.4 tiger (or perhaps 10.5 leopard).

These will be PowerPC architecture, before fat binaries, before Intel and multi x86 32 and x86 64 being mixed into one executable.

That's partly why it's so small. It's missing all the other architecture support for other processors: it only has to support one on MacOS, which is PPC.

I wonder if it's possible to get the windows version of dreamcard to run under wine, without going 'full windows'

Could probably run this fine under Sheepshaver / Qemu too.

Unfortunately DreamCard requires a pass word.

I assume this is now classed as 'abandonware'. You'd want to check, but I wonder if those Mac software archive sites have a working code if that's the case?

edit: added extra emphasis so it's clear I'm not recommending you pirate software.

As there is a version of RevMedia 4 "out there", there is already something for people who find OXT too advanced.

Which is FREE.

tperry2x wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:29 pm I assume this is now classed as 'abandonware'. You'd want to check, but I wonder if those Mac software archive sites have a working code if that's the case?

"Abandonware" is not a legal classification. Regardless whether a software is actively maintained, it may be prudent to assume the copyright owner is still the copyright owner for the full duration allowed by governing jurisdiction (in the US it's the life of the author plus 70 years, IIRC). With no statement from a copyright holder to the contrary, that would normally be the case.

Personally I have no opinion on this, but in most professional forums openly advocating such things is verboten.

Moreover, such advocacy isn't a good look for passersby, and may weaken negotiations if needed for the fulfillment of the build binaries. If this project is to stand for good open source practice it should strive to exemplify sound adherence to licensing terms.

I wouldn't mind if this reply were deleted after the reg code recommendation is deleted.

We may even want to reconsider the value of this ongoing fixation on a separate commercial entity uninvolved in this project.

We may even want to reconsider the value of this ongoing fixation on a separate commercial entity uninvolved in this project.

As I use both Commercial products (RunRev 201, DreamCard 24, LiveCode 45) for which I own licences and have deployed across a series of Macintoshes, and use Open Source products (LC 8110, LC 951, LC 963), produced by that "commercial entity", and find them extremely useful in my day-to-day work; and find that some of those versions appear to have features that were dropped in newer versions: Yes, I do have an "ongoing fixation", if by continuing to use them that constitutes an "ongoing fixation" like my ongoing fixations with ClarisWorks, Bryce 7, and so on that I continue to use for a variety of tasks on an ongoing basis.

At the weekend I was looking at various editions of Clarisworks as one of them allowed end-users to assemble rather good Macros (and ability that was silently dropped by Claris/Apple in the next version), and was musing on the nature of macros.

One can often learn from any sort of fixation with older software: insofar as one might learn, and even be inspired, and "ongoing fixation" is not necessarily a bad thing.

I am quite sure the people who produce LibreOffice spend time playing around with 'another office suite produced by a commercial entity.'

The comment in a previous post about WHERE to find a registration code was a bit silly for 2 reasons:

1. It puts the hackles up of people who have an "ongoing fixation" about a copyright law that is not fit for purpose when it comes to computer software.

2. Anyone who wants to find a registration code for almost any piece of software probably has a good idea where to find it anyway.

The idea of issuing an xTalk IDE that, while allowing end-users to write files, but NOT compile them as standalone apps, is neither a new idea, nor a dead one.

richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 3:40 pm 1. It puts the hackles up of people who have an "ongoing fixation" about a copyright law that is not fit for purpose when it comes to computer software.

If a law may be inappropriate, the remedy is through your elected representative legislators.

I have no personal opinion on the matter one way or another. Whether you wish to create reputation for these forums as a safe space for scofflaws is entirely up to you.

2. Anyone who wants to find a registration code for almost any piece of software probably has a good idea where to find it anyway.

That would seem a good argument to keep public discussion on the high road, as I'd suggested.

richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 3:48 pm The idea of issuing an xTalk IDE that, while allowing end-users to write files, but NOT compile them as standalone apps, is neither a new idea, nor a dead one.

That would be a patent issue, unrelated to this discussion of circumventing a publisher's copyright protection.

I certainly did NOT suggest circumventing anyone's copyright protection.

If a law may be inappropriate, the remedy is through your elected representative legislators.

I have lived long enough in the world, and in enough countries, to know that that is a load of Hee-Haw: after all, were I to write to my 'elected representative legislators' suggesting that they change computer software copyright to, say, 10 years, they would not even bother to reply.

The ONLY time I ever got any help from my 'elected representative legislators' was in the 1980's when it served their interests as well.

richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 4:18 pm I certainly did NOT suggest circumventing anyone's copyright protection.

That was why my original reply here wasn't addressed to you.

That would be a patent issue, unrelated to this discussion of circumventing a publisher's copyright protection.

HyperCard, for a very long time, did NOT allow one to make standalones.

As far as I remember that came about in HyperCard 2.2.

richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 4:41 pm

That would be a patent issue, unrelated to this discussion of circumventing a publisher's copyright protection.

HyperCard, for a very long time, did NOT allow one to make standalones.

As far as I remember that came about in HyperCard 2.2.

Can you clarify how that feature addition relates to my comment about the difference between copyright and patents?

It doesn't: but what it might show is that the 'commercial entity' you referred to earlier surely cannot have a 'patent' on some sort of programming environment that will not compile standalone applications.

richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 5:22 pm It doesn't: but what it might show is that the 'commercial entity' you referred to earlier surely cannot have a 'patent' on some sort of programming environment that will not compile standalone applications.

No one here was talking about patents until you brought up a patent consideration (functionality). My reply was about circumventing copyright protections (license keys).

But as long as we're changing the subject, sure, prior art for applications that run documents is well established, which may be why I've never seen anyone attempt to assert patent protection on that.

Those of us who don't live in the litigious world that you obviously do do not always connect functionality with a legal term.

So, it was you that mentioned 'patent' when it never even crossed my mind.

richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 6:12 pm Those of us who don't live in the litigious world that you obviously do...

Software is intellectual property. Anyone contributing to a publicly-distributed software project benefits from taking a little time to learn a few basics about the IP rules that govern everything they do.

Many years ago a vet told me about certain breeds of dogs that, if they bit your bottom, their jaws would lock and the only way to get them to unlock was to put your finger up the dog's "tiddley-pom."

Sorry, this post has nothing to do with OXT, LC, xTalk, or computer programming in general.