OK to sell?
I think AHK is the greatest. People that watch the scripts we use at work stare and wonder, if not ask, how we are doing that. I tell everybody about it. ...the computer people I talk to at work, Fed-x, UPS, hosts, coders, cheats, ...its great for everybody! Most people only pretend to be listening, too bad. ...I've often wondered how many ahk script live on the computers at microsoft.
You have to write a script to open your mind to the possibilities. I've had coders look at the things my scripts do and want to hire me instead of learn it for themselves. What they don't understand is how far just a basic knowledge of it will take you.
I read one post where somebody mentioned that sometimes it can't do fast. Maybe, but it certainly helps you to do MOST things faster. It has saved about 10 positions where I work. Thats 10 employees we didn't have to hire to process stuff by hand. (they are tight, and still using old unix management software that doesn't blend with windows)
These scripts can be a very valuable commodity and I have thought about selling them. ......er um, the way I would do it is sell a service. AHK is free (makes me do a reality check every time I say that). Charge them (exorbitantly maybe) for the time it takes to write, administer and maintain or update the script. Its not as complicated as licenses, copyrights, etc. If your worried about protection, I'm not sure but if you give them a compiled exe, ...to backwards engineer it would be more of a pain than just writing something that copies its functionality. (?) I don't know, but if you make money by using AHK, don't forget to feed the machine. I wish I could write a big fat check from my employer, hehe. ....just kidding, but seriously, stuck with the scraps. (that sounds like something you should see a doctor for!)
Are programs made with AutoHotKey then compiled to an *.exe, are they legal to sell?
Such as, $5.00 cash for a CD (each cd containing the exe and a license, which checks on the internet if its a valid unpirated copy.)
This is an extremely old topic, but it's one of the top results in Google for the subject of licensing compiled AHK scripts. I think it would be helpful to add this quote from the GNU website:
I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.
However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
The difference between this and “incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.
If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it “part of” a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.
This very clearly limits the extent of the GPL license to the interpreter and not your own code as part of a compiled executable. They do communicate at an arm's length, as the interpreter and your script are never actually combined. They exist as two separate modules within the same executable. The tw examples of editor and shell and especially compiler and kernel also support this further. I think this section isn't possible to interpret in any other way: even the FSF says you can license your compiled script how you like.
This very clearly limits the extent of the GPL license to the interpreter and not your own code as part of a compiled executable.
Clear as mud. Which is to say...
I think this section isn't possible to interpret in any other way:
... still open to interpretation. Perhaps you just haven't thought of the other interpretations.
To do this validly, you must make sure [...] that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
The binary and script text are combined in a way that makes them effectively a single program. I'm not sure how you could say otherwise. You can't use the binary part for anything other than to run the script text, unlike with the editor/shell and compiler/kernel examples.
The premise of having to get a law degree to have the slightest clue of if you can or not is ridiculous and if the information is obfuscated beyond reason then it might as well not exist.
which is only part of the reason why the GPL is such a piece of shit of a license that no one likes to use