Page 1 of 1

Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 1:04 pm
by Sicro
In the PB help I don't find any hint how it is allowed to distribute the own programs / libraries created with PureBasic.
Such a hint (license text) is necessary, because the programs created with PureBasic contain components, which are copyrighted by the PureBasic authors.

For example:
The programs / libraries created with PureBasic may be distributed in any way.
Copyright notices and licenses only have to be mentioned by using the third-party libraries. Have a look at the PB help under "Reference Manual => Legal Information".

Re: Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Posted: Wed May 15, 2019 11:29 am
by IdeasVacuum

Re: Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 6:30 pm
by Sicro
I'm already aware of that. I mentioned it in my text proposal for the help in the first post (the example text).

I mean the PureLibraries:

Code: Select all

purebasic/purelibraries
├── 2ddrawing
├── array
├── audiocd
├── billboard
├── camera
├── cgi
├── cipher
├── ciphercrc32
├── ciphermd5
├── ciphersha1
├── ciphersha2
├── ciphersha3
├── database
├── date
and so on
These PureLibraries were created by the PB developers and are somehow included in the EXE file when their commands are used in the PB code. So there is a PureLibrary code included in the EXE file that is copyrighted by the PB developers. Copyrighted material may not be redistributed without the permission of the copyright holders. In the PB help, however, no permission is granted to us anywhere that the own programs created with PureBasic and including these PureLibrarys can be used freely for commercial and non-commercial programs.

When I program a painting program and the program users paint pictures with it, the copyright is not inherited from my program also to the pictures (the pictures contains no data copyrighted by me). However, if my painting program adds my watermark image to each image, then I am partially the copyright holder of the image, because it contains my watermark image, of which I am the copyright holder.

I am not a lawyer, I have only read some texts about copyright and licenses, so I can be wrong here and everything is ok.

Re: Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 8:58 pm
by Little John
I have found this:
[u]PureBasic FAQ[/u] wrote:Can I create commercial applications with PureBasic ?

Yes. Once you get PureBasic, you can do any kind of program (freeware, shareware and even commercial applications) without have to pay any extra costs to Fantaisie Software.
I agree that the help section "Terms and Conditions" should contain something similar.

Re: Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:52 pm
by Tristano
Hi @Sicro,
Sicro wrote:...These PureLibraries were created by the PB developers and are somehow included in the EXE file when their commands are used in the PB code. So there is a PureLibrary code included in the EXE file that is copyrighted by the PB developers. Copyrighted material may not be redistributed without the permission of the copyright holders. In the PB help, however, no permission is granted to us anywhere that the own programs created with PureBasic and including these PureLibrarys can be used freely for commercial and non-commercial programs.
You are right, this should be clearly stated on the EULA (End User License Agreement), which in the PB Help doc i under "Terms and Conditions":
Terms And Conditions
PureBasic has an user-based license. This means you can install it on every computer you need but you can't share it between two or more people.

All components, libraries, and binaries are copyrighted by Fantaisie Software. The PureBasic license explicitly forbids the creation of DLLs whose primary function is to serve as a 'wrapper' for PureBasic functions.
The above EULA explicitly forbids creating DLL wrappers fro PB functions, and remarks that the Pure Libraries are copyright by Fantaisie Soft., but doesn't mention explicitly that applications created with PB can be freely distributed — so it should be mentioned clearly in the EULA. But, as @Little John has pointed out, PB devs have mentioned this permissibility many times over in the forums, as well as on the website, so (should any legal matter arise) IMO it would be ruled that it was a legitimate use because it has been permitted in "real life" for decades, with the PB dev implicit (and explicit) approval.

Because of the nature of the PB application — i.e. a tool whose goal is to create our own applications to distribute for free or commercially — this is a special case, for the natural use of this tool IS the creation of software products to redistribute, so it would make little sense (even legally speaking) if this wasn't allowed. Most commercial languages/compilers don't impose that you credit them in your app — and those who do, usually enforce this via the compiler itself. Also, many compilers leave behind signatures in the binary headers too.

But you're right on this, because it's not just a matter of the contract between the PB users and its developer (which, we know, is not going to make a legal claim against us on this), it's more a matter of having to deal with online services (e.g. servers, hosts and resellers of various types) which might require a clear-cut license permission to host our products, and refuse them otherwise (usually to avoid piracy and illegitimate products which might harm them). We're starting to see similar problems with licenses like the "Unlicense", which various jurisdictions don't recognize as legally valid (e.g. Germany) and even consider illegal to host and distribute software under Unlicense due to lack of legal strength of the license — and, although the original author intention is clear regarding unrestricted reusability, some services were discouraged by their legal team to host software that relies on third party tools released under Unlicense. When it comes to legal issues, many corporations prefer to be safe than sorry, and have big legal teams going over every possible risk.

So, yes, this could be a problem with any big server or reseller that demands proof of legitimacy, for the PB EULA doesn't mention it.

Re: Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:41 pm
by Sicro
Thank you, @Tristano, for your detailed view of the problem.

Re: Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2020 11:27 pm
by Andre
I agree, that it would be a good idea to add some more remarks to the PB manual.
But as this is something "official", it's up to Fred adding a related statement to the docs...

Re: Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:29 am
by Tenaja
An automated license.txt file generation would be a very useful tool for a compiler that uses third-party libraries requiring such disclosures.

Re: Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:21 pm
by Sicro
Tenaja wrote:An automated license.txt file generation would be a very useful tool for a compiler that uses third-party libraries requiring such disclosures.
I have been creating such a tool since a while: CreatePBLicenseFile

Fred has checked the list that the tool uses: CreatePBLicenseFile / PBLibrariesInfo.pref

But a native IDE or compiler function would be an advantage, because then you can be sure that the list is always up-to-date.