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.