Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Found an issue in the documentation ? Please report it here !

Moderator: Documentation Editors

User avatar
Sicro
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:25 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Add a hint on how own programs may be distributed

Post 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".
Image
Why OpenSource should have a license :: PB-CodeArchiv-Rebirth :: Pleasant-Dark (syntax color scheme) :: RegEx-Engine (compiles RegExes to NFA/DFA)
Manjaro Xfce x64 (Main system) :: Windows 10 Home (VirtualBox) :: Newest PureBasic version
IdeasVacuum
Always Here
Always Here
Posts: 6425
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:33 am
Location: Wales, UK
Contact:

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

Post by IdeasVacuum »

IdeasVacuum
If it sounds simple, you have not grasped the complexity.
User avatar
Sicro
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:25 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

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

Post 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.
Image
Why OpenSource should have a license :: PB-CodeArchiv-Rebirth :: Pleasant-Dark (syntax color scheme) :: RegEx-Engine (compiles RegExes to NFA/DFA)
Manjaro Xfce x64 (Main system) :: Windows 10 Home (VirtualBox) :: Newest PureBasic version
Little John
Addict
Addict
Posts: 4519
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

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

Post 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.
User avatar
Tristano
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:52 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

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

Post 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.
The PureBASIC Archives: FOSS Resources:
User avatar
Sicro
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:25 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Sicro »

Thank you, @Tristano, for your detailed view of the problem.
Image
Why OpenSource should have a license :: PB-CodeArchiv-Rebirth :: Pleasant-Dark (syntax color scheme) :: RegEx-Engine (compiles RegExes to NFA/DFA)
Manjaro Xfce x64 (Main system) :: Windows 10 Home (VirtualBox) :: Newest PureBasic version
User avatar
Andre
PureBasic Team
PureBasic Team
Posts: 2056
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:14 pm
Location: Germany (Saxony, Deutscheinsiedel)
Contact:

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

Post 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...
Bye,
...André
(PureBasicTeam::Docs & Support - PureArea.net | Order:: PureBasic | PureVisionXP)
User avatar
Tenaja
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1948
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:15 pm

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

Post 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.
User avatar
Sicro
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:25 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

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

Post 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.
Image
Why OpenSource should have a license :: PB-CodeArchiv-Rebirth :: Pleasant-Dark (syntax color scheme) :: RegEx-Engine (compiles RegExes to NFA/DFA)
Manjaro Xfce x64 (Main system) :: Windows 10 Home (VirtualBox) :: Newest PureBasic version
Post Reply