DLL licensing issues 2.....

[srod]

*SIGH*

[LuCiFeR[SD]]

You can't write a PB program without using PB commands. Simply using any command in a DLL will wrap the command, even if you are writing your own exhaustive functions to use that command. This is the nature of DLLs. Even writing a game that allowed EUs to make their own scriptable levels would be a violation, as would game making programs, game engines, etc. This isn't unique to PB, many indie/hobby languages have such a restriction. Very understandable after seeing some of the language clones people try and turn out with them. There have been a few of those made with PB.

I am beginning to think that perhaps I should start praying to a god to give a few of you some extra braincells

[the.weavster]

Don't create wrappers is what it says and there is a world of difference between a dll which makes use of PB commands and one which simply wraps PB commands.

What if I wanted to use PB commands with a FireFox extension for example? I guess I could dress them up in some superficial way so it wasn't just a 'wrapper' but it seems a bit silly to me, after all I couldn't create a FireFox extension directly in PB.

[PMV]

What if I wanted to use PB commands with a FireFox extension for example? I guess I could dress them up in some superficial way so it wasn't just a 'wrapper' but it seems a bit silly to me, after all I couldn't create a FireFox extension directly in PB.

You mean: "What if i want to kill someone? I guess I could make it look that it was a accident."


... you can't dress up the proper sense of your code. And... there
might be some people with a conscience Could some one
please split this off-topic out?

At the end Kuron will just not create a DLL, what a pity.


MFG PMV

[the.weavster]

And... there might be some people with a conscience

Those damn things really hold you back, don't they?

[Kuron]

At the end Kuron will just not create a DLL, what a pity.

Better that than violating the license.

[LuCiFeR[SD]]

At the end Kuron will just not create a DLL, what a pity.

Better that than violating the license.

Hehehe

[X]

I guess the end result is this. What is written in a license is enforceable. What is not written in the license is not enforceable. If this was taken to court, the license would be de factor to judge by. So the end result is what? The license needs to be updated? Am I reading this correctly?

[PMV]

I guess the end result is this. What is written in a license is enforceable. What is not written in the license is not enforceable. If this was taken to court, the license would be de factor to judge by. So the end result is what? The license needs to be updated? Am I reading this correctly?

Show me one license that every human can understand without
misunderstandings? There is no need for a change ... especially
we all have bought it under the current license. A new license is only
important for new customers and i don't think they will ever change
this part of it.

At the end Kuron will just not create a DLL, what a pity.

Better that than violating the license.

Thats true.

[luis]

I guess the end result is this. What is written in a license is enforceable. What is not written in the license is not enforceable.

Let's read the license then:

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

That's what (almost) all the people in this thread are stating. And what Fred himself already told in other threads linked in this one.

So your hypothetical court should appoint some "expert" to explain all these strange tech-thingies to the judge and help him to rule if the primary function of the specific DLL is "to serve as a 'wrapper' for PureBasic functions" or not.

That's it.

So the end result is what? The license needs to be updated ?

I suppose Fred he's comfortable with all this. If not the license is the wrong license and must be replaced by another one, painstakingly stating all the possible imaginable cases, quantifying the approved ratio between your code and the native PB code, all the statements/library components involved, all the kinds of software layers considered a license violations, etc. etc.
And when all this is not enough, the judge can call the mentioned above "expert". Again.

Until then, I would say the license is clear enough.

[X]

I have no issue with the current iteration of the license. I was only wondering.

[Kuron]

What is written in a license is enforceable.

That depends on where you live and when the license was presented to the purchaser.

What is not written in the license is not enforceable.

This is not necessarily true.

The FAQ is irrelevant as we have to go with the actual license included with the product.

The clause does appear to be selectively enforced (for lack of a better way to put it). Somebody linked to another thread where somebody wrote a programming language and Fred condemned it, but there have been two other programming languages written with PB (that I am aware of) and Fred never condemned those.

That said, I just found an old thread from a week and a half before I joined the forums:

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... f=7&t=8895

Fred updated the license based on that thread, but I am still getting a somewhat similar interpretation as to what Freak did with the old license in his "edit" comments. Since I would be using PB commands/functions, there is no way of dodging the fact that any DLL would be wrapping these functions, even if I am wrapping them inside of my own comprehensive functions. It is impossible to create a DLL without using PB commands. Even the DLL sample program is wrapping PB commands/functions.

I generally respect the IP rights of others and if there is a gray area, I go out of my way to not step on somebody's toes and cause any hurt feelings. Plus, getting sued tends to be expensive.

[Kuron]

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

That's what (almost) all the people in this thread are stating. And what Fred himself already told in other threads linked in this one.

Unfortunately, the primary function of any DLL is to wrap functions and it is impossible to create a DLL in PB without using (and hence wrapping) PB functions.

[Shield]

You really aren't getting it...please, read this thread again.

[c4s]

Unfortunately, the primary function of any DLL is to wrap functions and it is impossible to create a DLL in PB without using (and hence wrapping) PB functions.

Well, it's your problem if you don't want to understand it...
At least "the rest" knows what Fred means.