in my opinion it is the best solution fred.
you could also wrap some c commands for example, and there is no limitation i could see...
DLL licence question
As long as the commands are opensource and license free (as the glibc etc.. are), it's not a problem. Now, if you buy a toolkit (for example FMOD, a Physique Engine etc..) and build a wrapper on it (and redistribute it freely because you got the licence) I'm not really sure that it will be exactly the same 
.
.
I can understand the reasoning behind not wanting people to put out simple wrappers to profit from your work, Fred.
I think it would be quite reasonable to say something like "The PureBasic license explicitly forbids the creation of DLLs whose primary function is to serve as a 'wrapper' for PureBasic functions". I think this makes it clear where the 'problem' lies, but still lets people use the commands without fear when they're using them responsibly.
The problem was mostly in the wording, as it seemed very open to interpretation, and therefore you'd have to always ask for 'approval' when releasing a DLL that used PB commands, just to be sure.
I think it would be quite reasonable to say something like "The PureBasic license explicitly forbids the creation of DLLs whose primary function is to serve as a 'wrapper' for PureBasic functions". I think this makes it clear where the 'problem' lies, but still lets people use the commands without fear when they're using them responsibly.
The problem was mostly in the wording, as it seemed very open to interpretation, and therefore you'd have to always ask for 'approval' when releasing a DLL that used PB commands, just to be sure.