A hypothetical question

[techjunkie]

Regarding Pure Basic Licence, would it be allowed to write a script / asp solution that based on the users input, generate Pure Basic code, compile it and then delivers the executable?

Just a thought...

I'll guess the answer would be a big NO NO!!

[Kaeru Gaman]

the point is:

write a script / asp solution that based on the users input, generate Pure Basic code, compile it and the delivers the executable?

you'll have to include the compiler into the package.
so you could develope this as a PB-Addon, but the user has to buy his own compiler.

additionally:
it is also forbidden to create DLLs wich are only wrappers of PB-commands, so forget this solution, too.

PS:
but if you create a game-maker, wich script-commands are complex functions that use a lot of PB-command-combinations, then it would be legal, even if it creates standalone-exes, because it's no replacement for PB.

[techjunkie]

the point is:

write a script / asp solution that based on the users input, generate Pure Basic code, compile it and the delivers the executable?

you'll have to include the compiler into the package.
so you could develope this as a PB-Addon, but the user has to buy his own compiler.

Do I?!? Then I think you misunderstand me...

Two very simple examples;

01, I have made a breakout game in PB and people can download it from the Internet. To make it more fun, the user can upload a picture to the site and this picture is going to be used as bricks in the game. The picture is converted to hex and added directly to the PB code. The code is compiled and the user get a download link with the customized game.

02, I have done a small application and people can buy it from my site. To prevent the user from spreading my application around the globe, I'll "fingerprint" the application with the users name, mac-address and VISA-card number compile it and the user get the download link.

[EDIT]
one more...

03, I have done a small application and people can buy it from my site. To prevent the user from spreading my application around the globe, I make some kind of "jump-table" based on the users mac-address, i.e. the application can only run on a specific computer. This table is added as assembler code in the application, compiled and the user get the download link.

[Kaeru Gaman]

so where is the problem?
you compile it and send it to the user afterwards.
noone said you may not compile each exemplar for it's own.

but in your first post you said something different.

[ricardo]

If all that user can do is customize your application and then you make a compile automatically... being sure that you are not leting the users to 'code', then no problem with PB licence.

[Derek]

That's no different to allowing them to put a picture in a directory and the program loading it and using it, basically they are supplying data and the program is acting on it so it all sounds fine.

[techjunkie]

but in your first post you said something different.

No, I didn't. In all the three examples, the user input change the actual PB code, not only some resources or bitmaps - and then compilation is done automatically.

And that's what I wrote from the beginning.

[Kaeru Gaman]

hm.. perhaps i din't understand it properly, but there was no hint that the compiling will take place on a server, is there?

[SkyManager]

If the compiler is put in the server for sharing its usage to the public, is this still violating the license agreement

[techjunkie]

If the compiler is put in the server for sharing its usage to the public, is this still violating the license agreement

It is a hypothetical question. I've never said I actually are going to do this. If I wanted this kind of functionality, there is better ways - without violating the license agreement.

To continue - Well, okey! So if I'm using smtp (mail) to send the code to the compiler on my own computer and send the executable back to the server, i.e. compiling triggered by a mail - would that be okey? The compiler wouldn't be on the server for the public.

[Num3]

Why just append the 'extra' data to the end of the executable?
This way you only need to make one executable, that get's appended with the data from the users...

[SkyManager]

The point is :

This way you only need to make one executable

That "one executable" is only a wrapper of all the functions of PB, the script is only calling these wrapping PB functions. In this way, it is violating the license

[Joakim Christiansen]

Two very simple examples;

01, I have made a breakout game in PB and people can download it from the Internet. To make it more fun, the user can upload a picture to the site and this picture is going to be used as bricks in the game. The picture is converted to hex and added directly to the PB code. The code is compiled and the user get a download link with the customized game.

02, I have done a small application and people can buy it from my site. To prevent the user from spreading my application around the globe, I'll "fingerprint" the application with the users name, mac-address and VISA-card number compile it and the user get the download link.

[EDIT]
one more...

03, I have done a small application and people can buy it from my site. To prevent the user from spreading my application around the globe, I make some kind of "jump-table" based on the users mac-address, i.e. the application can only run on a specific computer. This table is added as assembler code in the application, compiled and the user get the download link.

None of these is violating the license at all!

But if you would let the user upload a pb source file and then get back a executable THEN you're violating it.

[SkyManager]

Is it true that I can create a PB exe file which has all the PB functions wrapped inside the exe file and let my users to call these wrapped functions

[PB]

NO!