DLL licensing issues 2.....

For everything that's not in any way related to PureBasic. General chat etc...
srod
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 10589
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 4:35 pm
Location: Beyond the pale...

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by srod »

luis wrote:*SIGH*
:lol:
I may look like a mule, but I'm not a complete ass.
LuCiFeR[SD]
666
666
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:33 pm

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by LuCiFeR[SD] »

Kuron wrote:
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. :mrgreen: 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 :P
User avatar
the.weavster
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: England

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by the.weavster »

srod wrote: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
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by PMV »

the.weavster wrote: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."
:lol:

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

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


MFG PMV
User avatar
the.weavster
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: England

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by the.weavster »

PMV wrote:And... there might be some people with a conscience :wink:
Those damn things really hold you back, don't they? :twisted:
User avatar
Kuron
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by Kuron »

PMV wrote:At the end Kuron will just not create a DLL, what a pity. :mrgreen:
Better that than violating the license. :wink:
Best wishes to the PB community. Thank you for the memories. ♥️
LuCiFeR[SD]
666
666
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:33 pm

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by LuCiFeR[SD] »

Kuron wrote:
PMV wrote:At the end Kuron will just not create a DLL, what a pity. :mrgreen:
Better that than violating the license. :wink:
Hehehe
X
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:27 am

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by 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
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by PMV »

X wrote: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? :wink: 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. :wink:
Kuron wrote:
PMV wrote:At the end Kuron will just not create a DLL, what a pity. :mrgreen:
Better that than violating the license. :wink:
Thats true.
User avatar
luis
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3876
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:09 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by luis »

X wrote: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.
X wrote: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.
Last edited by luis on Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Have you tried turning it off and on again ?"
A little PureBasic review
X
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:27 am

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by X »

I have no issue with the current iteration of the license. I was only wondering.
User avatar
Kuron
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by Kuron »

X wrote:What is written in a license is enforceable.
That depends on where you live and when the license was presented to the purchaser.
X wrote: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. :lol:
Best wishes to the PB community. Thank you for the memories. ♥️
User avatar
Kuron
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by Kuron »

luis wrote:
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.
Best wishes to the PB community. Thank you for the memories. ♥️
User avatar
Shield
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:25 am
Location: 'stralia!
Contact:

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by Shield »

You really aren't getting it...please, read this thread again. :wink:
Image
Blog: Why Does It Suck? (http://whydoesitsuck.com/)
"You can disagree with me as much as you want, but during this talk, by definition, anybody who disagrees is stupid and ugly."
- Linus Torvalds
c4s
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1981
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Any PB programmers who are EMPLOYEES?

Post by c4s »

Kuron wrote: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.
If any of you native English speakers have any suggestions for the above text, please let me know (via PM). Thanks!
Post Reply