Board index » kylix » C++ BuilderX Personal Licence and GPL?

C++ BuilderX Personal Licence and GPL?


2003-09-21 08:08:01 AM
kylix1
I note from a quick check of Websites that C++ BuilderX is either free or
available for a few dollars.
Does anyone know whether the C++ BuilderX licence allows code developed
using the product to be distributed under the GPL? If not then it is not
much use to me.
Chris Gordon-Smith
London
graffiti.{*word*269}.net/c.gordon-smith/
 
 

Re:C++ BuilderX Personal Licence and GPL?

Quote
Does anyone know whether the C++ BuilderX licence allows code developed
using the product to be distributed under the GPL? If not then it is not
much use to me.
Yes, you can produce GPL code with C++ Builder X. Assuming you are
using code and libraries that are compliant with the GPL. The
choice is yours since you are not bound to use any specific library or
toolset for that matter with C++Builder X.
Robert Love
 

Re:C++ BuilderX Personal Licence and GPL?

Robert Love wrote:
Quote
>Does anyone know whether the C++ BuilderX licence allows code developed
>using the product to be distributed under the GPL? If not then it is not
>much use to me.

Yes, you can produce GPL code with C++ Builder X. Assuming you are
using code and libraries that are compliant with the GPL. The
choice is yours since you are not bound to use any specific library or
toolset for that matter with C++Builder X.

Robert Love
Thanks, that's good news. But does this apply to the Personal Edition?
The licence for my Personal edition of C++ Builder 6 says
"you may distribute your Works to others but .... the
Works that you distribute to others may not be used for any Commercial
Purpose."
When I previously asked whether code developed with BCB6 Personal could be
distributed under the GPL, quite a number of people thought that the above
clause would rule out distributing the code under the GPL.
Any thoughts?
Chris Gordon-Smith
London
graffiti.{*word*269}.net/c.gordon-smith/
 

{smallsort}

Re:C++ BuilderX Personal Licence and GPL?

"Chris Gordon-Smith" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Any thoughts?
The license the developers chooses is not particularly relevant; what
matters is how the code is or can be used.
As I read it, producing and distributing code which has the *potential* for
business use is a no-no. Even if you don't use it yourself, facilitating or
allowing others to do so is also a no-no.
Basically, anything you produce and distribute must be explicitedly limited
to charity, education and personal amu{*word*224}t.
 

Re:C++ BuilderX Personal Licence and GPL?

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Chris Gordon-Smith" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:bkjvis$2cc2o$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>Any thoughts?

The license the developers chooses is not particularly relevant; what
matters is how the code is or can be used.

As I read it, producing and distributing code which has the *potential*
for
business use is a no-no. Even if you don't use it yourself, facilitating
or allowing others to do so is also a no-no.

Basically, anything you produce and distribute must be explicitedly
limited to charity, education and personal amu{*word*224}t.
I would think that it would be difficult to draw a sharp line between what
has the potential to be used for business and what does not.
My understanding of the C++ Builder Personal Licence is that its OK to
distribute anything, so long as its made clear with the distribution that
the software should not be used for commercial purposes.
--
Chris Gordon-Smith
London
Homepage: graffiti.{*word*269}.net/c.gordon-smith/
Email Address: Please see my Home Page
 

Re:C++ BuilderX Personal Licence and GPL?

"Chris Gordon-Smith" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I would think that it would be difficult to draw a sharp line between what
has the potential to be used for business and what does not.
Such a line can be drawn in the software license. Neglecting to do so would
allow possible business use and thus violate the Borland license IMO.
Quote
My understanding of the C++ Builder Personal Licence is that its OK to
distribute anything, so long as its made clear with the distribution that
the software should not be used for commercial purposes.
We're basically in agreement.
 

Re:C++ BuilderX Personal Licence and GPL?

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:3f6dc709$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
Quote
Basically, anything you produce and distribute must be explicitedly
limited to charity, education and personal amu{*word*224}t.
Which would be against the GPL.
--
Iman
Well, it’s never “happily ever after?because “happily ever after?is you
die. You know, it’s “long enough ever after.?You just deteriorate, and,
then, you die. - Harvey Pekar
 

Re:C++ BuilderX Personal Licence and GPL?

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Chris Gordon-Smith" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:bkkj9l$2dm57$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>I would think that it would be difficult to draw a sharp line between
>what has the potential to be used for business and what does not.

Such a line can be drawn in the software license. Neglecting to do so
would allow possible business use and thus violate the Borland license
IMO.

>My understanding of the C++ Builder Personal Licence is that its OK to
>distribute anything, so long as its made clear with the distribution that
>the software should not be used for commercial purposes.

We're basically in agreement.
OK. If we are clear on the C++ Builder 6 Personal licence, what about the
C++ Builder X Personal licence? Does that have the same restriction on
commercial use as C++ Builder 6 Personal?
Kylix 3 / C++ Open Edition has no such restriction, and indeed the licence
mandates that if code is distributed this must be under the GPL.
--
Chris Gordon-Smith
London
Homepage: graffiti.{*word*269}.net/c.gordon-smith/
Email Address: Please see my Home Page
 

Re:C++ BuilderX Personal Licence and GPL?

Quote
C++ Builder X Personal licence? Does that have the same restriction on
commercial use as C++ Builder 6 Personal?
If I remember reading a message in CppBuilder.NonTechinical
correctly it will not have that limitation... But you should post in
that group to get a clarification.
Robert Love