Own IDE and Freebasic license

[erosolmi]

Hi all,

I have an IDE (editor + some other tools) for a source code editor.
My IDE is freeware but not open source.

Question: is it possible to pack inside my own IDE distribution (a <Setup>.exe progam that install the IDE) a copy of FreeBasic compiler (not Freebasic sources) in order to distribute it and let my users to compile their own code?

Or do my IDE has to follow the same Freebasic license (GNU GPLv2+) ?

Thanks a lot
Eros

[MrSwiss]

... do my IDE has to follow the same Freebasic license (GNU GPLv2+) ?

This is definitely a NO, your software (if you are the copyright owner) can be
licensed, as you decide (since, it's not using any other sources, than yours).
If your code contains 3rd. party libraries, you'll have to check their licenses, too.

The more hairy question is about the distribution, of GPL'ed software, FBC here.
You'd have to read/understand the GPL's ver. 2 statenents fully and, also comply
with them 100%, to do that (consult a legal expert, to be on the safe side).

In case the GPL doesn't allow it, you may still ask the owners: FB dev.-team, for
a written exemption, explicitly allowing you (only), to do so. (can go both ways)

P.S. I've worked with EULA's from an IT point of view, but I'm not a legal expert.
(sometimes, it also depends on your place of residence/office, aka: local law)

[erosolmi]

Thanks a lot.

Reading from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Gener ... ic_License at chapter "Communicating and bundling with non-GPL programs"
the mere bundling and communication between separated GPL software with non-GPL software via pipes or command line execution seems possible.

Anyway I will follow your suggestions.

[erosolmi]

I think this is more clear:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en ... tarySystem

[MrSwiss]

Yes, the following part is relevant:

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

This means in fact:
in your documentation of the distribution, you'll have to clearly state:

• Editor whatever name/version e.t.c., licensed: your license
• FreeBASIC Compiler, licensed under GPL v.2 see: freebasic.net
  (or something similar)

[jj2007]

Instead of bundling IDE & FB, you could also distribute only your IDE but then let it download and install the original FB package.

[erosolmi]

Instead of bundling IDE & FB, you could also distribute only your IDE but then let it download and install the original FB package.

The idea is to distribute the original FB package into a sub directory of my IDE called <disk>:\<MyIDEpath>\FBCompiler\FreeBASIC-1.06.0\...

[MrSwiss]

... the original FB package into a sub directory of my IDE ...

A more practical approach, which I'd use is:
/.../.../mydir -- your distro's main dir
/.../.../mydir/IDE_ver/
/.../.../mydir/FBC_1060_32/ -- 32 bit version
/.../.../mydir/FBC_1060_64/ -- 64 bit version

Reason: since the compiler's might get "outdated" ...
or the IDE updated, I'd keep them at the same level (from distro-main)

you can then simply add e.g. (or your client/customer):
/.../.../mydir/FBC_1070_32/
/.../.../mydir/FBC_1070_64/
(we might want to keep the older version, instead of overwriting!)