Y’all need to be listening to Sam.
Xojo is great, but the original topic would be a horrible idea.
[quote=117523:@Tim Parnell]Y’all need to be listening to Sam.
Xojo is great, but the original topic would be a horrible idea.[/quote]
huh? People should listen to me? That’s a first 
I would gather that the RB/Xojo language as whole, including reserved words, types, events and functions, is fully copyright of Xojo, Inc. So indeed using that language without permission of Xojo, or, for instance, providing an application whose sole purpose would be to run Xojo code through a XojoScript control would be in violation of Xojo intellectual property. Which, incidentally, is different than the EULA.
In the case of Dave S app, which uses Xojo to build a preprocessor that translate his own basic dialect into Objective-C code, none of that applies. His use of Xojo is perfectly legitimate and does not infringe on Xojo Intelectual Property, nor EULA.
If it where not for the constant obfuscation efforts of a certain individual who uses an imaginary plot to prevent him from releasing a wondrous app he never showed anything but a screen anybody can build in Paint, the urban legend about the EULA preventing any development tool to be built with Xojo would not exist. It is time to stop believing that pile of cr@ap and simply read the EULA, as Norman Palardy has showed in the clearest of ways.
I will rather trust Norman, who is a seasoned engineer working for Xojo Inc., than the individual who thrives on provocations such as an app to hack serial numbers, or a mystery translation class with dozen languages coming from nowhere (took 30 years to others to complete one language), which then was exposed for simply using Google Translate.
[quote=117522:@Sam Rowlands]My main concern is that you have an intermediate layer between your language and the OS. This is another layer that can add weight to the application file size, slow down as it’s in direct from your language to the OS and also a layer that can add complications. While not saying it does, the Xojo layer may contain bugs, which would then reflect in your language, or if a ‘App Store’ requirements change and that is part of the Xojo framework, users of your language are dependent on Xojo making that change… Or worst case scenario, Xojo disappear, your language will no longer be updated in the Xojo libraries.
My advice is if you want to create your own language is to create your own language from scratch, removing the dependency on a third party will slow down development, but ultimately it makes your language only beholden to the OSes it runs on.
I am not criticizing Xojo here, just saying that by having a third party in the middle, may save time in building a new language, but it has some conditions in the future…[/quote]
What you describe seems to be the plight of any language not written in Assembler. Even C has dependencies. It is akin to microprocessors that could not be produced without the help of robots themselves piloted by other microprocessors. Thinking about it, even Assembler has a dependency : the hardware it runs on 
Is there an English word for ‘meaningless conversation going nowhere’?
Mute
Of course. 56 years of using English and I cant remember a simple 4 letter word.
Moot is the word I think
I doubt it. I bet it is very hard to copyright a language if not impossible. For instance:
If a = 1 then
MsgBox "Hello"
End If
Who owns the copyright to that? VB and Xojo could both be written the same way.
Types: String, Integer, Single, Double, Rect, Point etc etc etc- Used in many many programming languages, not copyright by Xojo.
Events: Again, if you create and event definition called Action on one of your classes have you infringed Xojo copyright, nope.
[quote=117694:@Mike Charlesworth]I doubt it. I bet it is very hard to copyright a language if not impossible. For instance:
If a = 1 then
MsgBox "Hello"
End If
Who owns the copyright to that? VB and Xojo could both be written the same way.
Types: String, Integer, Single, Double, Rect, Point etc etc etc- Used in many many programming languages, not copyright by Xojo.
Events: Again, if you create and event definition called Action on one of your classes have you infringed Xojo copyright, nope.[/quote]
Your example is not significant. A book is composed of phrases using regular words, and many phrases that can be singled the way you do as unoriginal. Yet, books are copyrighted, because the whole book is considered an intellectual creation. What constitutes the intellectual property is the totality of the language and the way it is implemented.
Incidentally, it is the same for your own app. Although you are using nothing but standard words of the language and they can be assembled in a rather conventional way, the totality of the program, including variable names which can be highly original, constitutes the copyright.
I believe Mike is correct… neither XOJO or Microsoft (as examples) can copyright the lexical (or at least not all of it), but they CAN copyright the underlying code the implements that lexical.
FOR/NEXT … which of course defines a loop, is the same (or close to the same) in almost every dialect of BASIC since Dartmouth published it way back when. That concept is public domain… but again, HOW it gets compiled, interpeted, executed is the IP of the vendor involved…
Keyword there “totality”… If someone where to create a language that emulated XOJO in EVERY respect, then there would be a case, but if it were based on “BASIC” with features and functions that may or may not be similar, there would be no case.
Opening a Database, reading text, add, subtract etc… these are all functions that are expected of any language… it is HOW you implement them, NOT the fact that you did.
I find the ruling unfortunate. On one hand the EU is going to implement patents over software, and on the other hand denies software developers the right to protect their work because As the Advocate General states in point 57 of his Opinion, to accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development."
A few years ago, I got a cease and desist letter from the lawyer of a competitor who had patented a method that used ligatures (combinaison of two letters on one glyph) to produce continuous handwriting like text. Such ligatures have been used since the down of typography (actually, in the Gutemberg Bible itself), but this guy put his pawn on it and said “it’s mine”. Thanks to patents, innovation can be stifled very efficiently, even for techniques that had existed for centuries.
So intellectual property can be protected through copyright, but through patents as well.
I am not trying to defend specifically Xojo, and believe that if they needed to, they can do it very efficiently.
But I am terribly concerned that if ideas cannot be protected in any way, the free reign of cheap counterfactors is simply going to increase, until creating new and innovative software will be rendered so pointless it will simply disappear. One can already see the pitiful state of another software industry, music, where the hegemony of DJs and their cheap remixes destroys new creation.
Being nothing but a small software creator, I just hope my livehood will not be trampled on by unscrupulous spandrels.
When copying someone else’s innovation is seen as an acceptable business model (or even a societal norm) then we’re all in trouble.
Why invent when you can just copy someone else’ ideas & not invest all that time & effort yet still reap many of the rewards.
Samsung & Xiaomi are great examples of what they like to call “fast followers” - something I consider a polite term for “copier”
They do have their own inventions & designs yet still decide - quite deliberately - to mimic someone else’ (in addition to or instead of their own designs is really irrelevant)
So Norman… are you advocating that XOJO (or Microsoft or ) does or can advocate for, and enforce a patent on the Syntax commonly known as “BASIC” (upto and including any derivations that exist now, or may exist in the future)? Not wanting an argument… just trying to clarify your stance.
Now each derivation has its own features added, and I can respect a copy right on the “totality” of the syntax of a given dialect. But since then syntax of “BASIC” in the form from which all others were born is public domain…
Again… I agree with the concept of a PATENT on the METHOD (ie… XOJO.APP) that is used to create, compile and deploy… but not the lexical used to “write the source code”.
to be clear on my stance (which again is not to argue with or contradict yours)
a) the IP used within XOJO.APP (XOJO.EXE) should be protected by a PATENT (copyright is for written works)
b) the SYNTAX or LEXICAL of the language is for the MOST PART (but not 100%) based on the evolution of that same lexical since Dartmouth in 1964… and those parts of the LEXICAL that are unique to a given dialect (if any) could be if desired protected by a COPYRIGHT
Note this is all from a United States point of view, and based on my understanding of PATENT and COPYRIGHT
I’d think they could - but not necessarily on the individual aspects of the language but the entire package.
Whether they should is a different discussion.
From the perspective of a CEO - I’d say his company should apply for every patent & copyright possible as part of his fiduciary responsibility regardless of how he feels about those tools. His joe is to protect the IP of the company with every tool available.
From an investors perspective I’d say their interest is much the same.
From a developers / partners perspective they’d have a different view - some saying yes some saying no.
If you look a a fair number of languages have their official spec submitted to some kind of standards body.
C, C++, JavaScript and many others - they have no single body (company or org) in control of their specification adoption etc.
It’s ISO or ECMA or some other collaborative group defining the “standard” for those.
Some do have a singular company or group defining the language.
Java is proprietary(owned by Oracle) but accepts community input
Same for JavaScript - but ECMAScript is compatible and NOT controlled by a single company but a collaborative standards body.
And patenting/copyrighting it isn’t really the issue.
It’s how or if those patents are used / licensed etc
Isn’t Xojo written in Xojo? I know the RealBasic compiler at one point was written in RealBasic.
Simulanics SimScript is written in Xojo, and is Xojo re-wrote in Xojo. It’s not meant to be a stand-alone language (as per respect of the EULA). It’s meant to allow cross-platform dynamic code/gui plugins/extensions to be developed by the developer to extend their software as other languages allow code “hot-swapping.” Basically, it’s XojoScript with full Xojo capabilites. There was some controvery when I first presented the language, but Geoff has allowed it for developers to extend their software. It has proven quite useful to a few web/desktop developers since the same code can be used without editing or minding of control super (all auto converted ie TextField-> WebTextField).