In breach of EULA?

So I create this .exe with Blitz3D that gets launched by my game (written in C++), the B3D .exe handles all the audio for the main game. I use Blitz3D since is contains FMOD and means that I don't have to purchase a commercial FMOD license - it's taken care of.

Assuming I want to sell this .exe to all the poor people suffering audio issues with FreeAudio and OpenAL - is there a gotcha in the "current" BRL EULA?

It sounds like the same issue the B3D wrapper writers ran into. If the exe is used to create sound commands for external programs my guess is that it breaks the EULA. If the exe is part of your game then it is fine.

I'm more curious if doing stuff like that is more against the EULA of the FMOD license Mark has for B3d, than it is for B3d itself....

Why? What's the difference?

Since Blitz3DSDK does not use FMOD - I guess that's your answer.

Personally I recomend bass rather than fmod anyway - especially if its mod/it/s3m/xm playback required - far more accurate.

A shareware bass licence is also better since it covers unlimited games/apps where the fmod one only covers one title (as far as i remember anyway). Not too expensive at $100 (again, from memory)

Almost certain that would be against FMOD's licence, as even though it's an exe, you are essentially using it in the same way as a DLL..

If not, I think it would still be risky ground (and FMOD have some cash to chase these sort of things these days).

Yes I would have thought so much however the FMOD license is already paid for as part of the B3D license, or did that go since it was Idigicon who owned the licence (can of worms).

I agree with Graham. I doubt it's in violation of the B3D EULA ( which is why it was rewritten for future products ) but I do think it's almost certainly in violation of the FMod license, and I know from personal experience that the FMod guy ( Brett, is it? I'm getting forgetful! ) likes to squeeze as much money out of people as he humanly can these days.

shame...

I've not written this, just being devils advocate. I know it's been done and being done so......

Hmmm... but why should somebody even know that B3D used FMOD?
Buying B3D allows executables under the B3D license (whatever/wherever that is). Surely what you then do with that executable is up to you whether it uses FMOD or not.
B3D, as far as I can see, doesn't come with any special conditions for FMOD.

I'm looking forward to the official line on this.

I would think it would be legal as long as your B3D program that is allowing you to use FMOD is written as part of your other program, and not just a generic exe that anybody could use to gain access to using FMOD.

In things like this, the licence is usually for the language, and things written with the language.. While it would sound OK to do the old 'wrapper thing', it's certainly shakey.

The example you give, is actually exposing the functionality of FMOD to a 3rd party app, which I would think is outside the licence.. Where a game using FMOD is all self contained (ie. no exposure of functionality) so OK.

I tried to get an engine licence for Cobra, but the cost was quite huge, and the licence very specific.

Right, but as the old adage goes, "ignorance of the law is no defense". You may ( or may not ) have a case against the person who didn't warn you about the usage of FMod, but the developer of FMod would still have a case against you. If you lost the case against him, it would be up to you to take a case for that amount out against the person who you felt hadn't warned you.

From the sounds of it you may as well install the game with a lightweight audio player and use ShellExecute.

ShellExec "audioplayer sound.mp3 -options"

In other words... are you sure you want B3D doing this job? Blitz3D programs tend to be rather attention-seeking; being big, memory hogging and obviously built to output something visual (judging by the black window that appears no matter what unless you patch the exe). This behaviour is fine if the whole project is Blitz3D, but otherwise can be rather gross.

Sounds to me BlitzPlus would be much better suited to the task. So long as access to the exe is not given outside of your game engine I don't see the problem. IncBin and temp files should do the trick.

I agree. However, but wouldn't any license agreement be between FMOD and BRL?
The person wouldn't be wrapping FMOD functionality but B3D functionality for which an agreement has been reached to use FMOD.
I was planning on creating a B3D sound system for Bmax and didn't even consider there to be a problem if though I knew FMOD was used.
It *will* be interesting to get an official response. Maybe it will need to be done via email.

As Flameduck said: AFAIK bb3dsdk doesn't use FMOD.

Having considered that for a second time, I've changed my mind, and I concur with you. As you point out, it wouldn't be me ( or you, or Tim ) finding a way to link to FMod, we would simply be using the ability we had been given by B3D, so it would either be BRL or Brett who were responsible for that. Not that this is 100% protection from an expensive lawyer, but in theory and logically, I believe I was incorrect before, and you were correct.

While it might not be in breach of the EULA (or any EULA you care about) it is technically against the DMCA (reverse engineering). Now I realize that, not being an American, you probably couldn't care less - and provided no-one reports you to the Feds or the secret service and (unlike Dimitry Sklyarov) you never travel to a US territory, you should be perfectly safe.

I think you'd be fine to do this. You have a B3D license and it doesn't come with any restrictions, use it for whatever you want aside from re-selling B3D itself.

Of course there's the problem ... in a way it is re-selling B3D functionality so you might run into a problem with Mark on that one. It's not like you're really making anything with it. You'd be better off to just instruct people on how to do this for free, the issue being that they'd have to buy B3D and pay Mark who in turn pays Brett or whatever his name is.

Life's pretty easy, if you're actually doing some real work you should be in the clear, if you plan on making a lot of profit from something without doing any work you're unjustified. In this instance, you be the judge of how tough it is to make an audio handler with B3D and whether or not you're just copying FMod ... if you are then let them sell their product.

From what it sounds like, I think you should pass this off as free advice. In the end the people that did the real work (Mark and Brett) will profit accordingly. Afterall, B3D is meant to create full featured applications, not re-sellable wrappers to it's functionality.

Then the more pressing question would be what DOES it use? All the same functionality is there, tied to the same commands and if Max has taught us anything it's that BRL don't have enough knowledge in the sound department to code their own alternatives.

Good question.

How does anyone know it doesn't use FMOD BTW? Couldn't FMOD be a static library just built in as a part of the B3DSDK?

Secret Dark Magics.

It could be, but it isn't.

How is wrapping a few function calls in an exe that takes parameters to pass to those functions "discovering the technological principles of a device or object or system through an abductive analysis of its structure, function and operation... to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering)

This isn't reverse engineering. It strikes me as shady, but it isn't reverse engineering. You still need the original code (in object form) in order for the result to work. The solution hasn't recreated anything, it just wraps existing code.

Then I request someone wraps this 'Dark Magics' lib into a Max mod for the rest of us. =]