RE: FW: More NI License Problems [k.valentine@verizon.net]

[Jim K. <ji...@ji...>]

Kevin,

I wouldn't freak out, yet.  I can see two simple sollutions:

1) NI doesn't mean what the license says and they change it.  From what =
I've
heard out of NI in the past, the intent of the license is to protect =
NI's
software from being wrapped and resold.

2) NI means what the license says but they have to change it, because =
the
overwhelming majority of LabVIEW developers will stop using it if the
license doesn't change.

-Jim


Kevin Valentine wrote:
>=20
> Thanks for the info Jim.
>=20
> This looks bad for me. I'm doing a presentation at an NI site=20
> on December 10th. I'm showing how to use OGIC, Comedi, and=20
> Linux-GPIB under the Linux=20
> OS. (see http://www.minkhollowsystems.com/WALUG.html)
>=20
> Quite frankly, I've been following the discussion and I'm a=20
> little freaked out. I'm starting to wonder if I should do the=20
> presentation. Are there legal issues in dumping VISA for an=20
> open source alternative. Based on what Greg=20
> McKaskle said in one of his previous posts, "As for writing=20
> your own VISA, that is certainly a possibility. Or maybe you=20
> pass the hat and pay Dan M to write you one ;)" (see=20
http://messages.info-labview.org/2003/11/13/03.html),
it would appear that he is rather supportive of the development of
alternatives to NI's toolkits.

I have zero interest in rewriting VISA but I would certainly like to
continue my efforts in producing VI libraries that work with open source
hardware=20
drivers.

OGIC and Linux-GPIB are dead men walking. They're definitely =
replacements.
Comedi, on the other hand, provides what NI cannot - drivers for 3rd =
party
hardware.

-Kevin