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

[Rolf K. <rol...@ci...>]

Jim Kring [mailto:ji...@ji...] wrote:

> 1) NI doesn't mean what the license says and they change it. =20
> 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.
=20
I can second that. It's not like they are an evil empire or such.

> 2) NI means what the license says but they have to change it,=20
> because the overwhelming majority of LabVIEW developers will stop
> using it if the license doesn't change.

They do listen and marketing has still more power within NI than
lawayers. Personally I believe this new clause is more of an accident
of someone to entusiastic about protecting NIs intellectual and business
property than a well informed decision.

After all I believe even if they would want to, they most probably =
wouldn't
succeed in court in stiffling business competition in such a way. In a =
lot
of countries, and I would guess the US too, this license agreement would
most likely at least in this part be considered null and void in court.
And that they are after Open Source developers seems almost outragous.
If they would, they would damage their own reputation very severaly
and maybe put themself in a tighter spot than MS has been lately.

Last but not least, my english isn't at all perfect but that passage =
will
give even a linguist a hard time to understand what the intend might =
have
been, which makes it a weak point in the license for most courts.

Rolf Kalbermatter

> 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.
>=20
> I have zero interest in rewriting VISA but I would certainly like to
> continue my efforts in producing VI libraries that work with=20
> open source
> hardware=20
> drivers.
>=20
> OGIC and Linux-GPIB are dead men walking. They're definitely=20
> replacements.
> Comedi, on the other hand, provides what NI cannot - drivers=20
> for 3rd party
> hardware.
>=20
> -Kevin=20