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

[<Bjo...@si...>]

Read the license again this morning, and it is even more clear to me that
"Authorized applications" are only those applications that NI will protect
(infringement vise), see 12 A (1) and 16. They are to be copyrighted by you
AND NI.

The license does not say anywhere that all your applications has to be
"Authorized applications". To me this is rather straight forward, maybe
because i'm not native english speaking and don't put any other meaning in
the name "Authorized applications" other than a strict definition of one
kind of applications? It is also rather obvious since NI cannot legally be
held responsible for infringements you make on their behalf if NI have
software that does not infringe, and you also are at risk infringing the
existing NI software. Software made with NI's software is also most likely
to infringe other software made with NI's software (particularly LabVIEW).
So if more software is copyrighted by NI, this will make any legal disputes
rather simple, for NI at least.

Needless to say, NI wants most software to be copyrighted by NI. But they do
not own us, and we are not emploid at NI, so they cannot force us to make
only "Authorized applications".   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rolf Kalbermatter [mailto:rol...@ci...]
> Sent: 27. november 2003 09:28
> To: ope...@li...
> Subject: RE: FW: More NI License Problems [k.v...@ve...]
> 
> 
> Jim Kring [mailto:ji...@ji...] wrote:
> 
> > 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.
>  
> 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, 
> > 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:
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the info Jim.
> > > 
> > > This looks bad for me. I'm doing a presentation at an NI site 
> > > on December 10th. I'm showing how to use OGIC, Comedi, and 
> > > Linux-GPIB under the Linux 
> > > OS. (see http://www.minkhollowsystems.com/WALUG.html)
> > > 
> > > Quite frankly, I've been following the discussion and I'm a 
> > > little freaked out. I'm starting to wonder if I should do the 
> > > presentation. Are there legal issues in dumping VISA for an 
> > > open source alternative. Based on what Greg 
> > > McKaskle said in one of his previous posts, "As for writing 
> > > your own VISA, that is certainly a possibility. Or maybe you 
> > > pass the hat and pay Dan M to write you one ;)" (see 
> > 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 
> > 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 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
> Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
> help you create better code?  SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
> _______________________________________________
> OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers
>