Re: Reading NI TDMS files

[Sergei Steshenko]

--- "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 19-Dec-2007, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> 
> | What you propose is exactly the way proprietary ATI/NVidia drivers
> | are distributed.
> 
> I think that is "allowed" in part because the people who hold the
> copyright on the Linux kernel do not object to it, not because the GPL
> itself is clear on the issue, or that the FSF agree with the position
> taken by the copyright holders of the Linux kernel.
> 
> | Basically, you can do whatever you want with GPL code as long as you
> | do _not_ (re)distribute the resulting binary.
> 
> The FSF disagree, or at least have in the past.  As I recall, the
> argument went something like this: suppose you would like to
> distribute a proprietary addition to a program covered by the GPL, but
> instead of distributing them linked together, you distribute the parts
> separately, along with directions for how to link them together.  The
> end result is the same, and the FSF claimed that this was infringing.
> 
> Again, I refer you to the GPL and the GPL FAQ, and, if your questions
> are still not answered, please ask for clarification from the GNU
> project and ask them to update the FAQ.
> 
> jwe
> 

Sure, here is the relevant FAQ
(from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution) :

"
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company 
"distribution"?
 No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a 
consequence, a
company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that 
version through its
own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified 
version to outsiders.

 However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or 
individuals, that is
distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site 
is distribution.
".

Please pay attention to

"
As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified 
version and install that
version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to 
release that modified
version to outsiders.
".

And that is why I was unpleasantly surprised to see that 'octave' developers
stopped supporting building (_not_ distributing) 'octave' with METIS library - 
after
an octave version upgrade mu build failed, but thanks to David, who explained 
me publicly
that adding "-lmetis" to LDFLAGS on 'configure' command line would solve my 
problem,
I no more have the problem.

But why to make everybody's life more complex in the first place ? Taking into 
account
earlier versions did work without the "-lmetis" addition.

And, whatever is the GPL code and whatever is the proprietary code they can be 
made
interacting using client (proprietary) <-> server (GPL) approach.

In the end, Linux kernel is just server for whatever programs the OS runs ...

Regards,
  Sergei.

Applications From Scratch: http://appsfromscratch.berlios.de/


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs