[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Reading NI TDMS files

From: John W. Eaton
Subject: Re: Reading NI TDMS files
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:14:13 -0500

On 19-Dec-2007, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

| --- "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden> wrote:
| > Given the statement about proprietary drivers for the Linux kernel, I
| > thought you were referring to distributing GPL and GPL-incompatible
| > code separately, and having the user link them together.  That is what
| > I thought you were getting at when you wrote
| > 
| >   Basically, you can do whatever you want with GPL code as long as you
| >   do _not_ (re)distribute the resulting binary.
| > 
| > I.e., I thought you were trying to say it is OK to distribute
| > interface code that ultimately links Octave to some code that has
| > GPL-incompatible licenses, as long as the two parts are not
| > distributed together as a single binary.  My interpretation is that it
| > is not OK, because the end result is the same, and such a distribution
| > would just be using a convoluted method to achieve the same end result.
| That's what I meant.
| And the answer to the FAQ I gave explicitly allows it - an organization is
| allowed to make a proprietary derivative as long as it doesn't distribute it.
| And I do not agree with your "result is the same".

OK, I think you are misunderstanding my statement above.  I'm talking
about a case where distribution does happen.  Whether the parts are
distributed together or separately, the result is the same (they are
distributed, and linked together, so the GPL does not permit it).

But I think I see what the misunderstanding may be.  It seems that you
are thinking of the case of the METIS library, and whether it is OK
for you to link that with your copy of Octave in the privacy of your
own organization.  I'm thinking of a case where someone writes a
plug-in for Octave, specifically with the intent of linking to a
proprietary module, that they would not be allowed to distribute if it
were all (Octave, the plug-in, and the proprietary code) linked
together, but they try to get around this by distributing them
separately and expecting that the user link them together in the end.

| It is different in a sense the company claims rights to/can take money for
| only its proprietary part.

I don't understand what you mean by this.  In any case, whether or not
there is an exchange of money is not relevant.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]