Re: Reading NI TDMS files

[Sergei Steshenko]

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

> On 19-Dec-2007, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> 
> | --- "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.
> 
> | 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.
> | ".
> 
> 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".

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

Regards,
  Sergei.


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


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