octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Reading NI TDMS files


From: novakyu
Subject: Re: Reading NI TDMS files
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:52:22 -0800

On Dec 20, 2007 2:50 PM, Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> --- address@hidden wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> [snip]
>
> > Any flaws in this chain?
>
> No flaws.
>
> Long time ago I wrote an extension to then non-GPL ghostript and another
> extension to GPL gimp-print - both modified pieces were meant to work
> together.
>
> I heard the same concerns about possible GPL violation and bundling.
>
> I even distributed the whole thing in a single tarball, but in different
> subdirectories - because of the single tarball there were concerns about
> bundling.
>
> However, my changes to GPL code were such that it could still be built and
> still could function without the non-GPL code, and it was enough to convince
> the community there was no bundling.
>
> So, just put your stuff even on the same server with 'octave' code - as long
> as one can build 'octave' code without your code you're OK. Since you're
> going to develop a plugin, building 'octave' without your code would still
> be possible exactly the same way it is possible today.
>
> Don't let intrusive freedom overwhelm you :-).
>
> Regards,
>   Sergei.

Feeling like I'm just butting in here, but I don't think the situation
you describe is analogous. Aside from the fact that linking with NI
TDMS (binary only distribution) is much worse kind of GPL violation
than linking with AFPL code (non-commercial only), to make the
situation analogous he would have to make sure that _his extension_
can function without the NI TDMS DLL, not simply make sure that Octave
compiles without it---after all, it's just an extension, of course the
rest of Octave will compile without it. It's the extension that's
under the question.

Besides, I think authors who choose to release their work under GPL
probably feel that extensions that link to non-free components
restrict users' freedom over long term. Specifically, such
functionality discourages development of free replacement for that
non-free component (this is the same argument used for why tools like
ndiswrapper should not be used under GNU/Linux if free, native driver
is available).

If you have any kind of respect for the author who did most of the
work from which you are benefiting, you shouldn't try to circumvent
the requirements of GPL. Of course, GPL does not restrict anyone from
developing such extensions, but you should definitely not publish
them---it will discourage development of free replacement for the
proprietary component, and that's a bad thing (esp. in cases like
this, where, with all the provided by NI, all that's needed is a
little motivation for developing free tools that can work with TDMS
format).

Regards,

Andrzej


reply via email to

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