[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [OctDev] low level I/O (GPIB, USBTMC, VXI11)

From: Juan Pablo Carbajal
Subject: Re: [OctDev] low level I/O (GPIB, USBTMC, VXI11)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:53:33 +0100

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Julien Salort <address@hidden> wrote:
> Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>
> writes:
>> I am wondering what is more amusing:
>> 1) a puppy or a kitten trying to catch its own tail;
>> 2) a cat chasing laser pointer light spot on a wall or a floor;
>> 3) GPL proponents shooting themselves in the foot.
> I'm not very amused personally. I was wrong to think that Octave was a
> good choice for instrument control. I wanted something free because I
> didn't want to rely on restricted licenses for my experimental setups:
> what happens if the network gets down ? No license server, no instrument
> control anymore. That seemed unacceptable to me. That's why I've been
> advocating for Octave to several colleagues.
> Now I have a bunch of Octave-only code that I can't share with
> anyone. If I had chosen Matlab in the first place, I would be able to
> publish the code without restriction. This is very paradoxical and I had
> not anticipated this problem. I must admit that I should have read
> Octave license carefully in the first place. But I wrongly thought that
> careful reading of licenses was only necessary when using proprietary
> software, because the GPL was meant to protect me, as a user. And I was
> happy with publishing my own code under GPL too.
> Now I realise that I would not have had problem if I had gone with
> Python instead of Octave.  I understand why they have a GPL-phobia now.
> But I have several experimental setups that have been tuned with Octave
> scripts and switching to Matlab or Python will be too huge a work.
> So I'll have to stick with Octave, but with no possibility of sharing
> my code publicly.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single
> web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware,
> SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial.
> Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications!
> _______________________________________________
> Octave-dev mailing list
> address@hidden


Jordi said it is a violation to GPl, but is the matter truly solved? I
see no answer regarding the example I sent to RMS. Maybe adding the
compiler directives may solve the problem. Lets wait to that answer.

Also, the fobia is unjustified, since it is an artifact created by the
existence of non-free licenses. The idea is that we do not want o
violate GPL to prevent the proliferation of non-free software.
Otehrwise, as oyu just said, the existence of the non-free software
makes the life hard for people trying to free software!

It is only the "practical" posture, not considering the ethical
aspects, that makes some people exasperated about free licenses. If
you believe in free software, then rally your courage and hold
together till the storm passes. This is maybe similar to people saying
that military research is good for everyone, just because they
willingly ignore the fact that their contributions will eventually
kill humans.

Btw, how is the situation with the comedi drivers? Did they also used
proprietary software, I think not! Can you double check?
Please let us know what you find in a different thread (maybe subject Comedi)
Thank you.


Dr. sc. nat. Juan Pablo Carbajal
University of Zürich

reply via email to

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