Re: Reading NI TDMS files

[David Bateman]

Thomas Ilnseher wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 20.12.2007, 11:30 +0100 schrieb David Bateman:
>
>   
>> The intention of the person distributing the code (source or binary)
>> makes a huge difference in how this should be treated. If some one is
>> trying to rip off a GPL code for their personal profit, I say "hang em
>> high".. If they are supplying an interface to a proprietary library to
>> maximum to value of the GPL software for a certain group of users,
>> without any personal profit, I think we should turn a blind eye..
>>
>>     
>
> Ok. Now let's assume the following: I *bought* xyz library (which is
> commercial) to use it (maybe there is no free substitute). I want to
> avoid paying $$$ for using matlab so I use this lib with octave (by
> writing an .oct file). As I know other users of this lib, I distribute
> my .oct file and the code therefore. 
>
> This would be ok, according to your definition.
>   
No this would not be ok according to my definition, though the Octave
developers might choose to turn a blind eye. However, if instead you
wrote a mex interface that just happened to work with Octave, then the
primary use of the code could be said to be with matlab and so there can
be no restriction on the distribution of the code due to Octave's GPL
license. If the user then chooses to link the code to Octave nothing can
be said if they don't distribute the resulting binary. Which is why I
think the presence of a mex-file interface in Octave makes all of this
argument practically irrelevant.

> But if happen to be the VENDOR of library xyz, is it still Ok ?
> good question, isn't it?
>   
This then comes down to the vendors intention of distributing the
oct-file... They are in clear violation of the GPL there is no doubt
about it, however what should be our reaction to it..
> Having that said, I'm not against allowing proprietary plugins for OSS.
>
> And regarding their faq: That explains the *intention* of their license.
> What counts it the *written text* of the GPL, interpreted by court.
>   
Ruling for copyright infringements are based on the damages incurred to
the original copyright holder by the release of the infringing code...
The original copyright holder always has the right to prevent
distribution of infringing code, as it is a derived work of the original
GPLed code, but if there are no damages and in fact an increase of value
of the original code base due to the availability of the infringing
code, then I suspect any court would hesitate to award damages. At worse
they might award to the original copyright holder any profits the owner
of the infringing code made if they sold it..

I think you misunderstood me... The GPL stands, its only our reaction to
an infringement that I believe should be modified due to the intentions
of the author of the infringing code is..

D.


-- 
David Bateman                                address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris                        +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE                  +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary