Re: Reading NI TDMS files

[John W. Eaton]

On 20-Dec-2007, David Bateman wrote:

| Yes it would be better to have a GPLed replacement of the proprietary
| code, and I agree that any interface to Octave for proprietary code that
| is distributed is a violation of the GPL. However, what is
| encouraging?

Having interfaces to proprietary code leads others to believe that
they are OK.

| If its of high
| value the users themselves might support it and even write a fully GPLed
| replacement. Heck the ARPACK interface I wrote fits into this category,
| though the restriction in the ARPACK license is very very mild.

Yes, I think it depends on the details of the terms for the non-free
part.  If the terms are bad (say binary only distribution for a single
platform) and the code is not too hard to reimplement, then we may see
someone writing a free replacment.  But in a case like the ARPACK code
where the source is distributed under some license that is more or
less OK for most people but still GPL-incompatible, then I doubt that
we will see a free replacement springing up.

jwe