Copyright

[Aristos Queue]

Nope. They can't do what they like with it. Their T&Cs only allow them to admonish distribution. You are not granting any license, that requires a document.

That contradicts what I've been told directly face-to-face by our lawyers. If you find a bug in a LV VI and post the fix, I will ask you to post it on ni.com because the lawyers tell me that you've granted us license to use anything you post there in any sort of repackaging we like without attribution or compensation -- my understanding is that that extends not just to NI, but to any other user on the forums who downloads your posted VI.

[Ton Plomp]

There should be some Terms and Conditions for uploading, however that won't solve the issue.

One way is to use the Code Capture Tool for your uploads and customize the header, and the embedded meta data to include some sort of copyright/licensing.

Yes, I know it's not easy to see the embedded meta-data, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't valid.

There are special fields for copyright and disclaimers.

Ton

[SteveChandler]

That contradicts what I've been told directly face-to-face by our lawyers. If you find a bug in a LV VI and post the fix, I will ask you to post it on ni.com because the lawyers tell me that you've granted us license to use anything you post there in any sort of repackaging we like without attribution or compensation -- my understanding is that that extends not just to NI, but to any other user on the forums who downloads your posted VI.

But what happens with examples that someone creates and posts on ni.com in which they used some OpenG or GPL? Surely that doesn't grant everybody the right to do with it as they please. I think that the laws are suffering from the legal equivalent of code rot. I have heard of tax situations where you have only two choices to make, each of which violates a different regulation. I wish I could remember the details.

[Aristos Queue]

No, it doesn't give everyone the right to use it... but the person posting it is testifying that they do have the right to use it, and if that happens to not be true, it is the person posting who becomes the legal shield for everyone else -- in other words, it's the poster who is liable for all downstream damages, not the person who uses it.

[SteveChandler]

No, it doesn't give everyone the right to use it... but the person posting it is testifying that they do have the right to use it, and if that happens to not be true, it is the person posting who becomes the legal shield for everyone else -- in other words, it's the poster who is liable for all downstream damages, not the person who uses it.

That actually makes a lot of sense and is what I thought but... ouch! I have only ever posted original example code, or modified something that I downloaded from there in order to try answering a question. But I don't think many people pay much attention to that.

[Aristos Queue]

This is what SOPA stands on end -- among other things. It would make T&Cs like this one invalid and make LAVA (in the case of lavag.org) or NI (in the case of ni.com) liable if someone posted code they claimed was copyright free that turned out not to be. LAVA and NI would have to constantly police their sites and verify that everything posted was legit. Otherwise, if someone came through and said, "Hey, that's my code you're sharing!" then it is no longer sufficient for LAVA or NI to take down the offending post -- they're already on the hook for anyone who downloaded it in the interim. This is great if you're a giant media conglomerate and you don't want to police your own copyrights, but it is terrible for all other players in the media game. There's no way that a site like LAVA or ni.com could exist under those conditions -- every posted VI would have to be held until some site administrator could verify that it was legitimately free from copyright. And how exactly is that done? Do we check a database of all VIs ever written? That's what the media companies want Google and other sites to do for movies and music. I suppose NI could maintain a database of all VIs ever written, but it would probably hurt us in other ways if we insisted that all VIs you write had to be sent to us, just so we can track their authenticity.

This is why the tech community is trying so hard to stop SOPA and its variations. And failing miserably thus far.

[jgcode]

Well if we have identified that that is what we need to do (certify every upload), then we should start doing it...

• A tool to add it to a VI before it is posted (I would be happy to make one)

Maybe a LAVAG template VI with the appropriate verbage would be appropriate? Create VI from template, upload with (choose your method)

Ok, here is a simple package that contains the CC0 license.

I can get this released on the LVTN under Team LAVA initiative.

With it you can apply the CC0 License in the following ways:

Create a New VI from a Template

Drop a Merge VI on the FP of an Existing VI

Include in a Snippet

lava_rsc_cc0_license-1.0.0.5.vip

[jcarmody]

Que` pasa? I am able to use the tool, but installing it wasn't clean. I like the way you think

[jgcode]

Que` pasa? I am able to use the tool, but installing it wasn't clean. I like the way you think

Nada mucho.

Weird - it works for me?

I was able to test 32-bit LabVIEW versions: 8.2, 2009 & 2011 on 2 PC's.

The LAVA Palette is up on the LVTN so assuming a connection to that is all good - I have no idea... ...lol

The only weird thing I have seen was that in 8.2 the PNG gets stretched when dropped as a MergeVI from the palette.

And it was to do with the Grid Size you use for the FP.

Changing it to a smaller Grid Size before you to the drop removes the issue.

This was no a problem in 2009 so it must have been fixed somewhere in-between.