Leaderboard

If I'm not mistaken, this is a gray area because no court or judge has ever contemplated this question before. The general broad understanding is "No, it's not a strict requirement, but there are reasons to do so": https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/125836/do-you-have-to-include-a-license-notice-with-every-source-file That's OK. It's a bit like the Ur-Quan Masters project -- The code is open-source, but not everyone can play it with the non-open-source 3DO assets unless they already own a copy: https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/The_Ur-Quan_Masters_Technical_FAQ#How_do_I_use_the_3DO_intro_and_victory_movies_in_the_game.3F Anyway, by making your part open-source, you already make it much easier for others to achieve the object detection stuff! Here's an even shorter and blunter license: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ (altough you might be less likely to receive a pint when someone becomes rich from your work) Note: "Public domain" has a specific meaning in copyright law, and it doesn't just mean "viewable by the public". If a work is said to be in the "public domain", that means either copyright has expired, or its authors have formally renounced their claim to copyright. As @jacobson said, a piece of code can be publicly viewable but the viewers might not have permission to incorporate the code into their own work. If you want to disclaim copyright (as opposed to using a license that says "I own this code, but you can do whatever you want with it"), see https://unlicense.org/ You can do it all in LabVIEW itself:

First of all, hi everyone and thank you all for the feedback. I really do appreciate it, and I want you to know that I generally read these threads even if I don't always participate. Stephen also periodically sends threads to me and the other relevant product owners. I am the product owner responsible for G language in LabVIEW NXG. There are other product owners responsible for other aspects of LabVIEW NXG and the related technologies. Our role in LabVIEW R&D is to advocate for the user within the development team. We am ultimately responsible for making sure the functionality we add to the product is valuable to our users. That being said - I don't want to oversell my role. As the product owner (which we have started calling productization lead because I don't actually own the product) I don't set the priority of which functionality we invest in first - that is decided by our planning organization, but I work closely with them and have a lot of input into that process. It is the responsibility of planning to identify high level workflows and investment areas, and it is the shared responsibility of the product owner and development team to design and build solutions that satisfy those requirements. There is a lot of good feedback here, much of which I was already aware of, and much of which predates my role existing. I want to take the time to properly address the different points in this thread - so expect some follow up posts from me next week, but first I just wanted to introduce myself. Jeff Peacock