Search the Community

Dear LabVIEW Developer, We are really pleased to introduce today our new toolkit: BLT for LabVIEW. We worked hard to provide a powerful management software that will give you the tools to protect and distribute your LabVIEW programs, for internal or commercial use. As a LabVIEW developer, your feedback is really important to us since our toolkit is mainly designed for your needs. That's why we would like to offer you a free version with all the features included, so you can test BLT and see how it improves your daily productivity. Please refer to www.BLTforLabVIEW.com (http://bltforlabview.com) or watch the video for more information. http://youtu.be/WfYCWNRtar8 We really appreciate your collaboration, and hope that you will find a lot of value in this new LabVIEW Toolkit. Matthias Baudot Principal Software Architect STUDIO BODs INC. contact@studiobods.com

Copyright, trademarks - all this legal stuff gets tricky! Here is a documented experience from a LabVIEW development company that had to change their brand names due to a conflict. Licenses can get complicated too. Did you know that any application you create in LabVIEW requires a copyright notice regarding NI? Essentially I want to make it easier for users and to lessen confusion (if any) when using OpenG. So, I want to start by talking about the OpenG licenses. There has been some questions raised about how to license applications that make use of OpenG libraries (e.g. here). See here for an example of referencing OpenG in an application. I started to review the OpenG license and other licenses and see if we can do anything better or to make it easier for developers? Please join me in discussing this with any feedback, comments and improvements you may have. As it stands, we use the newBSD license aka the BSD-3-Clause license. Which is really good as is supported by the Open Source Initiative unlike the Original-BSD aka the BSD-4-Clause license. I have been looking at the Simplified-BSD aka the BSD-2-Clause license (which is also supported by the Open Source Initiative) and even Creative Common licenses. I think the newBSD is a good choice - what do you think? My next question is can the copyright in the license of the VI simply reference OpenG. By that I mean does each author have to appear in the license of each VI? This is by no means wishing to offend any authors, but this would simplify the copyright documentation. This would increase maintainability for the OpenG developer. And it would also standardise it. For example if there was a change to the license type in the future, you could not simply cut and paste a new one as each VI has different authors, so each license is different. We could still manage authors at the package level. And we could add authors to the VI Description. This would increase visibility because the LabVIEW Context Help would show that information. If a change as the above was ok, then referencing the use of OpenG in an application would be pretty simple too. If you add new VIs, remove VIs and authors change over the course of the project or releases, that copyright would not change - exactly the same as referencing National Instruments. This would increase maintainability for the End User. I am thinking that just referencing OpenG won't fly for the authors though (and fair enough) so I will also propose that the license is standardized to reference OpenG and we separate authors out into the VI Description under a Tag which would become searchable (more on that later) then I will create a tool that parses that information and outputs it to a text file and have an API where that file can be read in and the End User can then format the information in any way they wish to to include it in their license file. As an OpenG Developer this tool would help keep the new Package License Files up to date as well (this feature was introduced into VIPM 2010). I came up on this idea on my own, but Google has proved that someone else has thought of it, but no one has implemented it. The only other place I have seen Tags used is in Quick Drop (have I mentioned I love Quick Drop?) anyways we can analyse that implementation but I would like OpenG to define the standard for Tags in the VI Properties because I see this is also handy, not only for OpenG code but any re-use code used in an application, now or in the future, that an End User wants to reference in their application. Just run a tool (script) over the code and information is output to a file. As per moving the Authors to the VI Description, I also propose that the Name and Description is removed from the license as it is redundant information and means extra maintainability/work. I also propose that the license is moved to the BD to preserve FP space, and use a window of set size (to standardise it) and add the following notice (or similar) on the FP (bottom left hand corner). The current license would change from this... Get Data Name.vi Returns the name of the data wired on input. Please visit http://www.OpenG.org to learn about the Open Source LabVIEW software movement. NOTICE -- YOU MUST LEAVE THIS NOTICE IN PLACE. PER THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE BELOW, YOU MAY SUBLICENSE THIS SOFTWARE IN ANY WAY THAT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THIS LICENSE. ### BSD License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php) Begin ### Copyright (c) 2002, Jean-Pierre Drolet <drolet_jp@hotmail.com> Copyright (c) 2002-2006, Jim Kring <jim@jimkring.com> All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of SciWare, James Kring, Inc., nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. ### BSD License End ###[/Code] ...to this: [CODE] Please visit http://www.OpenG.org to learn about the Open Source LabVIEW software movement. NOTICE -- YOU MUST LEAVE THIS NOTICE IN PLACE. PER THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE BELOW, YOU MAY SUBLICENSE THIS SOFTWARE IN ANY WAY THAT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THIS LICENSE. ### BSD License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php) Begin ### See VI Description for Author information All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of OpenG, nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. ### BSD License End ###[/Code] [size=4][b]Thoughts?[/b][/size] [size=4]Cheers[/size] [size=4]-JG[/size]

I am wondering aboout what type of license to use. LGPL or BSD (or maybe some other). I have read through some old discussions here, but since they are 4-5 years old, maybe something has changed. BSD is recommended here, but it is not entirely clear why LGPL is not recommended. Thanks

I am looking for someone who wants to sell their license for Application Builder 7.1. Call (919) 807-1752 or email george.mundy@skilledengineer.com. -George

Hello Everyone, I am a small-time application builder on Labview, I have tried to find answers to the following two questions a lot on the NI site but could not get any definite yes or no answer So here are the questions 1) I know that DSC module requires run-time license on the end-users computer, my question is, that if I use the datasocket binding on the controls/indicators property box and assign a couple of OPC tags (like 20-30 max) and not use the shared variable engine, do I still have to get a dsc runtime license, or is there anything like OPC tag-based license for the end-users PC? 2) Does database connectivity toolset and report generation toolkit also require runtime license on end-user PC's?

I'm curious if anyone has had any luck calling 3rd party .net code from LabVIEW that requires a licenses.licx file to be "embedded" into your executable (or else the 3rd party code will complain that it is not licensed.) Apparently this is a common scheme for people using visual studio. I have a feeling that I may be out of luck here...