Frustrations about license

[bsvingen]

I just want to air my frustration, and perhaps give a little warning to others.

I have made software in Labview. It is very specialized, far from mainstream, thus only a hanfull of users. It is somewhat general in purpose right now, but with more than enough future measurement functionality to use LV. Problem is, I am working for someone else now than I used to, and I cannot use the lisenses for LV (6 to 2009) that I used to. The software itself is very much alive, after I have convinced several key personel to purchase LV licenses (Full development system is needed for proper use of the software, it is more like a toolkit), but no one else but me has the combined competence in the technical and LV things to develop it further, or even maintain it. Bottom line is, for future developement I have to purchase lisenses myself as a privat person. Although I can afford it, there are other issues involved.

What about previous versions of LV? Some are still using older versions, how do I obtain licenses for these?

I am personally responsible for NI selling a dozen or so full development systems to use my software (all are site lecenses, so I don't know exactly how many). I don't like being a sales person for NI, and having to pay for it, at least not from my own wallet.

There have been some discussions here about LV being a real programming language. I agree on the technical parts of this, but sooner or later license problems and version problems will pop up, and these problems are brick walls with no way through or around or over. So, LV being a real programming language - not by a long shot. If you believe this, as I did, you will end up in unsolvable problems sooner or later.

I have contacted NI about my little frustration, and so far I have heard nothing. This tells me that they just don't care somehow. The only viable option right now is to use something else, and preferably Java. Luckily most of the core parts are already in C++ through C DLL wrappers, so the transition won't be all torture, but still. What I have learned from this is: If it can be made in LV, this does not mean it should be made in LV. If it can be made with something else, this does indeed mean that it should. And - use LV exclusively for what it was ment to be used for , namely DAQ.

</rant> - as they say

[Val Brown]

I see this very differently in many ways FWIW.

1. I was originally in a somewhat similar situation (viz working for a company developing software for it) so I had my contract stipulate that the licenses for LV would be purchased for me personally with full right of ownership in the event that I left that company.

2. If you don't do something like #1 when you work for a company then you are using the tools of that company and the tools remain with the company when you leave. This would be the same for a hammer or aircraft carrier. If LV belonged to the company then it stays with them and you would need to purchased the full development system to use/update code.

3. re: #2, the same holds true regardless of the language used, it's just that getting various versions of other languages like C++, JAVA, etc appear to be far less expensive than LV; but the principle remains the same.

4. Did you release the code under your own copyright or as a product of the company? If that later then it remains their property and you could only extend/correct/distribute it with their consent -- regardless of the tools used.

I wouldn't say that this is a LV or NI problem per se -- it is not their responsibility that you set up your business relationship the way you did. It is unfortunate but it is also, as far as I can tell, just the way it is and you, quite understandably, don't like it.

[ShaunR]

If it can be made in LV, this does not mean it should be made in LV.

Agree.

If it can be made with something else, this does indeed mean that it should.

Disagree.

And - use LV exclusively for what it was ment to be used for , namely DAQ.

Agree but would add Control and Automation.

Use the right tool for the job!

Edited September 13, 2009 by ShaunR

[crelf]

I'm not sure I understand your situation completely, so let me paraphase, and after you've confrimed/denied that I've got it right in my head, then I'll comment.

• You created a product that you sell privately
  
• You created the product using resources (licenses) that belonged to a company that you were working for
  
• You no longer have access to those resources (since you're not working for them anymore)
  
• You want NI to give you the resources for free so you can continue developing and selling your product

Does that sum it up?

[bsvingen]

Thanks for the replies, I can clarify below.

I'm not sure I understand your situation completely, so let me paraphase, and after you've confrimed/denied that I've got it right in my head, then I'll comment.

• You created a product that you sell privately
• You created the product using resources (licenses) that belonged to a company that you were working for
• You no longer have access to those resources (since you're not working for them anymore)
• You want NI to give you the resources for free so you can continue developing and selling your product

Does that sum it up?

1. No, the license and ownership is devided between users, me and the original company. As I said, this is highly specialized software, and not something to sell in the ordinary sense of the word. Although it can be generalized for a much broader audience, this will be a different license/product altogether.

2. Again, this was a cooperation, but yes, the LV license (a very small part of the total recources) that I used belonged to the other company.

3. Correct, although I have access to a PC with LV on it, it is impractical because I need it on my laptop to be able to work when I have time, for instance on weekends and evenings, and at any place I chose. It is inconvinient to the point of uselessness not to have LV on my own laptop to say the truth.

4. Yes and no. At least I would like them to give me a resonable offer of some sort, an answer at least, some communication. To maintain and develop further is not a fulltime job, maybe only 5-10 % or something depending on how much developement. Most of it is actually teaching new persons to use it. But, I do need a license to do this properly, there has to be some continuity, or I start to forget stuff.

Anyway, I feel one mistake was made, and that was using LV. Any other software development tools and none of these problems would have emerged, that is the important point here. The initial costs or time or whatever, are really totally uninteresting. Here and now, the license policy at NI does not fit the (my) current situation at all. You can say this is mostly due to inconvinience, but not being able to have LV on my laptop is in fact inconvinient to the point where I rather will go for Java, because then I will never ever again end up in this inconvinience again. And yes, I will simply not pay a full LV license fee for something I do, practically speaking, in my spare time. I could get some of the users to purchase a license for me, but I think this is wrong also, at least I will not do this before NI gives me a reasonable offer.

[Yair]

At least I would like them to give me a resonable offer of some sort, an answer at least, some communication.

I accept the second part, though not necessarily the first. LV has a shelf price of X. The sales people might have the ability to sell it for less in certain cases, but it's not given that they HAVE to do it just because of your circumstances. In the end, they're also people and it's possible they just dropped the ball in your case. If the one you talked to didn't work, try talking to them again or talking to another.

Anyway, I feel one mistake was made, and that was using LV.

Here and now, the license policy at NI does not fit the (my) current situation at all.

The way I understand it, your entire issue is about money, right? Admittedly, that's a perfectly legitimate concern (so the two sentences I quoted may very well be correct in your case), but it seems that NI hasn't really mistreated you and that you could easily buy a license if you want to. Whether you want to is up to you.

As for the question of whether NI needs to change their license policy, well, I have no good answer. It's quite possible that their current scheme is the best both for them and for the customers.

[Ton Plomp]

So what you did is writing an extension for LabVIEW, and now you can't afford LabVIEW anymore.

That is what it basically sounds like.

If your customers want you to do support/development you can force them to pay enough to get you a LabVIEW license.

Or you get a debug license for them.

If your product is unique enought (and you protect your IP well) you can ask anything you want.

However I can see the reactions of your clients if you go that route,

What? You developed that for us, and we paid you allready!

Maybe the alliance partnership is of interest for you, I believe you get some discount per sold item.

Try to make your value valued!

One question why do you need to keep up with the latest version of LabVIEW?

You can develop the code in version 7.1 for instance and when a new version comes out, download a trial version and see if your code still works.

Ton

[Anders Björk]

Sounds like the major problem is if NI on demand give possibility to downgrade a current licence? Its an interesting question. By the way I have looked ebay and sometimes complete old labview licenses are sold there.

Does not NI norway sales give you a quote if you ask them for the number of site licences you need for your customers and your development environment?

Edited September 13, 2009 by Anders Björk

[bsvingen]

Does not NI norway sales give you a quote if you ask them for the number of site licences you need for your customers and your development environment?

I haven't asked that specifiq question. I think NI knows exactly what they are doing. Their licencing policy works well in a streamlined corporate world whre LV is used for DAQ and/or for development of DAQ-related software for customers, preferably together with NI Hardware. My error was to believe that LV could be used for more general software development. Technically it can, and it has some advantages with respect to speed of development/coding especially if it can be structured as some kind of toolkit utilizing the LV IDE as much as possible. But the licencing makes it a very rare software development tool that very few people actually understand and knows how to use other than setting up the "usual" logging system. My plan for further development/maintainance was to hand it over to someone at the university or previous employer, but this does not seem to happen anytime soon. There simply is no one that knows the technical part and LV enough to do it. They also have to be interested in doing it. Now I am stuck with it, and I wouldn't mind than if it wasn't for the fact that it will cost me money, but even if it didn't I would still have a problem sooner or later.

Using LV for this was a mistake. That is really all there is to it. Java would be a better solution in the long run. This is not all that different from all the Matlab code that never leaves the cheap university licenses.

[Aristos Queue]

[speaking purely as a developer myself, not speaking in any way for NI for this post.]

Oh, yeah, I've made this mistake before. Not with LV... another tool. In my case it was choosing to use Oracle (licensed to my employer) instead of MySQL (freeware tool). I left that employer and my tools were dead -- I had copies of all my databases, but no way to use them. In a case where I made the right decision, my copy of CorelDraw is mine, paid for out of my pocket, even though Iuse it frequently at work. NI probably would've bought Corel for me once I showed a need for it in my work, but all of my personal graphics projects are in Corel and I don't want to lose access to them if I everleave NI.

Essentially, bsvingen faces a rather classic problem. He used a license registered to entity A to produce software for entity B, and now without access to person A's license, he's stuck without the ability to continue working on the project for entity B.

The solution is not, IMHO, to say, "Never use the licensed tool, always use the free tool." The actual answer is, "Never start a project using tools that have licenses that differ from the owner of the project." In other words, if the project is for entity B, don't use entity A's licenses to develop it. So if this is my personal project, I need a personal license, rather than relying upon my office license, otherwise I end up one day not having access to that license.

Is a personal copy of LV cheap? Heck no. But neither is a personal copy of a lot of cool software. I'd like to say, "use LV for everything it is appropriate for." But I'd also like to get a paycheck every couple weeks, which means LV costs money, which means "use LV if you can afford to use it in all the times where it is appropriate". It'd be nice if it were down around $250, like Visual Studio, but we don't have anywhere near the volume that MS does to be able to make back our expenses at that low a price.

I don't think the licensing takes away from the *language* being a general purpose programming language -- by which I mean, if you have access to LV, you can use LV for any programming project, effectively and efficiently, to the same degree as any other programming language. Every language has its strengths and weaknesses, and LV's particular set of trade-offs are no worse than a lot of other languages. But I do agree with bsvingen that the licensing takes away from the development tool being a general purpose development tool -- by which I mean not all developers will have access to it. That's really what's at the heart of the open source/free software arguments, but while I definitely use open source stuff, and I've contributed back to a few open source projects, and I wrote a lot of shareware back in history, I don't think anyone has figured out how to pay a staff of programmers while charging nothing for the software.

[jzoller]

It'd be nice if it were down around $250, like Visual Studio, but we don't have anywhere near the volume that MS does to be able to make back our expenses at that low a price.

And of course, you won't ever sell enough while the price is closer to $4.3k US. And no, I don't know how to cross that gap... or if it should be crossed.

I wish NI had an ISV program (https://partner.microsoft.com/40066412, for instance), but, as far as I can tell, they've chosen to forego that market.

<shrugs> I develop in C# on my own time now. I'm sure NI will never miss me.

Joe Z.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

This thread makes no sense to me. Maybe it's a cultural misunderstanding.

Now I am stuck with it, and I wouldn't mind than if it wasn't for the fact that it will cost me money, but even if it didn't I would still have a problem sooner or later.

So even if NI gave you a license then you would still have a problem? Why? Can this tool only run in the development environment? Must the end users have the full development environment to use it?

Can you build an executable out of it? This will allow easier distribution of the tool.

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

Is a personal copy of LV cheap? Heck no. But neither is a personal copy of a lot of cool software. I'd like to say, "use LV for everything it is appropriate for." But I'd also like to get a paycheck every couple weeks, which means LV costs money, which means "use LV if you can afford to use it in all the times where it is appropriate". It'd be nice if it were down around $250, like Visual Studio, but we don't have anywhere near the volume that MS does to be able to make back our expenses at that low a price.

The problem I see here is that LabVIEW is compared often with the just a little more than Express Edition of Visual Studio. I do not feel this to be a legitimate comparison for the way we use LabVIEW. With Visual Studio you usually would end up adding other costs such as UI Widget libraries, extra development libraries, etc. Sure you can get some for free but here too, you usually get what you pay for. The other route is to go completely GNU with GCC, and sourceforge and other OSS libraries. This is absolutely a workable path, but to set up an environment in that way that "just works"^TM, is quite a bit more work than doing the same with a professional software IDE like Visual Studio Professional Edition, that last time I checked did cost quite a little more than 250 $ (and that was without any MSDN subscription).

Developing something in JAVA has certainly its merits (such as even better platform independence than LabVIEW), but I remember the OP to have had issues about the very small LabVIEW subroutine calling overhead and with such requirements I'm sure JAVA will not make the code any faster at all.

Note: As Microsoft Partner we do have access to the Visual Studio suite (and many other MS software) but still do the main development in LabVIEW.

I wish NI had an ISV program (https://partner.microsoft.com/40066412, for instance), but, as far as I can tell, they've chosen to forego that market.

The Alliance Partner program comes IMHO close to that

Rolf Kalbermatter

[bsvingen]

The software is like a toolkit, similar to the PID toolkit or one of the simulation toolkits. LV Full development system is needed to use it. Although finished systems can of cource be compiled like any other LV software, this is more like a bi-product, but I have made some of those as well and sold them.

I don’t disagree with A Queue. In hindsight I should have made it clear that B was responsible for my ”personal development license” and any licenses I would need for future maintenance and development. This would have prevented this mess. Nevertheless, policies are policies, and licenses are licenses. That is a fact. By using Java, problems associated with these issues will disappear altogether, that is also a fact.

[crelf]

The actual answer is, "Never start a project using tools that have licenses that differ from the owner of the project." In other words, if the project is for entity B, don't use entity A's licenses to develop it. So if this is my personal project, I need a personal license, rather than relying upon my office license, otherwise I end up one day not having access to that license.

Totally agree. It's like complaining that you can't open a spreadsheet of your home finances that you did at work using your employer's license of Excel. And, depending on the agreement you have with your employer, it might actually be considered against corporate policies.

[bsvingen]

Totally agree. It's like complaining that you can't open a spreadsheet of your home finances that you did at work using your employer's license of Excel. And, depending on the agreement you have with your employer, it might actually be considered against corporate policies.

Not entirely. Although I agree with AQueue as a principle for preventing issues like this, what is going on right now is like this (remember, the license for "my" software is shared between me, A and B, and I only get paid by the hour for development) : My previous employer and B want me to continue maintaining the spreadsheet that they own and use, but they will not give me a license for Excel. MS will not even talk to me, even though I am sole responsible for selling them several licenses of Excel to B and making then continue updating their licenses.

[crelf]

My previous employer ... want(s) me to continue maintaining the spreadsheet that they own and use...

Ah - now I see the issue. Since you put it like that, I'd ask your previous employer to let you use one of their licenses. If they say no, then you say "I can't do the work for you". It's like the example that someone else mentioned: you're a mechanic at an aircraft manufacturer, they give you a hammer to use, then they take it away but still expect you to hammer stuff - your choices are to by your own hammer, or not hammer stuff.

[dannyt]

[speaking purely as a developer myself, not speaking in any way for NI for this post.]

Is a personal copy of LV cheap? Heck no. But neither is a personal copy of a lot of cool software. I'd like to say, "use LV for everything it is appropriate for." But I'd also like to get a paycheck every couple weeks, which means LV costs money, which means "use LV if you can afford to use it in all the times where it is appropriate". It'd be nice if it were down around $250, like Visual Studio, but we don't have anywhere near the volume that MS does to be able to make back our expenses at that low a price.

I do totally understand where Aristos is coming from with this comment, that NI need to make money to pay for their developers etc.

But as my LabVIEW experience grows and I do more and more LabVIEW both at work and occasionally at home, I do feel I am doing the wrong thing because as an individual developer or "home enthusiast" programmer the cost of LabVIEW is out of reach. So the more LabVIEW is do, the more time I spend on it leave me more exposed I sometimes feel I become.

Dannyt

[joshxdr]

I understand the frustration of the poster. Decisions made at the beginning of a project often have unexpected consequences down the line. Be warned, there are risks to going down the free software route. For example, I read a post from someone who was developing a commercial application using Python module PyXML. At the time this was the "official" xml library for Python. A year later, all the volunteers working on PyXML decided that a separate project, Elementree, was cooler, so they abandoned PyXML for Elementree. Now the developer has put time and effort into building an application with a library that see no further added features or bugfixes, and will have declining support since fewer and fewer people will be using it. And you can't go to the volunteers and complain, since they already work for free!

[bsvingen]

Ah - now I see the issue. Since you put it like that, I'd ask your previous employer to let you use one of their licenses. If they say no, then you say "I can't do the work for you". It's like the example that someone else mentioned: you're a mechanic at an aircraft manufacturer, they give you a hammer to use, then they take it away but still expect you to hammer stuff - your choices are to by your own hammer, or not hammer stuff.

But then again, it is also my code, and I am the one that talked people into going this route, licenses and all. All in all the only real conclusion to be extracted from this, is that LV is not the ideal tool for more general purpose programming (trying to be diplomatic here ).

But as my LabVIEW experience grows and I do more and more LabVIEW both at work and occasionally at home, I do feel I am doing the wrong thing because as an individual developer or "home enthusiast" programmer the cost of LabVIEW is out of reach. So the more LabVIEW is do, the more time I spend on it leave me more exposed I sometimes feel I become.

Yes, LV is tuned towards streamline corporate, preferably controlling/measuring expensive and/or critical equipment. Taking it outside that frame, and the cost and time benefits really do not add up. It is similar to an airliner. A ticket with an airliner to the US is cheap, probably the cheapest cost per km you can get with any transport. But this doesn't mean that airliners are cheap, or that you would get the same cost benefit travelling with an airliner to see a movie in a town somewhat close by.

[crelf]

All in all the only real conclusion to be extracted from this, is that LV is not the ideal tool for more general purpose programming (trying to be diplomatic here ).

Quit trying to be diplomatic - it's an open forum, so open up. What *exactly* is the problem. If there's anything you could change, what would it be? Sum it up in one sentance per change.

[Mark Yedinak]

Quit trying to be diplomatic - it's an open forum, so open up. What *exactly* is the problem. If there's anything you could change, what would it be? Sum it up in one sentance per change.

I would venture to guess that he feels that the cost of a license should be more affordable for the one man shops or part time (on the side) consultants. I would love to have my own personal license for LabVIEW but I know that I can't afford or justify the cost. I am employed full-time and am not really doing any side work so I would have a hard time justifying the cost of my own personal license. With that said I can understand NI's licensing fees and structure.

[crelf]

I would venture to guess that he feels that the cost of a license should be more affordable for the one man shops or part time (on the side) consultants.

I think that's what he means as well, but I want it to be clear. I also think that he thinks NI should, at least give him a discount, at most give him free licenses for all the version he's developing for, as he's been directly involved in getting NI sales in the past, but again - I want clarity.

I would love to have my own personal license for LabVIEW but I know that I can't afford or justify the cost. I am employed full-time and am not really doing any side work so I would have a hard time justifying the cost of my own personal license. With that said I can understand NI's licensing fees and structure.

Me too - all the LabVIEW I do is either for work, or helping out here on LAVA. So I guess I'm as guilty as anyone else who uses their work licenses for outside stuff

[bsvingen]

Quit trying to be diplomatic - it's an open forum, so open up. What *exactly* is the problem. If there's anything you could change, what would it be? Sum it up in one sentance per change.

He he, I thought I did. Anyway, it is not as much to change as it is stating the facts. LV is a software for the corporate streamlined marked where DAQ and control of expensive equipment is the heart of the matter. This is a niche (as far as software goes) where there is a lot of money in few units, particularly in hardware but also in software and software related hardware. NI products are tuned to serve this niche, and they do it with excellent results for the customers. Believing, hoping or wanting LV to be anything but that, is wrong, plain and simple.

As an engineer and scientist I have been using LV on and off for 15 years or something, and I know that if I use LV I will get exactly what I want, and I will get it done every time, almost no matter what it is (certainly not as elegant as several virtuoses here, but still ). But, this doesn't change the fact that LV still is exactly what it is (as explained above). So, when the application starts to move outside the core niche boundaries, I will be alone. There will be no one to there to pick it up when I leave because no one knows both the application domain and LV sufficiently. If I had used Java or C the situation would have been very different, but even then I wouln't see a line of people.

The other part is license. This particular application requires approx 5% of my time on average right now, maybe less. For me to pay a full LV license out of my own pocket, seems way out of line. I think I have explained enough how I ended up in this situation, and what should have been done to prevent it. But, the license problem may be solved very soon now, at least within a month. Nevertheless, I still regard this as the number one obstacle for more mainstream LV. Also, most programmers simply hate the idea that the LV luanguage itself is proprietary. Java is already diving into the embedded marked with much more reasonable licencing than NI.

Finally, LV is an excellent tool when used inside its niche. Outside this niche it is also an excellent tool, but exclusively for those persons who already is working inside the niche. Licensing cost will prevent a change, because no one outside the niche will even dream of paying the license for something they perceive (right or wrong, it doen't matter) as a vastly inferior product for making general purpose programs.

[crelf]

Finally, LV is an excellent tool when used inside its niche. Outside this niche it is also an excellent tool, but exclusively for those persons who already is working inside the niche. Licensing cost will prevent a change, because no one outside the niche will even dream of paying the license for something they perceive (right or wrong, it doen't matter) as a vastly inferior product for making general purpose programs.

Well put.