LabVIEW Software License Agreement

[Jim Kring]

About a year ago, on November 25th of 2003, I posted a message (see quote, below) to Info-LabVIEW about how changes to the NI Software License Agreement (NISLA) affect LabVIEW software developers. The verbiage of the current NISLA gives NI the right to declare a software product as being not an "authorized application" if it competes with an NI product. Prior to that, it only prohibited using LabVIEW to create "general purpose tools that permit the development of applications to acquire, display, or analyze data."

Hello Info-LV'ers,

For those of you who haven't read your NISLA (NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT) lately, I suggest that you take a look.  The VISA Serial issue (see thread: "Distributing built application with VISA = Not free") is only the tip of the iceberg, it seems.  The definition of what is an "Authorized Application" (the only type of application you are allowed to create, per the NISLA) has grown to exclude *ANY* applications that compete with *ANY* National Instruments software.  This seems to imply that if one is developing a software product that NI finds valuable, it would be well within NI's rights to start development of a similar product and then issue the competitor a cease and desist order.  This is very troubling, in my opinion, and seems to affect the rights of anyone who distributes *ANY* software written in LabVIEW, for sale or for free.

Any thoughts?  Please, someone at NI, tell me that I am wrong.

Regards,

-Jim Kring

Section 1 Part E of the NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

-- August 2001 (circa LabVIEW 6.1) --

1.E. 

[JohnRH]

Any ideas what we as LabVIEW developers can do to pressure NI into changing their licensing?

Here are some 'brainstorm' type ideas:

1) try opening some sort of formal discussion with NI? (may require some formal organization to represent 'LabVIEW Developers')

2) apply pressure by refusing to buy/upgrade until changes are made (would require huge community support to have any effect at all)

3) continue these open discussions and hope that NI is listening and will change voluntarily?

4) ... anything else?

[PJM_labview]

This is an intentional duplicate post from the Poll: NI Software Licensing thread

Following is another official answer by NI:

I

[Mike Ashe]

Thanks Jim for your great post. This is indeed a very important topic, which has, unfortunately, been somewhat obscured by the License Manager topic. They are related, but ultimately I think the two clauses you quote from the 7.1 License are more problematic and more important for the LabVIEW User community to address with NI.

For NI, or any other company, to say what we can and cannot create with the tools they sell, especially the clause about anything competing with ANY of their software is crossing the line from protection of their product by prevention of theft (illegal copying) into anti-competitive behavior that at best will eventually drive away loyal customers and at worst be actionable in courts, both legal and the court of public opinion.

The way the current clause is written, well, lets use a simple analogy of physical tools:

Suppose we go out to buy a milling machine, from say Ingersoll or Grizzly or Bridgeport. Bridgeport might be the best example as they are probably the biggest. As I am installing the Bridgeport in my machine shop I start reading the User Manual and find a reference to the Start Switch tag and the License Agreement. Sure enough, I find tye-wrapped around the Start Switch a tag that says breaking the tag and using the machine makes me agree with the license and the license includes clauses like the two in question in NI's 7.1 license. I cannot use the Bridgeport to mill any parts that by themselves or in conjunction with any other parts, might compete with anything that Bridgeport sells. What would be the reaction of machine shops owners to that? I intend to poll a few and then publish the results here.

Or simpler, you go to Sears and buy a toolset for Christmas and on the package it says that breaking the shrinkwrap means you agree that you won't make anything with the tools that might compete with or replace anything, not only in the tool set, but any other thing Sears makes or sells. Sears has a pretty big catalog. Has anyone noticed that although the physical size of NIs catalog has gone down, the number of toolsets/addons to LabVIEW has skyrocketed in the last couple of years?

I appreciate Mr. Gardner's pledge to work with the community to address our issues with the current NI license and also the comments of several other NI employees here, on OpenG and Info-LabVIEW that NI is not going to use these clauses to stifle our work artifacts. These sentiments are appreciated but are not from NI's legal department and until we hear from them, in writting, we will have no assurance that our creativity, innovation and labor will be rewarded in the marketplace.

The bottom line is that NI does not need these clauses in their License and continued inclusion is simply intimidation. I strongly suspect that these two clauses would be ruled invalid with a strong court challenge, but the reality is that NI has the deep pockets to sustain an expensive legal defense, (or offense, should they try to invoke these clauses and tell someone to cease and desist development or sale of a competing product), while most or all of us as users of LabVIEW do not have the resources to defend, even if we are right and the clauses are anti-competitive and unenforceable.

If NI's tools and toolkits cannot compete on their own merit and price-performance value, then these two clauses are a poor second-string defense and need to go. NI does not need them and neither do we.

[didierj]

If NI's tools and toolkits cannot compete on their own merit and price-performance value, then these two clauses are a poor second-string defense and need to go.  NI does not need them and neither do we.

3149[/snapback]

I would even say if they already made the way to the EULA then NI's toolkits (or at least some of them) are already nuts and are not worth the money.

The second programming language I use, Delphi, comes with 2! filled CD's with companion products and toolkits from their community. Quite a few of them are direct competitors to the tools you get when you make a standard installation.

What I mean with this is, Borland doesn't need to repress their community. They are even happy when someone brings a tool that is better than what they did (e.g. Rave reports, Indy-DB,... included in the standard package).

For me it seems that NI wants to be the sole player for Graphical programming. They would better focus back to their roots and look, IMHO, that LV finally reaches the level other languages holds (e.g. UI, programming techniques, project management).

Around the world are so many people who are willing to help NI by wiring nice tools and "helpers". If these clauses keeps in the EULA NI is going to destroy his own supporters.

Didier

[Yair]

NI has released an official response to these requests Here.

[didierj]

NI has released an official response to these requests Here.

4636[/snapback]

:thumbup: What a nice response. Congratulation to each of you who helped!

As many of us suspected, the activation won't disappear, but at least seems to leave us some "free air" to work. Software activation is soooo popular that we will see more and more software be tied to it :thumbdown: .

Since I haven't any other sw product from NI that needs activation, could someone explain me what it involves? Is it something like winXP?

Didier

[i2dx]

:thumbup: What a nice response. Congratulation to each of you who helped!

As many of us suspected, the activation won't disappear, but at least seems to leave us some "free air" to work. Software activation is soooo popular that we will see more and more software be tied to it :thumbdown: .

Since I haven't any other sw product from NI that needs activation, could someone explain me what it involves? Is it something like winXP?

Didier

4640[/snapback]

yes, it's like xp.

you need a "code" to activate your product via internet in the license manager.

take a look at CVI 7.1 and you see how it works. According to my (more or less reliable) information NI will implement an activate mechanism in LV8.

i am not glad about this "feature" but i can live with it, but i am glad NI has changed the license agreement !

[lorinkundert]

Microsoft tried the same type of crap several years ago and was defeated in various court cases, LabVIEW like Visual Studio

is a tool, what you create with it is your business, If that type of licensing held up that would stop all development of any type of software, I would predict that NI is reaching the size that would make it ripe for litigation.

About a year ago, on November 25th of 2003, I posted a message (see quote, below) to Info-LabVIEW about how changes to the NI Software License Agreement (NISLA) affect LabVIEW software developers.  The verbiage of the current NISLA gives NI the right to declare a software product as being not an "authorized application" if it competes with an NI product.  Prior to that, it only prohibited using LabVIEW to create "general purpose tools that permit the development of applications to acquire, display, or analyze data."

To say the least, some people at NI were upset that I didn't come and talk to them about the issue, before announcing it to the world.  Well, it wouldn't have mattered anyway because nothing has changed in the situation, and its been just over a year now.

NI has been very assertive, in private conversations, that there is no intention to enforce the NISLA against OpenG, Alliance Members, or other folks creating software products developed using LabVIEW.  However, NI's intentions for enforcement of the NISLA don't provide much of a foundation for the future of LabVIEW software developers.  Goodwill only goes so far, since companies change (as do their markets, employees, strategies, etc).  The current NISLA agreement does not lend itself to LabVIEW's use as general purpose software development environment.  It boxes it into a mode where it can only be used as an interactive test and measurement environment.  Due to the legal implications of the NISLA, the software artifact work products of LabVIEW software development become worthless.  In my opinion, this is not fair for people that have spent a good fraction of their professional career's learning to do software development using LabVIEW/G.

I would love to see the NISLA change.  The LabVIEW community has been an important factor to the success of NI.  Taking away the community's ability to create software products written in G, is going to push people away from LabVIEW and on to other software development tools.  As most of you probably know, NI's first patents on G begin to expire in the next couple of years.  Following that, there will be competing products coming into existence, both open source and commercial, which will provide the ability to develop software written in G.  I am concerned that NI will push away the LabVIEW software developer community and drive it to competing products.  In my opinion, if things keep going down the same road with the NISLA people will be very happy to jump ship.

This posting will probably make a few more waves at NI, but that's OK.  This is an important issue and NI has a lot to gain by preserving its relationship with long-time LabVIEW users and working together with them to find a more appropriate licensing scheme as the G language becomes a more open and less proprietary software development language.

3092[/snapback]

[lorinkundert]

Unfortunately those changes will not be enough for various segments of business, Medical, Military and any others that prohibit and external connection or communication to 3rd parties. That should significantly reduce the demand for NI products just as many of those business areas are moving to Linux.

:thumbup: What a nice response. Congratulation to each of you who helped!

As many of us suspected, the activation won't disappear, but at least seems to leave us some "free air" to work. Software activation is soooo popular that we will see more and more software be tied to it :thumbdown: .

Since I haven't any other sw product from NI that needs activation, could someone explain me what it involves? Is it something like winXP?

Didier

4640[/snapback]

[m3nth]

Unfortunately those changes will not be enough for various segments of business, Medical, Military and any others that prohibit and external connection or communication to 3rd parties. That should significantly reduce the demand for NI products just as many of those business areas are moving to Linux.

4656[/snapback]

Point taken, but I think that's a pretty narrowminded assumption about the way NI will implement the activation of their software. I say, wait and see... it probably won't be so bad.

[didierj]

Unfortunately those changes will not be enough for various segments of business, Medical, Military and any others that prohibit and external connection or communication to 3rd parties. That should significantly reduce the demand for NI products just as many of those business areas are moving to Linux.

4656[/snapback]

Not only medical and military! Thanks to mydoom, lovesan, sober (..and how all the others are named :thumbdown: ) also industry prohibit connection to the internet. In our company my computer belongs to a handful of them that can reach the outer world. On the computers in production (where I usually debug my LV programs), i'm logged in as simple user and can't reach internet.

I hope NI is also going to offer a phone registration. May I express my thought: if you have the right connection (e.g. us military) and with signing enough papers/declarations, NI might also offer a activation-free version???

Didier

[Jim Kring]

I guess I'll chime in again, since I started this thread. I am very happy to see that NI has really taken this issue to heart, understands its impact, and is going to work to help the community continue to use LabVIEW as a software development environment. I am sure that a lot of time, energy, and resources have been spent by NI on this issue I commend them for making this investment in the foundation of their relationship with their customers. I haven't seen the new license, as it has not yet been posted to the NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT page on ni.com -- I am cautiously optimistic. :thumbup:

[Jim Kring]

The new license (NISLA - July 2005) is now available on the NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT page on NI's website. I am happy to say that the non-compete verbiage has been removed.

You can read more of my thoughts on the matter here, on my blog.