| IDL, GDL, copyright, EULAs and such [message #44694] |
Wed, 06 July 2005 10:12  |
Y.T.
Messages: 25
Registered: December 2004
|
Junior Member |
|
|
So I've been playing around with GDL, simply because I like IDL. I like
GDL's focus on the essentials - I wouldn't mind widget-tools, but I
consider them a luxury, really. And if GDL never acquires the
incomprehensible object junk of IDL, it'll be too soon.
However much of the power of IDL lies in the library, of course - and
thus GDL's weakness lies in the lack of that library.
For now, I figure, there shouldn't be a problem with my re-using the
routines from my valid, legal IDL installation -- it is just a massive
pain when such an essential tool like "linfit" is unavailable. So I
copy it from my /usr/local/rsi to a local GDL-directory. No big deal.
Or is it a big deal? The routine is copyrighted by RSI, no? Am I
allowed to use it on a program like GDL that is quite blatantly
intended to be a free replacement for IDL? Can I use my idl/lib
routines as long as I have a functioning IDL installation? Do I have to
stop using them as soon as my license expires? But the license is only
for IDL, no? That's why the hasp-thingee only protects use of the
binary, right? So the library should be considered "acquired" and still
be allowed to be used with GDL even in the absence of a working IDL.
No? Yes?
The longer I think about it the less sure I am that running GDL might
not be in violation of the "reverse engineering" clause in the IDL
license agreement or some such -- except that that would only apply to
people who actually have a valid installation of IDL since only those
would ever have agreed to that license.
And the IDL license actually never spells out what the "software"
really is that is being licensed -- whether it is IDL itself or also
the contents of idl/lib/*
Since I'm already pretty confused by the whole notion of "intellectual
property" (and much more so on the 'net) I figure I'll throw this out
as an open-ended question -- can I continue to use basic, trivial
functions like "poly.pro" or "factorial.pro" with GDL after IDL has
expired? How about more complex stuff? Why or why not? What's the
status of the routines that were originally from NR?
I'm just baffled.
cordially
Y.T.
--
Remove YourClothes before you email me.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL, GDL, copyright, EULAs and such [message #44758 is a reply to message #44694] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 13:12  |
Michael Wallace
Messages: 409
Registered: December 2003
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> As how plots get drawn:
> GDL uses the plplot library here (which IDL cannot use as it is under
> the GPL). Definitely as far away from reverse engineering (RE) as it
> gets.
I was just using plotting as an example. I wasn't commenting on GDL or
anything else that has a plot feature. I was attempting to say that if
you created a program that mimicked IDL plotting *exactly*, down to the
position of every last pixel, that might fall under the "reverse
engineering" banner in the EULA.
> For me that RE stuff is way overstretched.
I agree. But it is amazing what some companies will try to do to you
with the claim that you reverse engineered something of theirs when it's
actually a completely new implementation. There have been way too many
frivolous lawsuits on stuff like that.
> If just doing something similar would be illegal RE: What about .net
> and mono? What about M$ Office and Openoffice? Unix and Linux? The GNU
> command line programs?...
Doing something *similar* isn't reverse engineering. But doing
something that looks *identical* to something else could be called
reverse engineering. Here, I'm only speaking of large, complicated
programs that a company would sell, or at least contain a restrictive EULA.
> AFAIK a programming language itself cannot be protected anyway. There
> are loads of examples of compilers/interpreters for several proprietary
> languages. Most popular probably Java. Anotherone popular is Octave.
A programming language itself can't be protected because a programming
language is a specification rather than an actual product. You don't
sell the specification; you sell the compiler or interpreter of the
language.
All I was attempting to say with my original comment about "reverse
engineering" is that some companies will attempt to stretch that
definition to cover independent works which behave identically to their
own product. While I do not agree with this definition, it is something
that happens from time to time in the business world and we should be
aware of it, especially if we are creating a product similar to one that
already exists. If all your ducks are in a row, then it should be no
problem whatsoever. I just wanted to add that word of caution to those
asking the original questions regarding what makes certain software
legal or illegal. I was only using GDL as an example; I wasn't trying
to say or imply that GDL, either in part or on the whole, was a reverse
engineered product.
-Mike
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL, GDL, copyright, EULAs and such [message #44759 is a reply to message #44694] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 12:13 |
m_schellens
Messages: 31
Registered: February 2005
|
Member |
|
|
You cited the part where I was talking about
routines written in GDL.
As how plots get drawn:
GDL uses the plplot library here (which IDL cannot use as it is under
the GPL). Definitely as far away from reverse engineering (RE) as it
gets.
For me that RE stuff is way overstretched.
If just doing something similar would be illegal RE: What about .net
and mono? What about M$ Office and Openoffice? Unix and Linux? The GNU
command line programs?...
AFAIK a programming language itself cannot be protected anyway. There
are loads of examples of compilers/interpreters for several proprietary
languages. Most popular probably Java. Anotherone popular is Octave.
Cheers,
marc
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL, GDL, copyright, EULAs and such [message #44763 is a reply to message #44694] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 10:53 |
Michael Wallace
Messages: 409
Registered: December 2003
|
Senior Member |
|
|
m_schellens@hotmail.com wrote:
> I think you can find for every library routine published algorithms
> from some other sources. For scientific software it would not be good
> to use black(-box) magic.
>
> marc
>
Definitely not. I was just trying to make the distinction between
published scientific algorithms and internal IDL algorithms (such as how
plots get drawn).
-Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL, GDL, copyright, EULAs and such [message #44766 is a reply to message #44694] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 08:56 |
Michael Wallace
Messages: 409
Registered: December 2003
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> But if an algorithm is that obvious you can use it of course.
> Just write it yourself and don't copy it.
> It will look different. Even if it is similar: I think nobody could
> convince a judge that you should pay anything because you used
> *similar* code, especially if a subroutine is almost trivial.
> But if you use the *same* code it might be different.
Well, there is one thing that could throw a wrench into the works. It
all depends on what definition of "reverse engineering" RSI is using in
their EULA. In general, reverse engineering is the simply figuring out
how a particular software feature or function works when you do not have
the source code available. Much of the time we think of reverse
engineering as someone getting into the binary files, using decompilers
and figuring things out that way. But, it can also apply to just
figuring out how something works to the point that you can reproduce it
in an independent work.
If an algorithm is purely mathematical and you can point to a source
other than IDL where the algorithm was published, then the reverse
engineering claim doesn't stand. However if you study IDL long enough
and figure out how to duplicate some internal algorithm exactly, then
they could claim you reverse engineered that particular feature, even
though your source code and RSI's code are different.
-Mike
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL, GDL, copyright, EULAs and such [message #44779 is a reply to message #44694] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 18:33 |
Y.T.
Messages: 25
Registered: December 2004
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Ken Mankoff wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Y.T. wrote:
>>> But I think if you look around
>>> http://www.astro.washington.edu/deutsch/idl/htmlhelp/
>>>
>>> You'll find that almost all the IDL code has been duplicated by
>>> someone else somewhere else. You are probably allowed to use
>>> that.
>>
>> Maybe someone needs to start collecting these things and compile
>> them into a "free idl-alike .pro library". The value of something
>> like GDL would really increase drastically through this.
>
> Umm... did you follow the above link? Doesn't that constitute a
> "collection"?
>
Not in any useful sense -- it's just a bunch of pointers that are not
at all sorted by "public-domain"-vs-"proprietary". I can follow these
links and examine every single library that I find and keep only those
that explicitely state that I'm allowed to use it without a valid RSI
license, but that process would be a lot of work (and would be exactly
what I meant with "collect all these").
And in the end, there's a lot of basic functionality that would
probably barf because it relies on the presence of other routines that
RSI supplied. Which are NOT public-domain.
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
