| Re: gif license [message #27712 is a reply to message #27667] |
Fri, 02 November 2001 07:16   |
Dennis Boccippio
Messages: 23
Registered: July 2000
|
Junior Member |
|
|
In article <xmzsnbyjtqj.fsf@esa.nascom.nasa.gov>,
Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan <shaugan@esa.nascom.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Dennis Boccippio <djboccip@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Update: we got hit with the $475 'processing fee' as well (NASA/MSFC
>> for their 'governmental use' agreement) but no other fees.
>
> Shouldn't NASA simply pay up *one time* for the agreement? Sounds like $475
> for an agency-wide agreement is not a huge expense. The paperwork involved in
> actually getting it done by NASA might cost two orders of magnitude more,
> however.
>
Only problem there is that it's not clear we could (agencywide) answer
all of their questions in a way which would guarantee a $475 "no-charge"
limited agreement. I can't vouch that other NASA IDL users wouldn't use
IDL/LZW for applications which might violate Unisys' idea of acceptable
use. E.g., if IDL was used as the back-end of a (publicly available)
cgi-script to generate and distribute GIFs, it seems like we indeed
would be exporting functionality, rather than just 'latent'
functionality (code)... (?)
>> Restrictions
>> include no redistribution of software incorporating LZW functionality,
>> which I read to mean we can't send homegrown IDL code with
>> READ_GIF/WRITE_GIF functionality to our data users.
>
> Of course you can - you're not sending them the LZW functionality, you're just
> sending programs which rely on that functionality. But your users have to pay
> the processing fee, or somehow use an IDL version that provides the
> READ_GIF/WRITE_GIF routines..
I dunno, that seems a semantic point that I'd be cautious to concede.
Copyright/patent lawyers have a strange logic all their own, and the one
thing I learned about copyright law (granted, a separate issue) when
working with online journal policy is that logical interpretation by
laymen is ill advised :-) For NASA's sake, I'd rather play it safe.
Actually for my own sake, since N has no qualms about holding employees
responsible for errors in judgment :-)
>
>> Debating whether or
>> not its worth it... the 6/03 expiration info is helpful...
>
> Isn't it.. Also, if you're a user that should pay no money for the license,
> because you're not making money off LZW, I don't think anyone would get far
> with an infringement lawsuit (i.e. can they sue you for not paying the
> processing fee?). However, I'm not a lawyer.. ;-)
Yeah, and I doubt the Unisys Police are trolling the NASA software
distribution URLs. Nonetheless, it's a relatively low-cost CYA
measure...
The bigger problem is how to actually PAY them. Their payment options
that came along with the draft agreement aren't particularly
government-bureaucracy-friendly. Nice of them to make it easy to do the
right thing...
DJB
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
