Can someone compile this into an .exe file?
Reggie
I don't have matlab but would like to use a program that works only with matlab.
http://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~milanfar/software/superresolution.html
http://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~milanfar/software/MDSP_MATLAB7.zip
The program hasn't yet been compiled into an .exe file for windows. Could someone compile the program into an .exe file and of course include the matlab runtime files so I can try this program. Would appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance.
Mark Shore
As a non-user of MATLAB I think you may be unaware of the scale of this request. You would probably be better off contacting the MathWorks to see if you can arrange a trial license.
Walter Roberson
> I don't have matlab but would like to use a program that works only with
> matlab.
> The program hasn't yet been compiled into an .exe file for windows.
> Could someone compile the program into an .exe file and of course
> include the matlab runtime files so I can try this program.
No, that would be a violation of the Matlab license terms for the
compiler. Only the organization responsible for the code is authorized
to license the Matlab compiler to distribute the compiled version of the
code to outside of the original organization.
Reggie
ImageAnalyst
you to believe. There are lots of things that could go wrong. For
example, see the FAQ:
http://matlab.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ#My_standalone_executable_won.27t_run_on_the_target_computer._What_can_I_try.3F
So then this nice person would be stuck going back and forth with you
compiling, deploying, testing, and then repeating until it finally
works. It will then work until you make a change to your program and
need it recompiled, and then you'd require the friendly stranger's
assistance again. I know you think it might be trivial but I've
compiled and deployed maybe a dozen apps and it rarely goes smoothly
the first time. Most issues involve the path and things not being
where you or it thinks they should be. So you're really asking a lot
for a stranger to do all this for you. Unfortunately, it's more
difficult than you think.
Reggie
ImageAnalyst
> I am not looking to change the program at all, just use as is. I only asked, and if, someone would like to help if they have the time that would be nice and I would appreciate it.
But fortunately they DO offer a free trial so you can do it yourself.
On the trial software download page, it's just listed as "MATLAB
Compiler" instead of "Compiler Toolbox" like most or all of the other
toolboxes. So good luck.
When you encounter your snafu, and if it's not yet on the FAQ, write
back and let us know what's going wrong.
Reggie
Walter Roberson
> Really. Could I do it myself though if I obtained a trial version of
> matlab?
Hmmm, I don't know if you can get a trial version that includes the compiler,
but perhaps it is possible. But since you didn't write the software yourself,
compiling for yourself would not be within the terms of the license agreement
as I understand them.
> The code doesn't seem to be restricted or closed source,
If it does not explicitly say that it is Public Domain, then it is almost
certainly not Public Domain. (Computers have barely been around long enough
for it to be possible for any program to have fallen in to Public Domain due
to 50 years having elapsed from the death of the last co-author.)
If it is not Public Domain and there is no explicit license agreement that
your use would fall within the terms of, then it is legally copyrighted and
not usable without permission, even if there is no explicit copyright or
authorship notice (with the possible exception of programs written before 1971
in the USA.)
> so I
> don't understand why someone else can't do it. I guess it would be nice
> to see the license agreement.
I am not a Mathworks representative, and I do not have the latest software
version. I have copied out relevant parts of the 2008b agreements.
-------------
THE MATHWORKS, INC. SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT - Deployment Addendum
4. DEFINITIONS
4.1. Application. A software file that Licensee has created by either (a)
using a MathWorks Program to compile or translate Licensee created
Source Code or (b) incorporating or linking any part of any Source
Code, library file, or other Program Component provided with the
Program. An Application must contain original code developed by
Licensee and must provide substantial functionality not contained in,
or provided by, the Program Components that are incorporated into
such Application. If a software file created by a Licensee
incorporates Program Components, but does not meet the requirements
of the previous sentence, then it is a Derivative Form (as defined
below). An Application may contain Linked Object Code which, if such
Object Code was not Linked to the Application and was a standalone
file, would otherwise have been deemed a Derivative Form.
5.1. MATLAB Application Deployment Programs
5.1.1. MATLAB Compiler. Licensee may use and distribute the MCR
Libraries for the sole purpose of running Licensed User's
Application generated by the MATLAB Compiler. Licensee may
deploy, at no cost, copies of such Applications that incorporate
the MCR Libraries and compiled versions of M-files from the
licensed Programs required for the Application. No further fees
shall be due to MathWorks for such deployment within such
Applications, regardless of whether the Application is
distributed solely for Licensee's Internal Operations or to Third
Parties.
Licensee may make copies of the MCR Libraries accessible for
deployment on an internal server provided such deployment is
solely to its Licensed Users for use with an Application and for
Licensee's Internal Operations only. Licensee agrees to employ
the same security measures to protect the MCR Libraries as it
uses to safeguard Licensee's own proprietary intellectual
property, but in no event less than reasonable care. No further
fees shall be due to MathWorks for such server deployment.
Licensee is prohibited from making copies of the MCR Libraries
accessible to any Third Party separate from a Licensed User's
Application.
--------------
Focusing on key parts: "[...] sole of running Licensed User's Application",
and "compile or translate Licensee created Source Code". If the Licensee of
the compiler did not create the Source Code, then by the terms, it is not the
Licensed User's Application, and the Licensed User would then be prohibited
from distributing the Application and necessary MCR files to you.
> I am not looking to change the program at all, just use as is. I only
> asked, and if, someone would like to help if they have the time that
> would be nice and I would appreciate it.
Yes, it would be _nice_, but it is not allowed by Mathworks.
ImageAnalyst
> Does anybody know how long to get access to a trial? I've signed up but it seems i have to wait to be contacted by a rep. Does anybody know of direct links? I don't know if it is okay but I'd just thought I'd ask.
------------------
They're on Eastern US time - they've probably gone home for the
night. Wait until tomorrow. Call them tomorrow if you're in a rush.
I don't believe you can download it until they've approved it.
Peyman Milanfar
format, was produced by my research group at the University of
California. To echo "Walter Robertson"'s comment below, let me warn
"Reggie" and everyone else:
Converting this software to a form not authorized by the University of
California, is a direct violation of the implicit license agreement
for use of the software, and subject to prosecution. Needless to say,
if we wanted to issue and .exe version, we would have done it
ourselves.
Furthermore, the following patents held by the University of
California cover the operation of the software and related technology.
* US Patent 7,379,612, P. Milanfar, S. Farsiu, M. Elad, "Dynamic
Reconstruction of High-Resolution Video from Color-Filtered Low-
Resolution Video-to-Video Super-Resolution," issued 2008
* US Patent 7,412,107 P. Milanfar, S. Farsiu, M. Elad, "System and
Method for Robust Multi-Frame Demosaicing and Color Super-Resolution,"
issued 2008
* US Patent 7,477,802, P. Milanfar, S. Farsiu, D. Robinson, M.
Elad , "Robust reconstruction of high resolution grayscale images from
a sequence of low resolution frames," issued Jan 2009
--
Peyman Milanfar
Professor of Electrical Engineering
UC Santa Cruz
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~milanfar
Reggie
Peyman Milanfar
motivation for wanting the software in .exe format. Afterall if you
simply got a trial version of matlab, you could just run our software
-- did this just not occur to you? Instead you seem to want the .exe
version by whatever means necessary.
Reggie
Walter Roberson
If you got the full version of Matlab, you would be able to use the
software indefinitely (unless otherwise stated in the license of the
software you are interested in.)
If you are eligible for the student version of Matlab, then I am not
certain of the time limits on it (or whether there are different
licenses with different time limits), but it is pretty inexpensive...
not much more than $100 per year as long as you remain eligible.
Reggie
Sean
> Actually, I don't think I would want to pay that much or any for matlab. I tried to run the program in open source alternatives like octave, freemat, scilab but it didn't work. Since it is possible to compile into an .exe, I don't see why it can't/hasn't been done by the author(s) of the code. It would enable non-matlab users to try it out. I also know that you have to have the matlab rcompiler runtime to use the software even if it is an .exe file, but that can be distributed along with the program.
Let me point something out that might save you some time. Even if/when you do get a trial license of the Matlab Compiler, the resulting EXE file will only work for a limited amount of time. For the EXE to work indefinitely, you must buy the full version of Matlab and the compiler (and whatever toolboxes where used to build the original application). Sorry.
Walter Roberson
> Actually, I don't think I would want to pay that much or any for matlab.
> I tried to run the program in open source alternatives like octave,
> freemat, scilab but it didn't work.
I find myself drawn towards the conclusion that you are not a serious
academic researcher. I *speculate* that the people that wrote the code
in question are aiming the code at serious academic research only;
considering the patents they mention, I suspect they expect to
commercialize or license (for a fee) the technology for other uses.
> Since it is possible to compile into an .exe, I don't see why it
> can't/hasn't been done by the author(s) of the code. It would enable
> non-matlab users to try it out.
What would be in it for them? If you are not yourself a serious academic
researcher, then if you just have a fixed and inflexible version of the
code, what would you have of substantial value to contribute back to
them, quid pro quo ? How much time and effort would they have to extend
to supporting the free users and undergrad students who don't have any
clear understanding of what the program is supposed to do and ask for
help or report bugs that are really misunderstandings or failure to read
the documentation?
It is perhaps impolitic to say so outright, but expecting the program
user to have a full Matlab copy acts as a very useful filter, reducing
the users to the more serious and more interested ones. Mathwork's
prices for Academic licenses (for staff and faculty at degree-granting
institutions) are relatively reasonable.
I know that there are some professors who refuse to use any software
that is not open licensed, for philosophical reasons, but while those
professors might write to a program's authors and explain the benefits
of going open licensed, those professors would not push for a no-fee
version of a program that did not have an open license. Be consistent in
your views: if you are willing to use non-open programs at all, then be
willing to pay what they are worth to you. If you aren't willing to use
non-open programs, then you wouldn't be using MS Windows at all.
Reggie
James Tursa
> I don't see why I have to be a academic researcher to use the software. I just came across the software, was interested in using it for personal use, asked nicely about getting it to be used for everyday use, that is all. I don't see why people can't understand that. I am not begging or going against any rules by just asking. By the way the tag about send me freebie is not what this is about.
I think you have been getting a bit too much flack about this. I think your original request was very reasonable, albeit as has already been pointed out the request would involve quite a lot more work that you probably anticipated, and may run afoul of the MATLAB Compiler licensing agreement stating that the compiler can only be used with your own s/w (per Walter's post).
You don't need to be an academic researcher to use the software as you seem to think. Quoting from the license section of the website:
"It is provided for noncommercial research purposes only."
Since you state that it is for your own personal use, that qualifies as noncommercial research so you are legally allowed to use the s/w IMO. I would also hazard a guess that any reasonable interpretation of fair use for "research" purposes would allow you to modify the s/w (a derivative work) for your research purposes. None of this would violate any patents involved since you have already explicitly been given permission by the owners to use the s/w.
It remains a question as to whether or not compiling the code would violate the license. Quite frankly, other than the MATLAB Compiler license issue, I don't see how this could possibly be so (Peyman Milanfar comments notwithstanding). There are countless copyrighted source code files out on the web (C, Fortran, etc. etc.). Many have executables paired with them. Let's talk about the ones with an explicit license allowing you to use them. It is *expected* that you as the user will have to compile them for your machine if for some reason the supplied executable does not work. You may even have to modify the source code for machine specific stuff. All this falls under fair use and in no way infringes on any copyrights or patents involved. Your derivative work still falls under the original copyrights & patents limiting what you can do with it, but for your own use it is perfectly legal. I
am not an expert here, but would be surprised to find any court cases (Walter, know of any?) where fair use didn't allow a user to modify legally obtained s/w solely to get it to run on his machine.
I would be interested in hearing from Peyman Milanfar as to what law is thought to be violated for a legal user to create a derivative work (i.e. modified or compiled) for research purposes.
James Tursa
Reggie
Walter Roberson
> I don't see why I have to be a academic researcher to use the software.
I work at a research organization (not at all related to the one which
wrote the software you would like to use.) We get some flat funding, but
that only covers about 1/3 of our budget. The rest of our budget we have
to earn, whether by contracts or by competing for grants (e.g., being
considered one of the best two proposals out of 100 applicants), or by
licensing our intellectual property such as by creating patents and
licensing them.
Some of what we produce we can release for free, if the development was
covered by grants that allowed for that. However, any major work that we
do did not happen to be covered by grants we have to hope we can license
the rights to. A project that results in three patents is fairly likely
a major project: it is time consuming and expensive to get a patent, and
a research organization like I work for, or a University such as where
the software you are interested in is from, are loath to expend that
time and money except for big new and commercially viable breakthroughs.
So it is that at organizations such as the one I work for, that if you
want to use a program that we have developed and we have not released
the program under open source, that we expect to receive value in
return. That value can either be actual payment or it can be
intellectual value by way of formal collaborations with people known to
have experience and skills in an area likely to add value to the project.
If you were to approach the organization I work for and ask to use one
of our non-open programs for free, and we had not heard of you or your
organization before, we would probably just say NO unless you had taken
the time to put together a written proposal that made it clear what
value we would get out of granting permission. That you would be
grateful for it or that it would be a "nice thing to do" would not suffice.
I am, by the way, not just speaking theoretically. I have written a
number of programs that are not worth commercializing. From time to time
I have been asked by people whether they can use one of my programs.
Most of the time my inclination has been to just send the code, but
because the rights to the code are owned by my employer, I have to ask
for permission -- and I have been repeatedly been told NO, that we don't
get any value of giving away the programs. Yes, the organization is
willing to lease rights to use one of my programs, but our starting
price for such things is somewhere around $20,000. These rules do not,
however, apply to our official academic collaborators, as helping them
out helps them be more effective in creating value for us to use.
> I just came across the software, was interested in using it for personal
> use, asked nicely about getting it to be used for everyday use, that is
> all.
Generally speaking, if someone clearly says NO, then continuing to argue
for use of the program is considered to be going beyond "asking nicely".
Walter Roberson
> You may even have to modify the
> source code for machine specific stuff. All this falls under fair use
> and in no way infringes on any copyrights or patents involved.
"fair use" is a USA concept that does not form part of the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Intellectual Property Treaty
(IPT). There is no "fair use" in Canada, for example: Canada has "Fair
Dealing" which is considerably more restrictive than the US's "Fair Use".
> Your
> derivative work still falls under the original copyrights & patents
> limiting what you can do with it, but for your own use it is perfectly
> legal.
Derivative works are specifically prohibited by US and Canadian law,
with some fairly narrow exemptions, some of which are at the State level
rather than the federal level. I would need to cross-check whether
Canada eventually adapted a law allowing general software derivative
works to the extent needed to run the program on the user's hardware.
The only general exemption that I am relatively sure of at the moment in
Canada is for adaptation of a program to work with devices to read to
the blind.
> I am not an expert here, but would be surprised to find any court
> cases (Walter, know of any?) where fair use didn't allow a user to
> modify legally obtained s/w solely to get it to run on his machine.
I do not have cases on hand, but I am relatively sure that Canada has
ruled against this in several Supreme Court cases in the past. In
particular, I am thinking of cases involving satellite TV systems, with
the hardware and software rights sold as a bundle, with people buying
their own hardware (often from other countries) and then installing the
software (possibly one that had been "cracked" to be usable with that
hardware) so as to be able to obtain the desired service less
expensively than the provider was offering. This was ruled to be
copyright violation and theft of telecommunications service. There was
an earlier Canadian Supreme Court case having to do with the production
of ROMS, but the details are escaping me at the moment: I seem to recall
the ROMS allowed software created by one manufacturer to be used on
another manufacture's computer, and I seem to recall the ruling against
that was blanket rather than based upon whether the purchaser could
provide proof that they had purchased a software license.
Canada's parliament is debating a revised copyright bill during this
session. One of the features of the revised bill is that if the software
or content provider had included *any* encryption (no matter how weak)
that restricted the use of the material, then it would be completely
illegal to bypass the encryption, even for adaptation for use by the
blind, and even for the purpose of adapting to one's hardware.
I don't know whether you happen to recall an early Adobe related case in
the USA where Adobe had a researcher arrested when the researcher came
to the USA to present a paper showing that one of Adobe's products used
ROT13 encoding (also known as the Caeser Cypher). Adobe backed down on
that. In Canada, if the proposed copyright law was in effect, it would
not be up to Adobe, as it would be a criminal case and criminal cases
are the domain of the Crown, not any particular company.
James Tursa
> On 30/11/10 12:32 PM, James Tursa wrote:
>
> Derivative works are specifically prohibited by US and Canadian law,
> with some fairly narrow exemptions, some of which are at the State level
> rather than the federal level. I would need to cross-check whether
> Canada eventually adapted a law allowing general software derivative
> works to the extent needed to run the program on the user's hardware.
Exactly ... that is what I don't know as well. If one has a legal license to use a product, are code modifications necessary to get the product to run on his/her hardware considered fair use or are they considered illegal? Particularly in the case where the original copyright/patent owner has given a free license to use the product for research. That is what I was hoping you could answer. I couldn't find anything definitive on this point in my limited web searches.
> > I am not an expert here, but would be surprised to find any court
> > cases (Walter, know of any?) where fair use didn't allow a user to
> > modify legally obtained s/w solely to get it to run on his machine.
>
> I do not have cases on hand, but I am relatively sure that Canada has
> ruled against this in several Supreme Court cases in the past. In
> particular, I am thinking of cases involving satellite TV systems, with
> the hardware and software rights sold as a bundle, with people buying
> their own hardware (often from other countries) and then installing the
> software (possibly one that had been "cracked" to be usable with that
> hardware) so as to be able to obtain the desired service less
> expensively than the provider was offering. This was ruled to be
> copyright violation and theft of telecommunications service.
That is an interesting case, but I wonder if it is applicable here since the users in your cited case had to reverse-engineer the s/w ("crack") as opposed to using freely supplied source code. I am still having trouble grasping the idea that someone would supply you source code for research and then object to you tweaking and/or compiling said source code for the research. Having a 3rd party doing the tweaking and/or compiling I can understand the concern, the compiled version could be interpreted as a derivative work that the 3rd party has no right to distribute. But to do it yourself (e.g., using a trial version of MATLAB yourself) I just don't quite get. But, like I said earlier, I am certainly not an expert on this topic.
James Tursa
Walter Roberson
> Exactly ... that is what I don't know as well. If one has a legal
> license to use a product, are code modifications necessary to get the
> product to run on his/her hardware considered fair use or are they
> considered illegal? Particularly in the case where the original
> copyright/patent owner has given a free license to use the product for
> research. That is what I was hoping you could answer. I couldn't find
> anything definitive on this point in my limited web searches.
A basic principle of copyright law is that any license which is not granted is
reserved. If the license terms do not specify that it is permissible to create
derivative works, then it is not permissible, except as provided for in broad
legal exemptions such as use with equipment for the blind.
The professor has, if I understand correctly, asserted that the usage license
does not grant the right to create derivative works of the software at hand. I
haven't read through the license terms so I have no opinion. It is not
impossible that the professor somehow became misinformed about the limits of
the license terms, but it seems likely to me that the team worked with their
university lawyer in setting the license terms.
There is a fair bit of dismay that the proposed Canadian copyright revision
would put encryption as an absolute bar to adaptation, as "audio books" often
have license protection schemes for normal use; with current law the blind can
bypass those protection schemes to use the audio books with whatever brand of
equipment they happen to own; if encryption becomes an absolute bar then they
would have to buy whatever kind of reader the book was designed for and hope
that they could figure out how to use it (slim-line cases and LCD displays
don't fit well with Braille...)
James Tursa
> On 10-11-30 02:28 PM, James Tursa wrote:
>
> The professor has, if I understand correctly, asserted that the usage license
> does not grant the right to create derivative works of the software at hand. I
> haven't read through the license terms so I have no opinion. It is not
> impossible that the professor somehow became misinformed about the limits of
> the license terms, but it seems likely to me that the team worked with their
> university lawyer in setting the license terms.
The professor has not specifically called a compiled version a "derivative" work ... that was a term I brought up in an earlier post. What the professor claims is as follows:
"Converting this software to a form not authorized by the University of
California, is a direct violation of the implicit license agreement
for use of the software, and subject to prosecution."
However, the entire license statement on the front web page is as follows:
"This is experimental software. It is provided for noncommercial research purposes only. Use at your own risk. No warranty is implied by this distribution. Copyright © 2009 by University of California"
That seems pretty broad to me, and I see nothing in the above license that would disallow a noncommercial researcher from compiling the code in order to use it. That is what one commonly does with source code, compile it. Frankly I wouldn't have even thought it would have been an issue at all except for the professor's post. Maybe there is other language somewhere else ... I haven't looked at all the web pages on the site nor have I looked at all of the source code provided. Not sure what the word "implicit" means in the above claim either. In any event, the question is whether compiling the source code in order to use the source code is somehow afoul of the explicit license listed above or some other "implicit" license (and I don't know what that means).
James Tursa
Reggie
Mark Shore
> The license isn't really specific at all. It is just a few lines not saying what you can/can't do. The software is free, since one can download and use it if they have matlab. Like I stated above, it would be nice to know the real reason of not compiling for anybody to use.
As can be gleaned from the previous posts, compilation into a stand-alone executable program using the MATLAB compiler is often time-consuming, buggy and difficult, toolbox and OS-specific, brings up numerous licensing issues and has little or no academic value to its originators or users since the MATLAB run-time environment and development platform are one and the same, and source code is easily read and modified.
Turn the question around: apart from commercial for-profit purposes, why would anyone do so?
Walter Roberson
> The license isn't really specific at all. It is just a few lines not
> saying what you can/can't do.
The User Manual says,
"This software package is available for licensing. Please contact Prof. Peyman
Milanfar (mila...@ee.ucsc.edu) if you wish to obtain this code for research
or commercial purposes."
I have checked the readable portions of the source file, and there are no
explicit copyright or license statements there. In the absence of such
statements, no rights are granted.
> The software is free, since one can
> download and use it if they have matlab.
There is more than one meaning to the word "free". The software is no cost to
use *in its existing form* for "non-commercial research purposes". For any
other usage, contact the professor, or contact MotionDSP Inc..
For example, the special nature of the organization I work for causes some
people to consider it to be "research" and some people to consider it
"academic", and other people to consider that we definitely do not fall under
either category. Therefore if we wanted to try the software at the
organization I work for, we would have to seek clarification of how they
classified us, because if they classified us with "commercial" we would not be
entitled to run the software for free.
> Like I stated above, it would
> be nice to know the real reason of not compiling for anybody to use.
The professor stated that they do not owe you an explanation.
I do not know the professors mind, but I can point out facts that are rather
suggestive:
If you check out the name of the software and compare it to the name of the
commercial company, you will see that the commercial company name is a minor
variation on the name of the software, and thus that the commercial company
was probably spun off to handle all further development work on the software.
If one clicks on the link for the website of the commercial company, you will
see that "MotionDSP specializes in cutting-edge video enhancement and image
processing software, providing unrivaled performance in terms of quality,
speed, and ease of use." Now look at the two products they highlight on their
home page, Ikena and Ikena ISR. What is Ikena's described market? What is
Ikena ISR's described market? Law Enforcement and Forensics for the former,
and "intelligence and situational awareness" for the latter. In particular the
ISR package is noted to be suited for analysis of video from UAV (Unmaned
Ariel Vehicles).
Now, knowing that the technology was taken and adapted for law enforcement and
"situational intelligence" (i.e., military intelligence), do you really expect
that they would be keen to make the prototype version of the software
trivially available? *Or* to explain in plain words why you cannot have it?
Is anyone in the world allowed to purchase Matlab software licenses? No.
Mathworks, being a US company, is bound by various export rules that ban sales
to certain countries and persons. That already provides a degree of control
over who can use the software package, and the prices Mathworks charge provide
disincentives to illicit people who lack sufficient financial backing. These
barriers are certainly not unbreachable, but they are better than putting the
software out at the end of a driveway with a sign on it saying "Free to a good
home".
Reggie
I know it was stated that they do not owe me an explanation which to me is quite rude. I asked nicely.
All I did was ask nicely, did not know about some licensing things, didn't even know that compiling was that hard, why are you sounding so harsh?
There is nothing wrong with free software. Lots of people work hard to make software, but many of them are glad to release them for free.
If it can't be done, there should be a specific reason why, and a nice explanation would have stopped me from continuing this topic.
Maybe if an .exe is too hard to produce, how about translating the code to c++ or so, don't know if that is harder to do or not.
Steven_Lord
"Reggie " <zerospor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:id4995$ce2$1...@fred.mathworks.com...
> I also know they produce vreveal which is general use software which you
> have to pay for.
>
> I know it was stated that they do not owe me an explanation which to me is
> quite rude. I asked nicely.
And they declined. That is their prerogative as the authors of the program.
> All I did was ask nicely, did not know about some licensing things, didn't
> even know that compiling was that hard, why are you sounding so harsh?
>
> There is nothing wrong with free software. Lots of people work hard to
> make software, but many of them are glad to release them for free.
And many do not. Again, the decision of how to release their software is
the prerogative of the authors.
> If it can't be done, there should be a specific reason why, and a nice
> explanation would have stopped me from continuing this topic.
It _can_ be done (i.e. it is possible to do so), but it _may not_ be done
(i.e. the author does not grant permission to do so.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verb#May_and_might
> Maybe if an .exe is too hard to produce, how about translating the code to
> c++ or so, don't know if that is harder to do or not.
That's a separate question that I think you and the author of that program
need to discuss offline (outside this newsgroup thread, perhaps via direct
email.)
--
Steve Lord
sl...@mathworks.com
To contact Technical Support use the Contact Us link on
http://www.mathworks.com
Walter Roberson
> There is nothing wrong with free software. Lots of people work hard to
> make software, but many of them are glad to release them for free.
> If it can't be done, there should be a specific reason why, and a
> nice explanation would have stopped me from continuing this topic.
I earn my living writing software, and then I come home and write more
software, and then I go to sleep and wake up and write more software. I
have very often given my software away (provided I have a legal right to
do so), if I feel so inclined.
One of the unfortunate side effects of my having often given away
software is that numerous people start to feel that I *owe* them the
software that they want, and get upset or argue with me or try to
pressure me or "guilt trip" me into giving them what they want -- and I
do mean _giving_, as they seldom offer anything in return, often not
even a pro-forma "thanks". Pressuring me to do something I do not choose
to do freely is at the very least disrespectful; some of the cases have
gone beyond disrespect and in to attempted abuse of me.
When it comes to releasing software for free, you need to understand
that "NO means NO". Just like in the anti-rape messages. The affections
of software authors are as they are, and if one of them chooses to "put
out" for an entire university faculty, but declines to tell you why they
won't even go for coffee with you, then DROP IT.
Reggie
Reggie
Walter Roberson
> When comes to anything not just software, an good explanation of why yes
> or no is always better than just yes or no.
A woman once got fairly upset with me once at a bar when she asked if I
thought she was beautiful and I did not want to say "Yes" outright. Would it
have been "always better" for me to have explained to her all the various ways
in which she was not beautiful? Such as her being drunk, stoned,
argumentative, pushy, short-tempered, prone to putting people on the spot;
that I disagreed with some of the things she had said prior to that and
thought her words to be ill-informed? That she was a known trouble-maker that
the bar only permitted in as a favour to her boy-friend? Should I have
analyzed the appearance of her body and listed the various cosmetic flaws I
could see?
A month ago or so, while I was waiting for a bus, a young woman at the bus
shelter asked me if I had a cell phone, and when I said I did, asked if she
could borrow it. I said No. She then persisted in asking, Q: "Why won't you
lend it to me? I'd lend you mine if I had one and you needed it?" A: "Sorry,
No". Q: "Why not? Explain it to me?" A: "I don't owe you an explanation". Q:
"Is it because I'm black? Do you think I would steal it?" A: "My answer is
No". She asked again, I did not answer, and she moved on to someone else.
Why didn't I lend her my phone? Because in the time just before that, while I
was sitting there, she and a young friend had been talking, and she had been
recommending that her friend to just flash the friend's long expired bus
transfer at the driver and hope that the driver did not notice. She was
recommending that the friend cheat and steal from the public transit system,
which I pay full fare for upon use, and pay again through some of the highest
property taxes in the country.
Would it really have been "always better" for me to have confronted her about
her unethical behaviour, about her conspiracy to commit a small crime?
Conspiracy to commit a small crime is legally a big crime. If I talked
out-loud about what I heard, in the presence of others, to explain to her why
she wasn't getting to use my phone, then that would have constituted "Criminal
Defamation" on my part -- and in Canada, one is considered to commit criminal
defamation even if what one is saying is completely true, with a different
subsection of the relevant law providing for absolute discharges in some cases
-- more or less a clause that means "We understand that in some cases you
_have_ to defame someone to prevent a larger injustice, and we will forgive
your defamation in those cases". Defamation does not, by the way, mean that
you have lied about something in order to damage someone's reputation: in
Canadian (and UK) law it means that you said or wrote something that _did_
hurt someone's reputation, no matter how unearned that good reputation was;
the forgiveness clauses are for when you are considered to have a good enough
reason to justify it. There have been cases in the UK where convicted thieves
have successfully sued for defamation after someone told someone else that the
persons were thieves, with the legal reasoning being, "Yes, what you said is
true, but it was not necessary for you to *say* it."
Are you still sure it would have been better, "always" for me to have given
the young woman the explanation she demanded, even though my doing so would
have involved me committing what would technically be a crime (even knowing
that if it came to trial, I would be absolved?)
A good explanation of the factors leading to a decision is not always better
than just giving the decision. Indeed, if you examine some of the history of
Management practices, especially military leadership, you will find that the
advice for managers and rank-ups is to *make a decision*, communicate it, and
lead based upon the decision, rather than spending lots of time listing all
the factors that were considered and trying to quantify the weightings that
were given: someone will always come up with a factor that was not explicitly
considered, and people will squabble about the weightings of the factors.
> Just because it is software does not mean no means no.
Just because it is someone else's to give away or not as they choose, NO means
NO. And that applies to products of the mind as well as to products of the body.
Matt Fig
Walter Roberson
> Walter, you should have been a Philosopher. I think it is possible that
> metaphysics was your true calling. :-)
I have sometimes wondered what I would have become if I had lived in (say) the
14th or 16th century. After a time, I decided that I would probably have
become a Rabbi, arguing the Mishna and studying Alchemy ;-)
Matt Fig
> 14th or 16th century. After a time, I decided that I would probably have
> become a Rabbi, arguing the Mishna and studying Alchemy ;-)
I'm sure you would have given Gersonides a run for his money!
Carry on, hijack over...
Yair Altman
Steven_Lord
"Reggie " <zerospor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:id6h5p$eee$1...@fred.mathworks.com...
> When comes to anything not just software, an good explanation of why yes
> or no is always better than just yes or no. Just because it is software
> does not mean no means no.
As the Rolling Stones sang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can%27t_Always_Get_What_You_Want
--
Steve Lord
sl...@mathworks.com
comp.soft-sys.matlab (CSSM) FAQ: http://matlab.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ
Johannes Korsawe
Thank you for your post and for sharing your thoughts.I read it with growing respect.
Besides the "harsh world of programming a dumb machine to add or not to add some numbers." your post takes over into the significance of reality where thinking about the nuances and gradings of thoughts and conversation leads to the core of all human interactions.
Best regards,
Johannes