LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Exclude unavailable Toolkit or Module code parts

Solved!
Go to solution
Highlighted

I would seriously consider refactoring the code to use classes. You can have a virtual class that encapsulates the vision code. This abstract class would be empty so the systems that don’t require vision would not actually have any. The systems that need the vision would get a child instance of the class that includes the vision code.



Mark Yedinak
Certified LabVIEW Architect
LabVIEW Champion

"Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald - Gordon Lightfoot
0 Kudos
Message 11 of 15
(71 Views)
Highlighted

@JÞB wrote:

I'm no legal expert but,   it seems to me that you are going about this less than honestly.   


Not in this case.  The NI Vision Common Resources is free to be used without additional software license cost.  NI allows this but it only is for basic vision functionality like viewing and logging an image.  Anything with processing the image, pattern matching, OCR, this is all what you get with the Vision Development Module.

 

EDIT: Here is a LAVA thread where there is some discussion about this.

Message 12 of 15
(68 Views)
Highlighted

@Jeff:

I'm sad that you feel that way. The non-use of vision is a prerequisite by our customer, who not only wants to spare the extra ($500) cost per machine but also wants to cut down on any possibly unstable or problem-causing third-party SW installation. The vision installer(s) were put by them into this category. So it's not about saving a couple of bucks here. I pointed out about possible legal issues myself some posts up this thread concerning some proposals members made to help me. Therefore I don't see myself in the position of fishing in grey terrains of legal licensing works - I openly discussed everything with NI and laid everything on the table about the use case discussed here. And obviously, NI Germany agrees with me. As you may know, incompliant behaviour (like using unlicensed software) is a crime and the direct way into unemployment, even in employee-friendly Germany.

Seemingly, the Vision Common Resources removes the necessity to rework the existing code AND minimize the additional installer/software overhead for the customer.

 

@Mark and Hoovahh:

Thanks for your contribution. The idea with the abstract class is really good. I will suggest this a change request for future development of the software. Thanks for the link to the knowledge base article. I should have read this half a year ago - would have saved a lot of trouble (including being called a felon...)

0 Kudos
Message 13 of 15
(58 Views)
Highlighted

@comrade wrote:

@Jeff:

I'm sad that you feel that way. The non-use of vision is a prerequisite by our customer, who not only wants to spare the extra ($500) cost per machine but also wants to cut down on any possibly unstable or problem-causing third-party SW installation. The vision installer(s) were put by them into this category. So it's not about saving a couple of bucks here. I pointed out about possible legal issues myself some posts up this thread concerning some proposals members made to help me. Therefore I don't see myself in the position of fishing in grey terrains of legal licensing works - I openly discussed everything with NI and laid everything on the table about the use case discussed here. And obviously, NI Germany agrees with me. As you may know, incompliant behaviour (like using unlicensed software) is a crime and the direct way into unemployment, even in employee-friendly Germany.

Seemingly, the Vision Common Resources removes the necessity to rework the existing code AND minimize the additional installer/software overhead for the customer.

 

@Mark and Hoovahh:

Thanks for your contribution. The idea with the abstract class is really good. I will suggest this a change request for future development of the software. Thanks for the link to the knowledge base article. I should have read this half a year ago - would have saved a lot of trouble (including being called a felon...)


Personally,  I am glad that you have communicated with NI about it.  I have no skin in the game!  Asking the same questions about your license agreement with NI is far different from asking the general population. 

 

I ment no offense. 

0 Kudos
Message 14 of 15
(52 Views)
Highlighted

Jeff,

 

all ok. No harm done. Thanks anyway for caring about the issue at all.Smiley Happy

0 Kudos
Message 15 of 15
(42 Views)