Philipp Klaus Krause | 26 Jun 01:49 2006
Picon

Re: [gnupic] GPLed PIC USB package using SDCC from Nuts & Volts


Jesus Calvino-Fraga wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
> 
> You are confusing header files with library files.  Header files are 
> not linked with sdcc generated code. Therefore they are not part of 
> the final hex file and it doesn't matter if they are either GPL or 
> LGPL.  Out of the 128 C source files in the device/lib directory, 
> only 12 are not LGPL, and out of those 12 files only 4 are GPL: 
> ser_ir.c, ser_ir_cts_rts.c, time.c, and _decdptr.c.

Um, on a snapshot from a few weeks ago I see lots of GPLed files
directly in device/lib (not in subdirectories).
Many of these seem to be functions that are automaticalla used by sdcc,
thing like casts or divisions:

_decdptr.c
_fs2schar.c
_fs2sint.c
_fs2slong.c
_fs2uchar.c
_fs2uint.c
_fs2ulong.c
_fsadd.c
_fscmp.
_fsdiv.c
_fseq.c
_fsget1arg.c
_fsget2args.c
_fsgt.c
(Continue reading)

Sandeep Dutta | 26 Jun 02:54 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: [gnupic] GPLed PIC USB package using SDCC from Nuts & Volts

Hi Folks,

--Code generated by sdcc contains GPLed parts, thus the whole program
--would have to be under GPL.

This is my fault (I Think), when I was developing the libraries I guess
I did not read the differences between LGPL & GPL. I just copied the header
from the source files to the library sources. People who followed did the
same. 
I think current people with CVS access can safely change the Header on the
libraries to LGPL.

Regards
Sandeep

-----Original Message-----
From: sdcc-user-bounces@...
[mailto:sdcc-user-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
Philipp Klaus
Krause
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 3:28 AM
To: sdcc-user@...
Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] [gnupic] GPLed PIC USB package using SDCC from Nuts
& Volts

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Florian Echtler wrote:
> I
(Continue reading)

Jesus Calvino-Fraga | 26 Jun 02:59 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: [gnupic] GPLed PIC USB package using SDCC from Nuts & Volts

You are right.  Most of the GPL library source files are 8051 
specific and related to floating point operations.  Most of these 
files were added in 2004 by Paul Stoffregen.  I am contacting him to 
see if the license can be changed.

At 04:49 PM 6/25/2006, you wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Jesus Calvino-Fraga wrote:
> > Hi Philipp,
> >
> > You are confusing header files with library files.  Header files are
> > not linked with sdcc generated code. Therefore they are not part of
> > the final hex file and it doesn't matter if they are either GPL or
> > LGPL.  Out of the 128 C source files in the device/lib directory,
> > only 12 are not LGPL, and out of those 12 files only 4 are GPL:
> > ser_ir.c, ser_ir_cts_rts.c, time.c, and _decdptr.c.
>
>Um, on a snapshot from a few weeks ago I see lots of GPLed files
>directly in device/lib (not in subdirectories).
>Many of these seem to be functions that are automaticalla used by sdcc,
>thing like casts or divisions:
>
>_decdptr.c
>_fs2schar.c
>_fs2sint.c
>_fs2slong.c
>_fs2uchar.c
(Continue reading)

Philipp Klaus Krause | 26 Jun 21:41 2006
Picon

Re: [gnupic] GPLed PIC USB package using SDCC from Nuts & Volts


Jesus Calvino-Fraga wrote:

> Out of the 128 C source files in the device/lib directory, 
> only 12 are not LGPL

I do not know what the intended consequences of the licensing are.
AFAIK the real consequences are:
LGPL means: Along with each program compiled with sdcc object files or
source files have to be shipped and a copy of the LGPL.
GPL means: Along with each program compiled with sdcc source files have
to be shipped and a copy of the GPL.
LGPL or LGPL with linking exception means: No additional requirements on
programs compiled with sdcc.

In the discussion one and a half month ago it seemed as if developers
wanted to impose no restrictions on programs compiled with sdcc.

Since for all the targets sdcc supports non-free compilers are available
this would make sense, since it will make more people use sdcc (which
would otherwise just choose the non-free compilers).
If for a target there were non non-free compilers using the LGPL or the
GPL would make sense since it would give developers of free software an
advantage over developers of nonfree software.

The reasoning in the paragraph above is based on analogy to the GNU
guidelines of choosing GPL versus LGPL.

Philipp

(Continue reading)

George M. Gallant, Jr. | 27 Jun 15:15 2006
Picon
Picon

Erasing PIC18F config

I am have trouble performing 64 byte panel erases on
pic18f1320 & pic18f252 devices. I can bulk erase the
entire device and then write and read. Very confused
by the wording of the CFGS bit in the ECON1 register
and the ill-documented registers at 0x3C0004 &
0x3C0006.

Programmer  CPU is a 18f1320 and target is a
18f252. I have had strange behavior with the 1320's
and its errata sheet is not very flattering. Next version
is going to be based on 18f2520.

George



Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
Borut Razem | 27 Jun 18:02 2006
Picon

Re: [gnupic] GPLed PIC USB package using SDCC, from Nuts & Volts

I still don't think that LGPL license is the optimal one for the sdcc libraries:

- The applicationprogram which uses the library is "work that uses the Library",
  but the final binary produced by sdcc, statically linked and burned to the MCU
  or EPROMs, is "work based on the Library".

  LGPL says in chapter 5:

  """
    However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
  creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
  contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the
  library".  The executable is therefore covered by this License.
  Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.
  """

  BTW: this statement makes the discussion between Jesus Calvino-Fraga and Philipp
  about using header files pointless since the next paragraph in LGLP is talking
  about using the header files in "work that uses the Library", which doesn't apply
  in our case.

- Now let take a look to the chapter 6. to see the actual requirements:

  """
    As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or
  link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
  work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
  under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit
  modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
  engineering for debugging such modifications.
  """

  Which means that you can distribute the binary under any license you
  like, BUT:

  """
    You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the
  Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
  this License.  You must supply a copy of this License.  If the work
  during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
  copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference
  directing the user to the copy of this License.
  """

  So the license must be supplied with the work.

  Item a) requires that the source code of the library is available
  and the source or object code of the application program which uses
  the library must be available too!

  """
    For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the
  Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
  reproducing the executable from it.  However, as a special exception,
  the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is
  normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
  components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
  which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
  the executable.

    It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license
  restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally
  accompany the operating system.  Such a contradiction means you cannot
  use both them and the Library together in an executable that you
  distribute.
  """

  This means that Makefiles or project files and utilities to produce a
  binary must be included.

In short, in addition to the binary, which is usually burned into the silicon,
the delivery should include (or at least state where they are available):

- the license
- the source code of the library
- the source or object code of the application
- all tools needed to create the binary from the supplied source and/or object code
- maybe also a hardware tool to burn the binary to the silicon???

My opinion is that this requirements are too strict to be practically usable.
The classpath exception doesn't change the things much IMHO.

I'm more favorable to the BSD license, see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php.

P.S.: I only expressed my understanding of the LGPL license, which might be wrong.

Borut

Sandeep Dutta  wrote:

Hi Folks,

--Code generated by sdcc contains GPLed parts, thus the whole program
--would have to be under GPL.

This is my fault (I Think), when I was developing the libraries I guess
I did not read the differences between LGPL & GPL. I just copied the header
from the source files to the library sources. People who followed did the
same. 
I think current people with CVS access can safely change the Header on the
libraries to LGPL.

Regards
Sandeep

Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Joe G (Home | 27 Jun 18:35 2006
Picon

SDCC distribution

Hi All,
 
I am not familiar with SDCC distribution... or the GNU rules.
 
I am planning a little 80c51 demonstration board that I might sell. I would like to supply SDCC on CD with my little 80c51 board.
 
What are the rules as far as distribution of SDCC  is concerned.
 
SDCC will be free   but the hardware will cost.
 
 
What's the rules as far a GNU is concerned.... if I bundle them together.
 
 
Regards
Joseph
 
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
Borut Razem | 27 Jun 19:13 2006
Picon

Re: [sdcc-devel] [gnupic] GPLed PIC USB package using SDCC, from Nuts & Volts

Raphael Neider wrote:
> Well, even BSD includes a clause, forcing the binary to output the
> license:
> """
> Redistributions in binary form *must reproduce* the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> """
>
> This seems to be pretty useless for binary library code, due to lack of
> some kind of main program. On the other hand, wiping this phrase out
> will render the first paragraph useless:
>
>   
Well, it depends how you understand the "and/or". I understand it more as
"or", which means that it is enough to reproduce the copyright in the
documentation.

> Additionally, <ORGANIZATION> (see link above) should probably be
> replaced with <OWNER> (which in turn will become <AUTHOR>)...
>
>   
If we replace the <ORGANIZATION> with <AUTHOR>, then the copyright notices
for all authors should be reproduced, which is a problem.
Maybe we (sdcc developers) can say that we are an organization (perhaps
"sdcc developers community") and use it in place of <ORGANIZATION>? ...

> Two question remain: Does this reflect general opinion? And finally:
> Which license fulfils this?
>
>   
There is an other license, which is still less restrictive and I already
used it in sdcc (see support/Util/dbuf.*): the zlib/libpng license. (see
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php)

If anybody knows a license which covers the sdcc library needs, pleas let
us know.

I think that we (sdcc developers) should decide to use only one license for
the whole sdcc library in order to make the sdcc users life easier.

Borut

Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Cesar Strauss | 27 Jun 19:52 2006
Picon

Re: [sdcc-devel] [gnupic] GPLed PIC USB package using SDCC, from Nuts & Volts

Borut Razem wrote:

[ snip ]
> If anybody knows a license which covers the sdcc library needs, pleas let
> us know.

Just for the record, I dug into gcc sources, and found the following license on
their own libgcc2.c. 

I think it is suitable, because:
1) It prevents other compiler vendors from incorporating SDCC code in their
proprietary products.
2) It places no restriction in distributing the compiled executable
3) It serves the same role in gcc as libsdcc in SDCC.

Cesar

See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/libgcc2.c?revision=114022&view=markup
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/trunk/gcc/doc/libgcc.texi?revision=109856

/* More subroutines needed by GCC output code on some machines.  */
/* Compile this one with gcc.  */
/* Copyright (C) 1989, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
   2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005  Free Software Foundation, Inc.

This file is part of GCC.

GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later
version.

In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the
Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the
compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs,
and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming
from the use of this file.  (The General Public License restrictions
do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of
the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine
executable.)

GCC is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY
WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License
for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with GCC; see the file COPYING.  If not, write to the Free
Software Foundation, 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
02110-1301, USA.  */

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Jim Paris | 27 Jun 20:30 2006

Re: SDCC distribution

> I am not familiar with SDCC distribution... or the GNU rules.
> I am planning a little 80c51 demonstration board that I might sell. I would like to supply SDCC on CD with my
little 80c51 board.
> What are the rules as far as distribution of SDCC  is concerned.
> SDCC will be free   but the hardware will cost.
> 
> What's the rules as far a GNU is concerned.... if I bundle them
> together.

That's fine under the GPL (or any of the other licenses being
considered for SDCC).  Just include a copy of the license and the SDCC
source code along with the SDCC binaries and you'll have no problems.
Providing a link to the SDCC homepage would be also be appreciated.

-jim

Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642

Gmane