Well, I'll have to make-up my mind very quickly. This thread has certainly highlighted some options.
I don't need full USB host capabilities. By this I mean that I have complete control over the peripherals that will attach to this device. Cypress has a device ('811?) that can manage this quite well. They even have sample code for limited host mode that should do the trick.
One approach might be to go multi-processor...keep the 8051 master and hang a few others around it to offload such things as ethernet, USB, etc. That is, effectively, the sort of thing one would do if you went with one of the few ethernet-to-serial all-in-the-jack devices (which are very cool, but expensive). I'd really hate to stay with the 8051 though...it's time to move on.
We would use the device with 1M of FLASH. Mostly data lookup tables and state machine lookup table defintions in there. Also lots of text for such things as menu screens, etc.
I don't like playing the free limit game. This is the sort of thing that can bite you at midnight on a Sunday just when you need to deliver something of fix a bug. And that's when you'll wish you'd paid the $10K and had the full function package.
[usual caveat - this reflects my interpretation only. I'm not a layer].
This would (I think) cover programs that were linked with GCC code to create a product that was in effect a derivative of GCC itself - not programs that were written using GCC. So no problems using the compiler itself.
I distribute FreeRTOS.org under a modified GPL, the modification being designed to permit easier use in commercial applications. This extract was written some 16 years ago if you are referring to V2 of the GPL. Taking (b) as the easiest route, written offers in 2007 generally come from emails or HTML text on a WEB page. The FreeRTOS.org source code (including older versions) is available for download using links on the FreeRTOS.org site. Therefore I state that I am satisfied this condition is being covered simply by the provision of a WEB link to the FreeRTOS.org site.
This is about as liberal as I can make the license while maintaining the integrity of its open source nature. I care about the kernel being open source - I have no interest in the programs you create using the kernel through the API.
--
Regards,
Richard.
+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
A free real time kernel for 8, 16 and 32bit systems.
+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
An IEC 61508 compliant real time kernel for safety related systems.
The GPL is quite clear - in summary, if you make direct use of GPL'ed source code along with your code, the entire source code falls under the GPL. However, this does not apply in any way to use of GPL'ed software.
So if you want to make your own compiler based on gcc, then your compiler will fall under the GPL. That's fair enough - you are using the gcc source code, and the authors ask that you are equally generous with your modifications.
If you use gcc to compile your own code, the license of the compiler is almost totally irrelevant (unless the compiler vendor has added extra clauses, such as no commercial usage for trial versions). The license for libraries and code stubs generated by the compiler is important - and here gcc makes explicit exceptions to the gpl to ensure that you can use the compiler for any purposes.
Try reading some of the GPL FAQ:
formatting link
You'll find that gcc is free to use for any purposes - the only restrictions are on what you do with the source code for gcc itself.
Many free operating systems have a similar attitude (though there are some small ones that either intentionally or accidentally require your code to be GPL'ed or LGPL'ed). FreeRTOS is typical in using a modified GPL - changes to the FreeRTOS code must be made available, while your own code is your own business.
You are not the first person to read the GPL, or to think about its consequences for gcc or operating systems. Of course, it is commendable that you *do* think about it - how many people read the licensing for their closed source development tools as thoroughly? There are a number of processor manufacturers who stand strongly behind gcc ports as the official development tools for their devices. When the lawyers at Altera and Xilinx feel that gcc is the appropriate base for compilers for their soft processors, and that their customers will be able to use gcc for development with any source licenses, you can be pretty confident that gcc itself is fine for closed source usage.
Of course, you must still check the licensing for your choice of library
- most aimed at embedded development will be fine, however.
This is for distribution of the *compiler itself*, not your own code!
Note that you can't distribute commercial compilers *at all*. The fact that gcc is GPL licensed is a benefit, it gives you extra rights over and above what you would have without the GPL license.
I don't see how you managed to spin it as a "disaster".
What do you mean "having a competitor sue for a copy of the software"? If you have used GPL'ed code in your software, then that entire piece of software is under the GPL (by "used" I mean included the GPL'ed code, i.e., the source code from the open source project). You are obliged, by the copyright laws of your country, to follow the requirements of the GPL. That means that whenever you make a binary version of the software available, you must make the source code available too. Your
*customers* have the right to the source code. Your competitors do not have any rights unless you give them the binaries. However, you can't stop your customers passing on the source code to your competitors. If you make use of GPL'ed code and don't make it available to anyone getting the binary code from you (or don't make it clear to them that the code is available), then you are violating the license of the code. It's not a case of worrying about getting sued - you are breaking the law.
And in case anyone reading this still hasn't figured it out, the above applies to the use of GPL'ed source code in your own code. You are free to use GPL'ed tools such as compilers and operating systems without any restrictions on the licensing of your own code. Embedded operating systems or other libraries that are directly linked with your code usually have a modification to their licenses to allow unrestricted usage.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.