Using C to program the 8051 family - Page 6

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But it doesn't matter if it's commercial or non-commercial.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Right.  I still don't see how it's specific to commercial
products.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I know.  But you state it "restricts use in commercial
products".  To me, that means that it somehow places additional
requirements on commercial products that aren't placed on
non-commercial products.  Apparently I misunderstood what you
meant by "restricts use in commercial products".

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I'm having a BIG
                                  at               BANG THEORY!!
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, Grant, I don't state that.  The other guy stated that.  I just explained the
rules.

You are correct that the rules are the same for commercial and noncommercial
use.  However, the noncommercial guys generally aren't impeded by those rules,
since they are not trying to make a buttload of money off of it, and don't mind
if someone else redistributes their work.  (In fact, they usually WANT it
redistributed far and wide, so they get the karma boost.)  The commercial guys
are usually the ones foaming at the mouth at the idea that someone else could
rip them off, not understanding that they are already ripping off the original
copyright holders.



Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)
Quoted text here. Click to load it
the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sorry about that.  I mis-read the quote levels.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That was my understanding.  

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Do you have exactly
                                  at               what I want in a plaid
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it


But it has not stopped commercial closed source extensions to gcc being
produced e.g hitech

Ian


Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

IIRC, They claim they wrote a completely-from-scrach
contains-no-GPL'd code back end that works with the gcc
front/middle parts, and that the assemblage of their backend
with the gcc front end isn't a "derived work".  Whether that's
accurate or valid is a matter of debate.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I don't know WHY I
                                  at               said that... I think it
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

On the assumption that it is accurate, I would concede the
validity.  Of course anything they have to do to use that back
end, such as configuration etc., should fall right back under GPL.

This would allow someone to create a C (or other) engine, totally
hide the instruction set, and supply that gcc back end alone.  How
it would respond to -S is another question.

--
Chuck F ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Indeed and when I discovered it I reported it to the FSS who are
investigating it.  But the point is that GPL has always allowed this.

Ian


Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

"Ripping off" is a harsh assessment.  Ie, if I include a new
scheduling algorithm to the linux kernel, then am I ripping off
the copyright holders if I don't distribute these changes?
Likewise, if I link in a small bit of GPL code into a huge product,
am I ripping off the author when I don't distribute my entire
source code?

It's entirely within the right of the authors to do this of course,
and I agree with that right.  However there are lots of other open
source licenses out there, but I think many authors just stick with
GPL by default without actually intending to restrict use of the
source code.

--
Darin Johnson
    Gravity is a harsh mistress -- The Tick

Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it
could
original

Read the License, Darin.

If you modify the kernel, but do not distribute the modified binary, you are OK.
If, however, you distribute the modified binary, you are REQUIRED BY THE TERMS
OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE to make the source code for your modifications
available as well, for at most a nominal media and copying charge.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes.  Period.  Whether you like it or not, the GPL code you contemplate ripping
off is HIS, not yours.  He has made it available for use under very specific
terms, namely, the terms and conditions of the General Public License.  If you
do not comply with those terms and conditions, you have no right WHATSOEVER to
use that code in ANY way, shape, form, or fashion, and your
nonconforming/noncompliant use is by definition a violation of his copyright, in
other words, you are ripping him off.

Code that is intended to be "linked" in is usually released under the Lesser
General Public License (LGPL), not the General Public License, and such
"linking-only" use may not require you to release your source on request.  If
the code in question is specifically released under the General Public License,
not the LGPL, the source code rules apply.

If you don't like it, don't rip it off.  You can always write your own code
instead of ripping off someone else's, and then you can license it any way you
like.  Or not.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

Releasing code under GPL requires the author to take certain very specific
steps, namely, he must write the statement that says that the code is HIS, and
that it is released under the GPL, and where the source code (if not included)
may be obtained.  His taking those steps evidences his intent that the code be
available on THOSE terms, not your "rip me off, please" terms.

It is always amusing when I see someone crying about "restrictions" under the
GPL, and giving examples that are obviously infringing on copyright, all the
while proclaiming that he is an honest, upstanding individual who wouldn't dream
of ripping anyone off.



Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which is exactly what I meant.  Ie, avoid the Linux kernel for
commercial embedded products if you want proprietary changes to it
(though it's great if you just want it to put apps on top of, or if
you don't care about kernel changes becoming public).

This problem does not occur with BSD license and others, because those
authors do not consider your changes to be theirs.  

The _intent_ of Linux, as stated by the authors, is to allow everyone
to use it widely and freely.  Their intent was not to restrict its
use.  The intent was that bug fixes and enhancements would also become
publically available.

Though this is a fine line - direct source code modification versus
linking in separately compiled object files versus dynamic linking of
modules.  (The FSF is against all three, though modules seems to be
allowed according to many lawyers, and even several linux
distributions have had proprietary object files linked into the
kernel)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, I understand this.  I do not consider this situation to be
"ripping off code", which is my point.  The GPL essentially says "you
can't use our code if you don't agree with our principles."  What
commercial library ever placed ownership claims on products built
using it?

I also agree that the author has this right.  However it's insulting
(or naive) for FSF authors to claim that they're about freedom when
they have some of the most restrictive licenses out there.  Yes, they
have the right to be as selfish and hoarding as the commercial
vendors, and they have the right to be smug about it :-)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The LGPL arose because of strong public pressure, otherwise the FSF
would still be claiming all software linked with FSF libraries were
derivatives.  My recollection is that Stallman was disapproving of the
watered down LGPL at first.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The only steps to take are to copy the boilerplate GPL license and
attach it to the product.  It is EASY to do, which is why so many
people do it.  There is heavy propaganda coming out from the FSF that
advises against using BSD and other licenses that are more free.

--
Darin Johnson
    Where am I?  In the village...  What do you want?  Information...

Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)
Quoted text here. Click to load it
... snip ...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Exactly what I have done in several places.  However, I have added
an annotation that I am willing to discuss other licenses.  If, by
some miracle, my code enables the next killer app, I may want a
small piece to keep me warm in my declining years.

--
Chuck F ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it
could
original

You only need to distribute the changes if you distribute the binaries
(obviously if you distribute the source, the changes are there already).  If
you make changes yourself for your own use, or within your own company, or
whatever, then that's fine.  If you put that modified kernel on an embedded
systemt that you sell, you need to provide the changes with it (or written
guarentee of availability, etc.).


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, that's what the licence says.  You might not feel it is "ripping him
off", just like taking home a pencil from the office is not "ripping off the
company", but the law is the same.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think you are right here.  The GPL is often taken as the default open
source licence, and some authors have probably gpl'ed their code without
giving much thought to it.  But these authors (or, more precisely, copyright
owners) almost always have contact email addresses - it is simply a matter
of asking them for alternate licences.  If they meant for you to be free to
include it in your code without releasing the sources, they will tell you
so.  If they want to offer you an alternate licence, perhaps at a cost, they
are free to do so.


Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think the GPL disallows this.  Once at least one person has a copy
of the GPL'd source code, you can't apply a different license for
someone else.  The author gives up his rights as a side effect.  Or at
least that's the claim I've heard in a debate on this in the past.

--
Darin Johnson
    Gravity is a harsh mistress -- The Tick

Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The GPL can't disallow that.  The holder of the copyright still
holds the copyright.  He can distribute his work under as many
different licenses as he wants to.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That disagrees with everything I've read in and about the GPL.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wha?  I don't remember anything in the GPL that prohibits the
owner of the copyright from doing anything under other licenses
-- and I don't understand how it could.  The GPL is a set of
terms imposed _by_ the owner of the copyright.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sounds like bunk to me.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I just bought
                                  at               FLATBUSH from MICKEY
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But if a second person modifies the code, the new resulting second
revision belongs to both people, neither of which can assign a
different license to a third party.  Let's say the original author
completely revamps the code into a third revision.  The original
author may be able to give away the original source under a new
license, but he is no longer able to do that with the third revision.
If he removes the second author's changes in order to create a fourth
revision, that fourth revision is still a derivative work of both
parties.

Essentially the original author loses control.  Which isn't a bad
thing if the intent is to create open source software (collaborative
work).

--
Darin Johnson
    "Look here.  There's a crop circle in my ficus!"  -- The Tick

Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Could be, but that wasn't what I thought was being discussed.
The original author can still license the original work under
any license he pleases. I thought that was what you claimed was
prohibited.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If the third revision contains material for which he doesn't
hold the copyright, then he only has the rights granted to him
by the person who does hold the copyright.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If he wanted to do that, he should start with his orginal
version, so that there is no question of the "third" revision
containing any work for which he doesn't hold the copyrights.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No. He still has complete control over his original work.  He
does not have control over the other person's work -- but he
never did, so he didn't loose anything.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I still don't see what the original author has lost...

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  YOW!! I am having
                                  at               FUN!!
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Public Domain and Open-Source (was: Using C to program the 8051 family. C for small processors)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True...


The author loses nothing - but he does not magically gain control over code
written by other people.  The copyright owner is free to release his own
code (source or binary) to anyone he wants using any licence he wants.  I
can write some code, add the gpl and send the source to Grant Edwards.  I
can then take the same code and add a licence that says the user may not
drink Pepsi while running the code, and sell it to you for a thousand
dollars.  That's perfectly within my rights.  However, I can't stop Grant
passing his gpl'ed copy on to you.  And if he makes changes to the code, he
can pass them on to both of us - but I can't incorperate these changes into
the no-Pepsi licenced version unless Grant says I can.

For companies which rely on dual-licenced software (such as MySQL - you can
get it in gpl'ed version, or as a non-gpl'ed version which you can then
combine with other non-gpl source), this is a vital issue - they simply
cannot accept patches and modifications from outside unless the patch author
agrees to sign over the copyright of the patch (as many will do for trivial
code snippets).  If someone wants to make a major change to the code, then
it must be maintained as a seperate fork under a seperate name.  This also
applies to other projects where the main authors like to keep the copyright
of all code (which is the case for all FSF GNU projects, and many large
open-source projects).




Re: Public Domain and Open-Source

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Had better be harsh --- it's a harsh offence we're talking about,
here.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No.  But you may have to check what "distribute" actually means, in
this context.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes.  The author offered you a contract: the GPL, and by using that
code in some other product, you agreed to that --- if you didn't, you
would have not rights whatsoever regarding that piece of software.  If
you don't follow the GPL rules, that means you violated that contract,
and that does constitute a rather obvious ase of "ripping off" the
code's author, by my book.  There's absolutely no excuse for anybody
doing so.  If you want that code fragment really badly, but can't
agree to GPL terms, you can still contact the author for a special
deal.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Relying on belief regarding the question why other persons behave as
they do is rather a risky thing, to put it mildly.  Those authors may
just as well have chosen the GPL because they do want to avoid other
reaping financial gains from their work without giving anything back
to the source.  The core difference between GPL and proprietary
licenses is the currency you pay for using other people's code in: new
code of your own, or money.

--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker ( snipped-for-privacy@physik.rwth-aachen.de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

Re: Public Domain and Open-Source

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Had better be harsh --- it's a harsh offence we're talking about,
here.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No.  But you may have to check what "distribute" actually means, in
this context.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes.  The author offered you a contract: the GPL, and by using that
code in some other product, you agreed to that --- if you didn't, you
would have no rights whatsoever regarding that piece of software.  If
you don't follow the GPL rules, that means you violated that contract,
and that does constitute a rather obvious case of "ripping off" the
code's author, by my book.  There's absolutely no excuse for anybody
doing so.  If you want that code fragment really badly, but can't
agree to GPL terms, you can still contact the author for a special
deal.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Relying on belief regarding the question why other persons behave as
they do is rather a risky thing, to put it mildly.  Those authors may
just as well have chosen the GPL because they do want to avoid others
reaping financial gains from their work without giving anything back
to the source.  The core difference between GPL and proprietary
licenses is the currency you pay for using other people's code in: new
code of your own, or money.

--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker ( snipped-for-privacy@physik.rwth-aachen.de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

Re: Public Domain and Open-Source
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hans, this is incorrect.  The GPL is very specifically a license, not a
contract.  This is a very important legal distinction.  Most "End User License
Agreements" are in fact contracts.



Site Timeline