I debug C the same way I debug assembler or anything else. By writing debug code. I also like to generate "life noises" like toggling a port bit on entry to an ISR saying " I made it this far", also squirting out diagnostic messages to a serial port.
Bob
It's specific to anyone who wants to ship their product without source code. Which really only matters to commercial products.
--
Darin Johnson
Luxury! In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
"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
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.
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.
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.
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 (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
USE worldnet address!
... snip ...
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 (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
USE worldnet address!
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.).
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.
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.
You must also watch out for library code and intrinsic function code. gcc has specific parts with modified licences to cover this situation. Without it, if your code used, say, a build-in multiply routine which was part of the gpl'ed part of the gcc source, then you'd end up with gpl'ed code in your final binary, and thus would have to gpl the whole thing. Fortunately, the gcc authors have thought these things through rather carefully.
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
Had better be harsh --- it's a harsh offence we're talking about, here.
No. But you may have to check what "distribute" actually means, in this context.
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.
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 (broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
Had better be harsh --- it's a harsh offence we're talking about, here.
No. But you may have to check what "distribute" actually means, in this context.
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.
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 (broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
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.
[...]
We're drifting seriously OT, here, but I'll bite: care explaining that "very important legal distinction", instead of just claiming it exists? What's the detail that makes accepting a license different from accepting a contract?
How, in particular, does it render incorrect my statements that you're either bound by the conditions found in the license once you agreed to it, or you have no rights using the software covered by it in any way?
And a rather large fraction of the verbiage in most EULAs is nothing more than wishful thinking or attempted extortion. At least outside of the U.S. of A.'s legal system, that is.
-- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
EULA's legalities vary from US state to state.
-- Alex Pavloff - remove BLAH to email Software Engineer, ESA Technology
See above.
IIRC, That's sort of true -- though there is no "accepting" of the license involved. You are granted certain privledges by the copyright holder provided you meet the conditions specified in the license. If you don't meet the conditions, you don't have those privledges.
You don't have to "accept" anything or enter into any contract or agreement with the copyright holder.
Read the avove article on Groklaw to see if I explained it correctly.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Where's the Coke
at machine? Tell me a joke!!
visi.com
And the US is a relatively minor part of the world.
Ian
This piece does a far better job of explaining it than I could, and does it in the context of the GPL.
Probably has more lawyers per capita ;-)
Ken.
+====================================+ I hate junk email. Please direct any genuine email to: kenlee at hotpop.com
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)
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 :-)
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.
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...
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
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.