Using C to program the 8051 family - Page 7

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

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Licence vs. contract (was: Re: Public Domain and Open-Source)

Quoted text here. Click to load it
[...]

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: Licence vs. contract (was: Re: Public Domain and Open-Source)
On 8 Jan 2004 16:37:26 GMT, Hans-Bernhard Broeker

Quoted text here. Click to load it

EULA's legalities vary from US state to state.  
--
Alex Pavloff - remove BLAH to email
Software Engineer, ESA Technology

Re: Licence vs. contract (was: Re: Public Domain and Open-Source)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And the US is a relatively minor part of the world.

Ian

Re: Licence vs. contract (was: Re: Public Domain and Open-Source)
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:39:48 +0000, Ian Bell

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Probably has more lawyers per capita  ;-)

Ken.
Quoted text here. Click to load it


+====================================+
I hate junk email. Please direct any
genuine email to: kenlee at hotpop.com

Re: Licence vs. contract (was: Re: Public Domain and Open-Source)
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:38:44 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@noname.com (Ken Lee)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

1 per 10,000 last I heard.

George
==============================================
Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST dot NET

Re: Licence vs. contract (was: Re: Public Domain and Open-Source)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story20%031214210634851

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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!!
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Licence vs. contract (was: Re: Public Domain and Open-Source)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

This piece does a far better job of explaining it than I could, and does it in
the context of the GPL.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story20%031214210634851



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

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...

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 suspect he means the need to publish source code sometimes.

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

Could be, but that restriction applies equally to commercial
and non-commercial uses.  He specifically stated that the GPL
restricts use in commercial products.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  ... I want to perform
                                  at               cranial activities with
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

Yes.  IF you distribute the compiler.

If you modify it and use it without distributing the modified
compiler, you can keep everything secret.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No.

[At least in the case of GCC and the GPL.]

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I want you to
                                  at               MEMORIZE the collected
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

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.




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 don't know if this has always been the case though.  I've been in
situations where company lawyers have forbidden the use of GCC to
build shipping products because of uncertainty in this matter.

--
Darin Johnson
    Caution! Under no circumstances confuse the mesh with the
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

It may not always have been the case, and you must still look into the
libraries (the main C library is not part of gcc), as things like glibc,
newlib, and target-specific libraries can all be different.  However, this
could also be the case of lawyers not really understanding the details, and
thus choosing to err on the side of caution.




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

There on no restrictions on using GPL products to create
commercial software.  

There ARE restrictions on _incorporating_ GPL products in
commercial software.  If you do so you have to make the complete
source available without restriction.  Note that you are still
perfectly free to sell your stuff, all you have to do is find
customers.

The LPGL license allows you to incorporate the product in your
commercial software, without having to make any code beyond that
covered by the LPGL license available.  Now you can keep your
secrets and still hawk your widgets.

As far as using gcc is concerned, you are no more restricted than
if you used commercial compilers, in fact probably far less so.

--
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

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Note that you don't have to *give* the source code
away, just provide it for a reasonable distribution
fee.  Richard Stallman funded the early days of the
GNU project from the distribution fees of his GNU
compiler.  I believe he was charging $100 for a
magtape of the source.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: Public Domain and Open-Source


Quoted text here. Click to load it
[...]

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This approach has been used effectively by Intel and Axis, especially
Axis, whose whole processor business depends on GCC and Linux.
For Intel, it allows them to get real world performance numbers on
new processors many times faster than otherwise possible.

It is rarely not in a hardware company's interest to support open
tools that support their products.


Re: Using C to program the 8051 family
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Are you sure you are in the right NG?  This one is embedded...

I think only 5% of 8051 programmers still use assembler only.
 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England    /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ snipped-for-privacy@phaedsys.org       www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Re: Using C to program the 8051 family

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't know if the rest of the original post made any sense, but this
statement on its own is ridiculous.

Bob

Re: Using C to program the 8051 family
Hi Bob, can you actually justify that remark? Got any actual numbers from real
applications?

Site Timeline