Download location for HighTec C167 compiler?

I looked into this a couple of years ago. Seems you can't get it. This was perhaps the first blatant violation of the GPL. They should have been ground up and spit out, but I guess nobody cared enough.

As big as the 167 market is, it's not that big. There are no free compilers out there, and apparently none in the works, and I don't expect that to change.

As far as I can tell, they provide source code for everything that you can download. (I may be wrong here, I have not checked everything). The downloadable system has a restriction on the size of the program & data of 64k+64k. But I believe that this is "enforced" only by the memory model of the supplied libraries. As far as I can tell, there is nothing to stop you writing your own version of the libraries for the expanded memory model.

Now I don't know what happens if you actually buy the product, perhaps they don't give the source code of the extra libraries? That would indeed be a violation as I understand it. (If so, has anyone who bought it actually asked them for the code and been refused)?

The hightec one is still available for download at , with the above limitations.

If it is a new product though, I would now choose another chip, like an ARM variant. One that is in the gcc mainline, there are plenty to choose from!

I don't know why I couldn't find the download page before, but it's there now. :)

That's an option too -- the big advantage of the C166 family is the wide support for in in the CAN areas (protocol stacks, etc.).

You are right here. IMHO this is indeed a severe violation of the GPL (but IANAL).

The FSF and RMS are informed, but things need time.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

....

No. The source code for cc1 is not available, thus violationg the GPL.

They are even proud of their own (mis-) interpretation of the GPL. See

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

I don't understand what you think they're doing that violates the GPL. The download site at hightec-rt has sources and binaries available.

Do do what?

Really? I should have looked at the sources. If that's the case, I'll not do business with them -- though I find that requesting quotes on a fiew high-dollar items and then telling them why you're not buying seems to work the best.

Interesting.

Ah. I had not seen this; it appears you are right. (Unless their cc1 does not include any gcc code, which seems rather unlikely...)

That newsletter is pretty recent (August 2003).

I suspect that after they digest the resulting "feedback" from it, we may get the full free version :)

Actually part of what they say is correct here - there is absolutely no requirement to "give away" something that is GPL'd. The requirement is that once you provide someone with a GPL'd binary they have the right to have the sources to that binary for the cost of duplication. Once they have the sources they are at liberty to do whatever they wish under the terms of the GPL, including generating a new binary and distributing that however they wish under the terms of the GPL.

The problem seems to be that Hitech and Hitex don't accept that once they've given someone the sources (once they've bought a binary) then they are free to redistribute derived sources and binaries as they see fit - this is the part that seems to violate the GPL (but clearly this is a matter for RMS and the FSF to decide as the copyright holder of gcc).

FWIW I've been around this discussion several times because I maintain a commercial toolchain that is provided for a charge (along with a lot of non-GPL'd libraries). Our customers may have the sources for the GPL'd components (one of which happens to be gcc) and may redistribute their own derived versions however they see fit within the terms of the GPL. In our particular case, however, we have also steadily been assigning the copyrights of the backend parts of our GNU tools to the FSF so that they are available in the FSF releases too.

Regards, Dave

More interesting is the fact that once you distribute the binary to someone, if you don't include the source at the same time (section 3a), you must provide the sources to any THIRD PARTY that requests them (section 3b). You can require that they pay "a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution".