Iam using Freescale's COLDFIRE processor MCF 5485.
I have downloaded TCP/IP and USB stack which is freely available.(for coldfire processor).
I plan to go for ThreadX RTOS. ThreadX has TCP/IP stack and USB stack which is NOT FREE.
Are these stacks RTOS dependent ? so that i can buy only the core OR should i buy these stacks that come with ThreadX.
Thanks, VIVEK
Le Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:04:29 -0800, vivek a écrit:
Ask ThreadX vendors !
How are people supposed to know which stacks you are talking about?
In message , FreeRTOS.org writes
Stop being pedantic.... the answer is obviously: Yes. (But no if you use the other one)
No, but limited in functionality.
In message , vivek writes
It makes more sense to use the stacks that are part of the RTOS. You will get support and you have some guarantee that they will work as expected.
NOTHING in life is free. Go and ask your company accountant how much you cost the company per hour... this is usually a lot more than what they pay you. (Salary + taxes + desk+ lighting+ space+ heat etc etc )
Now divide the cost of the ThreadX stacks by the cost of your time (to the company) per hour. Can you produce those stacks for that number of hours?
Likewise... how long will it take you to get the "free" stacks to work with ThreadX? Multiply that time by the cost per hour...
The other minor point is usually "free" software from silicon vendors is "sold as seen" and unsupported. If you have a problem you are on your own.
Usually at this point "free" works out as "expensive".
By the time you have decided the "free" software from silicon is not as good value as the commercial stuff you have already bought the tools and committed to the MCU so they job of the free SW is done. Another sale of the silicon.
... snip ...
Now this makes much more sense than your usual anti-opensource drivel. At least here you are picking on the 'free' software that accompanies hardware, without source. Of course you must realize that, in general, opensource software is better supported, more user responsive, and better performing than the expensive paid-for suites with anti-copying gyrations etc.
Congratulations. Keep it up.
Who said without source?
Absolutely not.
. BTW the TCP/IP and USB stacks I do are in source form without copy protection....
Le Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:28:41 +0000, Chris Hills a écrit:
Hi Chris,
So you release these stacks under GPL ? And may be therefore suggest to your clients to subscribe for paid (and efficent) assistance provided by you ? Congratulation ! You are an advocate of the free software without knowing it. Selling Free Software is OK! Cf.
Habib.
That is not remotely what he said.
OT: Why do news group posters place a space before punctuation marks?
-- Regards, Richard.
Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a écrit:
Yes of course he did'nt said that. He just said "TCP/IP and USB stacks I do are in source form without copy protection ..." without specifying the type of license. Then i just assumed that he has done under the GPL, like many others out down here.
Because this is one of strange rules of French writing syntax.
Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:20:43 +0100, David Brown a écrit:
Hi !
What do you mean with "the GPL *is* copy protection too" ? Please give me some examples that illustrate this.
I agreed with you. It does not happen to a month without discovering obvious infringment to the GPL in many embedded systems.
He said "without copy protection" - the GPL *is* copy protection too, just of a different sort from many commercial licenses. That's why very few libraries aimed at embedded systems use the GPL (unless they are dual licensed - you can get the GPL version for free, and pay for less restrictive licenses) - they use BSD licenses, the MPL, or modified GPL licenses which allow use of the code without affecting the license of the rest of your application.
... snip ...
That doesn't bother me. But failing to put a space AFTER punctuation marks does.
"Copy protection" is not really the right phrase. The GPL uses copyright laws to enforce its license, which restricts your use of the GPL'ed code and generated binaries - you are obliged to provide the source code of all code directly linked with the GPL'ed code, under the same GPL license. I fully understand and appreciate the GPL, and its benefits in many situations - but in the context of embedded development, it is as restrictive and inconvenient as many commercial licenses (probably more than the license for Chris' code).
Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:18:25 +0100, David Brown a écrit:
Hi David, Yeah ! that's the GPL deal !
Of course we can use commercial libraries, oses, compilers, ...etc to develop a product, but then we can no longer share his knowledge and this idea (likely as many people like me) is unbereable. Why is this still problematic for some than others share their knowledge ? Probably I will never understand.
For some things, it makes sense to share - for others, it does not. The more general a program is (OS, desktop, compiler, library, etc.), the more benefits there are for both the developer and users when the code is open source. For specialised programs, such as small embedded systems or specialised PC software, open source offers little benefits to the user, and only problems for the developer. There is space enough in the programming world for different sorts of licenses for different purposes.
In message , Habib Bouaziz-Viallet writes
Absolutely not. #source code can be provided under any sort of license. HJas been for years before the OS movement was even thought of. Providing source code does NOT mean it is Open Source
In message , Habib Bouaziz-Viallet writes
You mentioned licences and copy protection as separate items. The course code is not copy protected but it is licensed.
Clearly
No others assumed....
Absolutely.
BTW the license for the source code in question is less than one page. Unlike the GPL V3 has not had any complaints from any one using it.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required