>I am going out on a limb here, but the reason the Zworld gives us the
>great deal on the libraries is that they are very interested having
>products developed for their hardware. They are not interested in
>selling code at a low price only to have it ported to run on other
>hardware platforms. This is a perfectly valid business strategy that
>should be respected by this community. After all, how many of us want
>our commercial efforts co-opted to the profit of others?
>
>Chuck
>
>chuck.johnson@chuc...
>
>-----

Z-World is basically a hardware company. They want to sell their widgets,
so they basically have to provide their own Compiler, etc. or license one
from somewhere else. Since they probably don't want to be at the mercy of
the compiler folks they roll their own. Also, since they aren't in the
compiler business they can give us royalty free code. The
compiler/libraries only have to be good enough (not excellent) to keep
the sales of the hardware going. if you think of it that way, that
explains ALOT about the compiler and the libraries.
I would wager that they don't make any money (or very little) on DC
itself. It should be pretty obvious that they don't want their libraries
ported since they want you to use their hardware. BTW, why would you want
to port the DC libraries? There have to be open source alternatves out
there which would probably be a better choice since they're constantly
being updated. And there would be no legal ramifications either.

Dean

In terms of general business as seen today I totally agree with you. For
my point of view the mistake born in a different way: I buied DC + a
development kit because I read a Rabbit advertising that said "...
Dynamic C compiler plus libraries ready to..." and also told about free
updates. It was DC 7.04 and there was a lot of bugs. I choosed RABBIT to
short my development cycle but in practice I debugged (for free) DC and
libraries that would be debugged before to be sold and I didn't meet my
time goals. Then I had to finish my product with Rabbit but with no all
functionalities as initially specified. Then in a second time I finish
the application with all functionalities. From DC 7.04 and 8.xx there
were a lot of releases and a lot of bugs. When I buied DC I had free
support and free updates but in a second time ZWORLD decided to change
the rules and suspended free support and freee updates.
Is this to say "thanks" to all engineers those debugged their code?
Do you really think that a contract may be changed without any agreement
with the other contractor?
In the mean time I was able to finish or continue my work thanks to the
invaluable support given by this newsgroup, that was a lot better then
ZWORLD support. But no one of this group toke a cent for their help.
From the point of view of EULA: the meaning of the written text is
wrong or contraddict what they think. As said before: they differentiate
the software from the libraries and explicitely prohibit to change or
translate the software (they don't write about libraries) then if not
specifically prohibited, libraries may be changed and also translated.
Also in the source code they claim the property but they don't say what
you can do or not. This they wrote (and they made a "bug" I suppose) and
this they may ask until now. Sostantially the main problem is that they
said a different thing: if you change libraries or don't use their
libraries with DC you will not produce a licensable application. Then
until now all our applications, strictly reading EULA and legally
speaking, are not licensed. For this reason the EULA is not valid
because in all the world no one may write a license that make impossible
to produce a licensed material; it was impossible (strictly legally
speaking) and will be impossible until you have to correct a bug by
yourself in a DC library needed for your project. Then at ZWORLD have to
change their license text to explain better their idea and they will
find a way to deal with old customers with old eula (Microsoft to solve
the problem in the past gives the possibility to have a free updates of
VC++ that implicitly request to accept a new license). This is not my
opinion but also of EU courts that in this year invalidated a lot of
software licenses coming from USA companies. Now software sold in EU
have a different licenses then in USA, try to read Microsoft licenses
for Visual Studio and so on. Also some trademarks: the word windows
standalone can't be used as a trademark in EU because is a common sense
word also if speaking of gui (instead XWindows and Lindows are valid
trademarks) and some patents aren't valid in EU and are valid in USA.
Yust to smile a little: my company is a micro company then I need some
sort of protection (read license) for the software that I sell and in
the past I used one of the more expert italian lawyer to write down a
good license type. It is valid in EU and also in USA and I may assure to
you that is restrictive as ZWORLD intention, the meaning is obvious and
there isn't any possibility to misunderstanding and it is written in all
EU languages.
No one may say that can't understand the text.

On Feb 13, 2004, at 7:59 AM, Chuck Johnson wrote:
> I am going out on a limb here, but the reason the Zworld gives us the
> great deal on the libraries is that they are very interested having
> products developed for their hardware. They are not interested in
> selling code at a low price only to have it ported to run on other
> hardware platforms. This is a perfectly valid business strategy that
> should be respected by this community. After all, how many of us want
> our commercial efforts co-opted to the profit of others?

Additionally, Zworld may have licensed some of that code with the
restriction that it only be used within Dynamic C. It's my
understanding that a uC/OS-II license is normally quite expensive, but
Zworld will sell you a royalty-free port of uC/OS-II for Dynamic C.

Because the source code is copywritten, you need Zworld's permission to
create derivative works. From the excerpt posted, it isn't clear that
you can modify the libraries for use in your own projects.

Maybe their legal department should review the EULA to make it clear
that:

If you want to use Dynamic C libraries or samples, you can only use
them (with or without modifications) in products built with Dynamic C.
You can port these libraries to the Softools compiler, but only for
programs that will run on Rabbit 2000 or Rabbit 3000 processors.

--
Tom Collins - tom@tom@...
QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/
Info on the Sniffter handheld Network Tester: http://sniffter.com/

At 08:59 AM 2/13/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>I am going out on a limb here, but the reason the Zworld gives us the
>great deal on the libraries is that they are very interested having
>products developed for their hardware. They are not interested in
>selling code at a low price only to have it ported to run on other
>hardware platforms. This is a perfectly valid business strategy that
>should be respected by this community.

Absolutely. I was the original person to ask for an explanation of the
license agreement, just because I had never seen one. I have no intention
of porting the library to any other platform. I like the Rabbit
platform. Heck, I like DC.

That said, I still would like someone to spell out in plain English exactly
what that license agreement says. Not that I don't trust ZWorld, but I
don't trust their lawyers.

-Mike

If you are developing a commercial application that depends on ports of
code (DC or otherwise) to other environments or IDEs that you do not
have a LICENSE for, you would be a fool to not get a legal opinion and
maybe written permission from the licensor prior to selling the product.
This is true weather you "agree" with the EULA or not (not that ones
personal opinion matters at all), think the language is wrong, think you
understand the EULA or don't understand the EULA. How will you explain
to your customers that you need all copies of the software or hardware
that you sold them returned? Do you have the money in your pocket to
refund their purchases? Do you have the money in your pocket to settle
with the original licensor for violating a EULA that you agreed to?

I am going out on a limb here, but the reason the Zworld gives us the
great deal on the libraries is that they are very interested having
products developed for their hardware. They are not interested in
selling code at a low price only to have it ported to run on other
hardware platforms. This is a perfectly valid business strategy that
should be respected by this community. After all, how many of us want
our commercial efforts co-opted to the profit of others?

Chuck

chuck.johnson@chuc...

Dave,
I am using also an eZ8 Encore dev. system and C compiler is not so efficient. Are you working with Zilog eZ80 C compiler? Is it good or not?

Massimo Manca,
Micron Engineering

Hello,

I have one of those, they are good value.
I also had the idea to put one on a pin compatible module to
replace the 2120 we use here.

Dave.

This is an extract of ZWORLD license:

1. Definitions. In addition to the definitions stated in the first
paragraph of this document, capitalized words used in this License shall
have the following meanings:
1.1 "Qualified Applications" means an application program developed
using the Software AND that links with the development libraries of the
Software.
1.1.1 "Qualified Applications" is amended to include application
programs developed using the Softools WinIDE program for Rabbit
processors available from Softools, Inc.
1.1.2 The MicroC/OS-II (uC/OS-II) library and sample code released with
any version of Dynamic C, and the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) library
released prior to Dynamic C version 7.32 are not included in this amendment.
1.1.3 Excluding the exceptions in 1.1.2, library and sample code
provided with the Software may be modified for use with the Softools
WinIDE program in Qualified Systems as defined in 1.2. All other
Restrictions specified by this license agreement remain in force.
1.2 "Qualified Systems" means a microprocessor-based computer system
which is either (i) manufactured by, for or under license from Z-WORLD,
or (ii) based on the Rabbit 2000 microprocessor or the Rabbit 3000
microprocessor. Qualified Systems may not be (a) designed or intended
to be re-programmable by your customer using the Software, or (b)
competitive with Z-WORLD products, except as otherwise stated in a
written agreement between Z-World and the system manufacturer. Such
written agreement may require an end user to pay run time royalties to
Z-World.

As you may read the license is not valid because there is a big mistake:
the definition of "Qualified applications" is completely wrong:
"developed using the Software AND that links with the development
libraries of the Software" legally means that if you wish to write a
qualified application you have to use DC AND link the DC libraries. So,
if you don't use their libraries you don't have a qualified application.
Also they wrote that you may modify the libraries to work with Softtools
C compiler, but they don't say you may modify (or not) them to work with
DC! Then all our applications are not qualified if we don't use their
libraries or we modify them! This is a big mistake because I and a lot
of other engineers made modifications on our libraries to correct ZWORLD
bugs. Then all libraries modified or corrected may not be used to
develop a qualified application. The error is the and that I capitalized
at point 1.1. Legally speaking the supplier have to give us the
possibility to don't infrange his license and the possibility to produce
a working result.. This is valid in all European Union and may not be
amended by any type of license. Another interesting point: ZWORLD gives
us the source code (and then we have the possibility to see and modify
or correct it) but who has the property of the libraries with
corrections inside? If I correct some libs and ZWORLD would have them I
will not give them for free. Also they don't clame the property of
modifications (they can't) or explicitally say that you can't modify the
libraries. They implicitly said that if you modify the libraries you
produce a not qualified application. Also the definition of Software is
not so precise but they speak about "Software AND that links with the
development libraries of the Software" so they limit us to modify the
software but they don't speak about libraries and then the point 3. has
meaning only about the Software and not the libraries. (See above) Then
legally speaking: why anyone can't modify or translate the libraries if
isn't specifically prohibited by the license?

3. Restrictions. Except as otherwise stated, You may not, nor permit
anyone else to, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise
attempt to reconstruct or discover the source code of the Software,
alter, merge, modify, translate, adapt in any way, prepare any
derivative work based upon the Software, rent, lease network, loan,
distribute or otherwise transfer the Software or any copy thereof. You
shall not make copies of the copyrighted Software and/or documentation
without the prior written permission of Z-WORLD; provided that, You may
make one (1) hard copy of such documentation for each User and a
reasonable number of back-up copies for Your own archival purposes. You
may not use copies of the Software as part of a benchmark or comparison
test against other similar products in order to produce results strictly
for purposes of comparison. The Software contains copyrighted material,
trade secrets and other proprietary material of Z-WORLD and/or its
licensors and You must reproduce, on each copy of the Software, all
copyright notices and any other proprietary legends that appear on or in
the original copy of the Software. Except for the limited license
granted above, Z-WORLD retains all right, title and interest in and to
all intellectual property rights embodied in the Software, including but
not limited to, patents, copyrights and trade secrets.

And the last point is: ZWORLD libs aren't ANSI C then DC is not C and if
you read the original library and write an equivalent library your
effort is not an illegal copy but like a translation from a language to
an other language and this is not prohibited by their license. Also
there are a lot of european courts and also american courts that in the
past doesn't recognize software properties for these cases to the
producer. Think that tcp protocols are available for free in source form
by BSD and a lot of other places then you may study some sources from
BSD, some from ZWORLD some yours and produce a source code that is an
original "puzzle".
Who has the property of the software produced in this way?
I think that ZWORLD if would protect its software may consider to write
a real compiler and distribute its libraries in binary form. Of course
if ZWORLD will change in this direction have to distribute a better
software then DC and more debugged and tested as done until now.

For ZWORLD people: don't worry, I will not use your software libraries
outside DC, personally when I choosed to use a Rabbit module I was sure
to be able to reuse my original code (about 5 millions C source code
rows at now) because it is in ISO C/C++ but I couldn't and I had to
rewrote too much code. Also I ported TCP libraries and all C standard
libraries to DC because I can't deal with DC oddities about memory
management and speed and correct some errors on the BIOS code. For next
low volume project I will take a DALLAS or Zilog module. I have just to
survive with 2 products and I will continue to have some consultings (on
customers request) and to support the newsgroup as in the past.