Reply by Albert van der Horst●January 17, 20082008-01-17
In article <9_idnZWTQIga8x7anZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@giganews.com>,
SteveM <m.steve75@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I am looking for a free commercial usage & open source RTOS with small
>footprint. I want RTOS to be very small preferably <5KBytes, which does
>just Task handling/ISR/Semaphore.
>
>I heard couple of small footprint RTOS like freeRTOS, Nucleus, ThreadX,
>silRTOS, eCOS etc but don't have detail. Can someone help with details?
If you can live with it, Forth is in fact a small footprint OS.
For most micro's several implementations are available, and some
may actually do what you need. That is hard to tell without more
information.
>
>Steve
Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Reply by FreeRTOS.org●January 12, 20082008-01-12
> Here's XMK's license - http://www.shift-right.com/openrepo/license.htm
> ==========================================================================
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
> met:
> - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> distribution.
> - Neither the name of the Shift-Right Technologies, LLC. nor the names
> of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
> derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
> ==========================================================================
Coming to this thread rather late due to a business trip.....
The middle point in these conditions is with respect to binary
distribution - which could mean embedded in a product - so is the
requirement is to reproduce the notice in your product documentation?
With respect to FreeRTOS.org - a link to downloads for all versions of
FreeRTOS.org can be found on the FreeRTOS.org site. This is why I say for
FreeRTOS.org merely providing a link is enough to satisfy the requirement to
provide the source code. If users want the code, they can download it
easily. There is no need for the user to keep the code on a server or offer
to post the code on a CD as might have been the case in years gone by. (The
price of a commercial license is 'very competitive anyway and a tiny amount
compared to the cost of developing a new product, so this is an easy
alternative :o)
--
Regards,
Richard.
+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org & http://www.FreeRTOS.org/shop
14 official architecture ports, 5000 downloads per month.
+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
Certified by T�V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.
Reply by Grant Edwards●January 11, 20082008-01-11
On 2008-01-11, Buddy Smith <nullset.spamtrap@dookie.net> wrote:
> Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> FreeRTOS and XMK are two that come to mind:
>
>> http://www.freertos.org/
>> http://www.shift-right.com/xmk/
>
>> IIRC, they both impose requirements that you offer to supply
>> source code to your customers.
>
> You remember incorrectly!
My bad. I just double-checked FreeRTOS, and it does have a
distribution requirement. I must have been confusing XMK with
a different kernel.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! UH-OH!! We're out
at of AUTOMOBILE PARTS and
visi.com RUBBER GOODS!
> IIRC, they both impose requirements that you offer to supply
> source code to your customers.
You remember incorrectly!
Here's XMK's license - http://www.shift-right.com/openrepo/license.htm
==========================================================================
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
- Neither the name of the Shift-Right Technologies, LLC. nor the names
of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
==========================================================================
So it looks like source is not required for XMK
--buddy
Reply by Grant Edwards●January 11, 20082008-01-11
On 2008-01-11, Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> I didn't mean to imply that the user's application source code
>> had to be distributed -- I apologize is that's what it sounded
>> like. But, distributing FreeRTOS source code imposes a cost
>> on the user that has to be considered
>
> That's true, but the requirement is pretty trivial:
I agree comletely.
> a URL in the documentation is all they require.
And the supporting web/ftp site (unless one can merely point
customers to the same place the developer downloaded it from.)
> Sorry if I sounded grousy, but there are a lot of people with
> a vested interest in spreading FUD about open- source
> software. My experience as a small user without a big
> company's clout is that I'm far more likely to get a fix for a
> problem with open source than any proprietary solution.
I also agree completely with that.
I have absolutely no complaints about the source-distribution
requirement.
Unfortunately, my exerpence with some larger companies is that
the concept of offering source to customers is new/foriegn and
a fair bit of effort can be required to educate them (sometimes
there are laywers involved - yay!). Once they're convinced,
they've got to set up a mechanism to provide the source code.
Even if it's just putting a tarball on an ftp or http server,
that can take a few meetings and memos to make happen. It's
sad, but at some places, it's easier to write a PO for $2K.
That said, at least some of the free RTOS (like XMK, IIRC) are
also available under a commercial license for the more, um,
"traditional" customers.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Is it NOUVELLE
at CUISINE when 3 olives are
visi.com struggling with a scallop
in a plate of SAUCE MORNAY?
Reply by Paul Burke●January 11, 20082008-01-11
Grant Edwards wrote:
> I didn't mean to imply that the user's application
> source code had to be distributed -- I apologize is that's what
> it sounded like. But, distributing FreeRTOS source code
> imposes a cost on the user that has to be considered
That's true, but the requirement is pretty trivial: a URL in the
documentation is all they require. Sorry if I sounded grousy, but there
are a lot of people with a vested interest in spreading FUD about open-
source software. My experience as a small user without a big company's
clout is that I'm far more likely to get a fix for a problem with open
source than any proprietary solution. Easy-PC being a notable exception.
PB
Reply by David Brown●January 10, 20082008-01-10
Arlet Ottens wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>
>> And did you read about McAfee, which had a note on the tax statement
>> to the effect that because of the evils of the GPL, they might have to
>> give out some of their proprietary source code (basically, it appears
>> they admit to have been breaking the license, and fear they might get
>> caught).
>
> This is a popular misunderstanding. You only have to give out your
> source code, *if* you accept the terms of the GPL.
>
> However, nobody can enforce the terms of the GPL (it's a license, not a
> contract). McAfee has the option of ignoring these terms, which would
> change their actions into straightforward copyright infringement.
>
> In return, the copyright holder can then sue McAfee, and make them stop
> further distribution and/or have them pay damages. Forcing McAfee to
> give out their propietary code is not a legal option.
I should note for completeness that I don't know if McAfee has ever used
GPL'ed software, or included it in their distributions - that's only an
assumption I and many others are making on the basis of their statements.
I don't know if they can be forced to provide the relevant parts of
their source under the GPL or not - IANAL. It's interesting to read
your comments, however.
Certainly the were obliged to release their code when mixing it with the
GPL, according to the GPL's license - if they did not accept the
license, then they had no rights to distribute software using the GPL'ed
code. The wording on McAfee's tax return notice suggests that *they*
believe they may be forced to release source code to software for which
they have already distributed binaries - perhaps having first
distributed binaries including GPL'ed code, they have already implicitly
accepted the license and cannot then ignore it?
Reply by Arlet Ottens●January 10, 20082008-01-10
David Brown wrote:
> And did you read about McAfee, which
> had a note on the tax statement to the effect that because of the evils
> of the GPL, they might have to give out some of their proprietary source
> code (basically, it appears they admit to have been breaking the
> license, and fear they might get caught).
This is a popular misunderstanding. You only have to give out your
source code, *if* you accept the terms of the GPL.
However, nobody can enforce the terms of the GPL (it's a license, not a
contract). McAfee has the option of ignoring these terms, which would
change their actions into straightforward copyright infringement.
In return, the copyright holder can then sue McAfee, and make them stop
further distribution and/or have them pay damages. Forcing McAfee to
give out their propietary code is not a legal option.
Reply by An Schwob in the USA●January 10, 20082008-01-10
On Jan 8, 1:37 pm, "SteveM" <m.stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am looking for a free commercial usage & open source RTOS with small
> footprint. I want RTOS to be very small preferably <5KBytes, which does
> just Task handling/ISR/Semaphore.
>
> I heard couple of small footprint RTOS like freeRTOS, Nucleus, ThreadX,
> silRTOS, eCOS etc but don't have detail. Can someone help with details?
>
> Steve
Hi Steve,
all that you are asking for except for "free" can be done by embOS, a
small and highly efficient OS from Segger
http://www.segger.com for more information. On an ARM7 in Thumb mode
just about 2.5KB in size. lower cost than a couple of the OSs you
mentioned.
Many architectures supported and BSPs for download for ARM devices,
Renesas, Coldfire, PIC32, AVR32.... just check it out.
For existing BSP and evaluation Boards supported have a look here:
http://www.segger.com/evalboards.html
An Schwob
Reply by David Brown●January 10, 20082008-01-10
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-01-10, John Devereux <jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Right. I didn't mean to imply that the user's application
>>> source code had to be distributed -- I apologize is that's what
>>> it sounded like. But, distributing FreeRTOS source code
>>> imposes a cost on the user that has to be considered just as
>>> one would the licensing cost of a "non-free" RTOS that doesn't
>>> require the user to distribute any source code to the user's
>>> customers.
>> I suppose in reality this could be "write to the software development
>> manager, at xyz inc., enclosing your email address, for a copy of
>> FreeRTOS. Or download from freertos.org".
>>
>> And of course no-one would ever bother.
>
> Probably not, but the requirement still scares away a few
> companies who don't want to have to deal with it.
>
>> I wonder what potentially onerous terms and conditions lurk in
>> the depths of commercial licenses?
>
> For whatever reason, nobody seems to care about those. But if
> you propose using somethign free, some people freaks out and
> start combing the license terms to try to figure out how using
> soemthing free is going to cause the downfall of western
> civilization.
>
Commercial licenses also sometimes have clauses banning you from
revealing the details of the licenses, or publishing anything else about
the software (such as benchmarks or reviews). They can also be unclear
about details (if it is a "per product" license, what about different
versions? Does support depend on the tools you use? If it is a "per
seat" license, what about developers sharing a laptop? etc., etc.) On
the other hand, I suppose most commercial licenses aimed at this market
are going to be pretty clear in that you don't have to release any
source code!
But you are right about people reacting strangely about open source
licenses - people get all worked up about the GPL and it's "dangers",
yet happily click on the XP EULA. And did you read about McAfee, which
had a note on the tax statement to the effect that because of the evils
of the GPL, they might have to give out some of their proprietary source
code (basically, it appears they admit to have been breaking the
license, and fear they might get caught). It's not actually much
different from illegal use of any other code under any other license,
it's just that the requirements of the license are a little different
(it's not just about money).