LPC900/80C51 Compiler Toolchain

In article <xXXmZYCzHgtGFAdR@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
> In article <MPG.211fbe251df443b898978c@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
> >In article <6fhk7NBo5YtGFAd5@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
> >> In article <MPG.211e81cec8c4494e989788@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett
> >> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
> >> >In article <xSZ243AJsFtGFAtH@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
> >> >> In article <MPG.211d8cdcf9b0608b989786@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett
> >> >> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
> >> >> >In article <HjGsi.5021$vi3.1415@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle
> >> >> >says...
> >> >> >> should we put up with it for embedded tools ?. We bought Keil C some
> >> >> >> years ago for a project and (the client) paid extra for an undongled
> >> >> >> version, not so we could steal it,
> >> >> >> but so that it could be installed at
> >> >> >> client and development sites. I was the only developer, so only 
> >> >> >>single
> >> >> >> copy would ever be used at once. This I would consider fair use within
> >> >> >> the license terms, though i'm sure some vendors would disagree.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why not move the dongle between the two computers. As you were the only
> >> >> user I can't see the problem.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps it's not possible?  I know with dongle schemes like FlexLm
> >> >that's the case.
> >>
> >> Flexlm is not a dongle system.
> >
> >Sure it is,
> 
> No. A dongle is a piece of HW.
> 
> FlexLM is something else....

Methinks we will just have to disagree on this particular definition.

> >it just happens to be implemented in SW and they generally
> >charge extra for you to be able to move from machine to machine.
> Some do and some don't

Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not 
charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.

> I have never understood why they charge for this.
> One compiler vendor lets you change it (FOC) via the web site
> 
> The solution I have seen is to lock thelicens to the MAC of the network 
> adaptor. I have a USB-Ethernet network adapter that work just fine for 
> that and in effect will give me a movable dongle for a node lock system

An interesting work around.  Won't work for my NT system of course.

> The problem is that I have seen people who buy one copy of the SW and 
> use a printer switch box to have 2-4 people sharing the same license.

I've seen that too and it's made me uncomfortable, but I dont really see 
it as morally any differnt from moving a USB based MAC around.


> >And as CB Falconer pointed out, there are cases where a physical dongle
> >cannot be tranfered either.
> 
> There are? I thought the whole point of the physical dongle was to 
> permit movement of the license.  I am trying to remember if any [hw] 
> dongle systems I know would not let you move and I can't think of any. 
> Though I don't doubt there must have been some.

Well the obvious one is the case of a parallel port dongle which he 
pointed out.  There is an increasingly large subset of machines w/o a 
parallel port.

Also I do seem to recall it being a condition of some licenses.  The 
dongle was supposed to be for a single machine only.

Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <eb0ti.94$1G1.36@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle 
> <nospam@devnul.co.uk> writes
>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>>>   Why not move the dongle between the two computers. As you were the 
>>> only  user I can't see the problem.
>>>
>>
>> Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that 
>> irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to 
>> shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely 
>> and accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me 
>> that they don't trust me.
> 
> The proof is there that without a dongle their software will be stolen. 
> As it is there are lots of people using cracked software illegally.
> 

It's that attitude that is the problem.  A working dongle is a proof 
that either the software was bought legitimately, or that the the dongle 
was stolen from someone else who bought the software.  Lack of a working 
dongle is proof that the dongle is broken, or the dongle is missing (a 
USB dongle passed around amongst many people can easily be lost), or 
that the dongle was stolen, or that the licensing software has crapped 
out, or that that the software was stolen.

> How would you feel if, because some other people were stealing what your 
> employer produces he says he will have to cut your wages?
> 
>> That's quite apart from the dongle and flexlm hassles. If your machine 
>> or flexlm server crashes, it can take a lot of time to get everything 
>> working again, with obvious impact on timescales if a team of 6 is 
>> sitting idle.
> 
> I am not a fan of FlexLm
> 
>> The ideal situation would be no dongles,
> And honest users.....
> You can't have one without the other.
> 

 From the point of view of the honest customer, illegally copying or 
using the software is not their problem, and the honest customer resents 
the supplier making it their problem by forcing them to use dongles or 
other locks.  The dishonest customer will use a cracked copy and have no 
problems.  This is why the onus is on the supplier to make any locks of 
absolute minimal hassle to their honest customers - something that some 
suppliers do, but others do not.

>> support or added functionality point of view. Share their improvements 
>> whith the wider software community to improve the state of the art
> 
> Why?   That is a completely naive scenario that does not work anywhere 
> in business.
> 

It works for a great many types of software - it was the standard from 
the early days of software (the GNU project was a return to the old 
ways, not a new concept), it has always been the standard in some areas 
of software, and it is increasing in use through open source software. 
Companies release their software as open source to make more money - 
it's that simple.

That doesn't mean it will work for every developer in every branch of 
software development, of course - merely that it *does* work for many 
people.

>> generally and get a lot kudos, more sales and business goodwill in the 
>> process. Sure, you will get a few people making copies, but they 
>> wouldn't have bought the license anyway, so you could argue that it 
>> has near zero impact on revenue.
> 
> This is NOT TRUE.  The main commercial tools have a lot of IP that cost 
> them a lot to develop they are not going to give that away.
> 
> What you are suggesting will have a MAJOR impact on revenue and you end 
> up with a lot of mediocre tools
> 
> 
>> no excuse for it. It's strange in life how the people who always make 
>> the most noise about being ripped off tend to be the most dishonest 
>> themselves.
> 
> This is not true either.....
> 

Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <MPG.211e86c672d0c2db989789@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
> <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>> In article <eb0ti.94$1G1.36@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle says...
>>> Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that
>>> irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to
>>> shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely and
>>> accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me that
>>> they don't trust me.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> There is also some element of self fulfilling prophecy here.  A "If I'm
>> going to be treated as a wolf I might a well behave as one" reaction
>> some people will have.
> 
> You are very naive.
> 

On my home computer, I have a few computer games in cracked or 
downloaded versions - while at the same time, I have the original 
version sitting on my shelf.  That way I can run the games without the 
hassle of the "protection" mechanism (having the CD/DVD in the 
computer), for greater convenience and lower risk - the originals are 
safe and won't get worn or scratched.  I have known of people with 
similar attitudes to development software.  In these cases, the users 
have bought a license but are still using unlicensed versions - if a 
supplier makes life more difficult for the honest customer, the 
temptation to dishonesty (or at least, to "bend" the rules) increases.

On 2007-08-04, Robert Adsett <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"In article <eb0ti.94$1G1.36@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle says...    |
|> Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that       |
|> irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to      |
|> shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely and |
|> accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me that   |
|> they don't trust me.                                                     |
|                                                                           |
|Absolutely."                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Sheesh, they do not trust everybody. They are not necessarily saying
that you will steal, but somebody would steal. You are entitled to
resent dongles (and complaints such as a dongle might malfunction or
become lost are valid), but being insulted that all customers are
given a dongle each is something I deem to be an overreaction. For
example, a landlord from who I rented accommodation and shared a yard
with was insulted that I locked a vehicle because he would not steal
it. If I ever visit you, please do not think that I necessarily
suspect that you will steal my vehicle if I lock it. Someone else
could steal it otherwise. Similarly, any time I have taken an opaque
bag into a shop and a staffmember of the shop requested to look into
the bag, I was not being accused of stealing and I was not insulted:
checking whether I stole something was a perfectly legitimate goal of
the shop's staff. Similarly in other shops, entering with one's own
bags is forbidden: this again is not an accusation that everyone is a
thief, but it might prevent some thefts. I may find it inconvenient
that I may not enter a particular shop with a bag of my own, but just
as a dongle may be inconvenient, it is not necessarily enough for me
to be insulted and invoke a boycott.

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"There is also some element of self fulfilling prophecy here.  A "If I'm   |
|going to be treated as a wolf I might a well behave as one" reaction       |
|some people will have.  [..]"                                              |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Perhaps. However, whether something is priced cheaply or expensively,
people will still moan that it costs too much and will steal it:
e.g. on
WWW.WorldOfSpectrum.org/showmag.cgi?mag=Crash/Issue02/Pages/Crash0200092.jpg
in 1984 someone moaned:
"[..]
Why do software houses have to charge so much for their software
tapes? Most tapes are priced around five to six pounds, [..]

[..]"

If things cost even less, people will still steal them but they might
not try some pathetic excuse such as the cost. E.g. many Spectrum
tapes had even cheaper prices but piracy was a problem, so the company
named Ultimate Play the Game increased its prices to far higher than
average such that people would be deterred from giving away something
which cost a lot of money. (This was mentioned in Keith Ainsworth's
excellent article for his magazine "Retrogamer", but it does not seem
to be in the gratis excerpt on
WWW.RetrogamerFanzine.PWP.BlueYonder.co.UK/ulinext4.htm
.) Raising the prices may have resulted in people using the high
prices as an excuse to illegally copy the games.

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Certainly piracy occurs.  I would, maybe naively, hope that embedded      |
|development tools would be less prone to that than desktop software.       |
|[..]                                                                       |
|                                                                           |
|[..]"                                                                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Embedded development tools are also stolen. Perhaps they are less
prone to this, but I do not understand how that would be. Bad people
exist. The extensive amount of theft of software which is not bespoke
software would scare me from trying to make a living programming for a
domain populated by thieves.

Regards,
Colin Paul Gloster

Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> writes:

> On 2007-08-04, Robert Adsett <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
>
> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |"In article <eb0ti.94$1G1.36@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle says...    |
> |> Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that       |
> |> irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to      |
> |> shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely and |
> |> accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me that   |
> |> they don't trust me.                                                     |
> |                                                                           |
> |Absolutely."                                                               |
> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
> Sheesh, they do not trust everybody. They are not necessarily saying
> that you will steal, but somebody would steal. You are entitled to
> resent dongles (and complaints such as a dongle might malfunction or
> become lost are valid), but being insulted that all customers are
> given a dongle each is something I deem to be an overreaction. For
> example, a landlord from who I rented accommodation and shared a yard
> with was insulted that I locked a vehicle because he would not steal
> it. If I ever visit you, please do not think that I necessarily
> suspect that you will steal my vehicle if I lock it. Someone else
> could steal it otherwise. Similarly, any time I have taken an opaque
> bag into a shop and a staffmember of the shop requested to look into
> the bag, I was not being accused of stealing and I was not insulted:
> checking whether I stole something was a perfectly legitimate goal of
> the shop's staff. Similarly in other shops, entering with one's own
> bags is forbidden: this again is not an accusation that everyone is a
> thief, but it might prevent some thefts. I may find it inconvenient
> that I may not enter a particular shop with a bag of my own, but just
> as a dongle may be inconvenient, it is not necessarily enough for me
> to be insulted and invoke a boycott.

It's more like having your bag searched, then being falsely arrested
and imprisoned for 3 days, being beaten around the head a few times...

Then when they release you they keep the bag!

(That's how long I spent trying to get my dongle-protected IAR
software working again, before abandoning the effort. I can no longer
compile my own code.)

-- 

John Devereux

John Devereux wrote:
> Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> writes:
> 
>> On 2007-08-04, Robert Adsett <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
>>
>> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>> |"In article <eb0ti.94$1G1.36@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle says...    |
>> |> Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that       |
>> |> irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to      |
>> |> shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely and |
>> |> accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me that   |
>> |> they don't trust me.                                                     |
>> |                                                                           |
>> |Absolutely."                                                               |
>> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>
>> Sheesh, they do not trust everybody. They are not necessarily saying
>> that you will steal, but somebody would steal. You are entitled to
>> resent dongles (and complaints such as a dongle might malfunction or
>> become lost are valid), but being insulted that all customers are
>> given a dongle each is something I deem to be an overreaction. For
>> example, a landlord from who I rented accommodation and shared a yard
>> with was insulted that I locked a vehicle because he would not steal
>> it. If I ever visit you, please do not think that I necessarily
>> suspect that you will steal my vehicle if I lock it. Someone else
>> could steal it otherwise. Similarly, any time I have taken an opaque
>> bag into a shop and a staffmember of the shop requested to look into
>> the bag, I was not being accused of stealing and I was not insulted:
>> checking whether I stole something was a perfectly legitimate goal of
>> the shop's staff. Similarly in other shops, entering with one's own
>> bags is forbidden: this again is not an accusation that everyone is a
>> thief, but it might prevent some thefts. I may find it inconvenient
>> that I may not enter a particular shop with a bag of my own, but just
>> as a dongle may be inconvenient, it is not necessarily enough for me
>> to be insulted and invoke a boycott.
> 
> It's more like having your bag searched, then being falsely arrested
> and imprisoned for 3 days, being beaten around the head a few times...
> 
> Then when they release you they keep the bag!
> 
> (That's how long I spent trying to get my dongle-protected IAR
> software working again, before abandoning the effort. I can no longer
> compile my own code.)
> 

And how many people actually think it is reasonable for shop staff to 
insist on searching your bag?  Personally, I'd consider it totally out 
of the question - the shop staff can insist you leave the premises 
(without seeing inside your bag), or they can call the police and 
persuade them that they suspect a crime is in progress.

With software locks, you've entered into a license agreement of some 
kind, which is a legal contract, and thus the supplier *may* have 
certain other rights.

In article <MPG.2120047535e7474c98978d@free.teranews.com>, sub2
@aeolusdevelopment.com says...

> Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not 
> charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.

Diab Data, before they got bought by Integrated Systems, who was bought 
out by Wind River, used to offer floating licenses for the same price as 
a SW node-lock.  There was a 5-minute delay before a given license could 
be re-issued.

--Gene  

In article <MPG.2125a948a84fc6df98987b@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Gene S. 
Berkowitz says...
> In article <MPG.2120047535e7474c98978d@free.teranews.com>, sub2
> @aeolusdevelopment.com says...
> 
> > Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not 
> > charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.
> 
> Diab Data, before they got bought by Integrated Systems, who was bought 
> out by Wind River, used to offer floating licenses for the same price as 
> a SW node-lock.  There was a 5-minute delay before a given license could 
> be re-issued.

So there was at least one.  Interesting, and thanks.

Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <MPG.2126b1a91ce1e331989794@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
<sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>In article <MPG.2125a948a84fc6df98987b@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Gene S.
>Berkowitz says...
>> In article <MPG.2120047535e7474c98978d@free.teranews.com>, sub2
>> @aeolusdevelopment.com says...
>>
>> > Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not
>> > charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.
>>
>> Diab Data, before they got bought by Integrated Systems, who was bought
>> out by Wind River, used to offer floating licenses for the same price as
>> a SW node-lock.  There was a 5-minute delay before a given license could
>> be re-issued.
>
>So there was at least one.  Interesting, and thanks.

Most offer floating licensees like that particularly in the 32/64 bit 
area.
IAR do it from 8-32. (Actually, somewhat unusually, they offer dongle, 
node-lock and floating on all their compilers)

Many others node lock  without a dongle  BTW a dongle is an item of HW. 
It may not always be a lock for a license the term is used for other 
bits of add on HW

The reason is that  their software does get pirated. Even with 
protection there are people who try to crack it.

As was mentioned in this thread when you go places you lock your car. 
This does not imply the people you are visiting are going to steal it 
but thousands of cars do get stolen every year. Even locked ones.

You trust your neighbours but lock your house when you go out and at 
night.

IT is not that they are suggesting that you might steal the compiler. 
Though do you have any evidence, they can easily see that you won't? I 
bet 90% of programmers have at least 1 item of dubious SW on their 
compilers... at home if not at work.

Those of you screaming "it is an insult" I suggest you take your laptop 
into the nearest city and ask the first stranger you see who says they 
are honest to look after it for 24 hours and bring it back.... Now why 
are you dubious about that?  Are you suggesting this person you have 
never met might not be 100% honest?  What an insult! :-)

Compiler companies don't know who the good and bad guys are any more 
than you do so SW protection is not personal. Anyone who thinks it is 
really needs counselling.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:41:57 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In article <MPG.2126b1a91ce1e331989794@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
><sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>>In article <MPG.2125a948a84fc6df98987b@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Gene S.
>>Berkowitz says...
>>> In article <MPG.2120047535e7474c98978d@free.teranews.com>, sub2
>>> @aeolusdevelopment.com says...
>>>
>>> > Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not
>>> > charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.
>>>
>>> Diab Data, before they got bought by Integrated Systems, who was bought
>>> out by Wind River, used to offer floating licenses for the same price as
>>> a SW node-lock.  There was a 5-minute delay before a given license could
>>> be re-issued.
>>
>>So there was at least one.  Interesting, and thanks.
>
>Most offer floating licensees like that particularly in the 32/64 bit 
>area.
>IAR do it from 8-32. (Actually, somewhat unusually, they offer dongle, 
>node-lock and floating on all their compilers)
>
>Many others node lock  without a dongle  BTW a dongle is an item of HW. 
>It may not always be a lock for a license the term is used for other 
>bits of add on HW
>
>The reason is that  their software does get pirated. Even with 
>protection there are people who try to crack it.
>
>As was mentioned in this thread when you go places you lock your car. 
>This does not imply the people you are visiting are going to steal it 
>but thousands of cars do get stolen every year. Even locked ones.
>
>You trust your neighbours but lock your house when you go out and at 
>night.
>
>IT is not that they are suggesting that you might steal the compiler. 
>Though do you have any evidence, they can easily see that you won't? I 
>bet 90% of programmers have at least 1 item of dubious SW on their 
>compilers... at home if not at work.
>
>Those of you screaming "it is an insult" I suggest you take your laptop 
>into the nearest city and ask the first stranger you see who says they 
>are honest to look after it for 24 hours and bring it back.... Now why 
>are you dubious about that?  Are you suggesting this person you have 
>never met might not be 100% honest?  What an insult! :-)
>
>Compiler companies don't know who the good and bad guys are any more 
>than you do so SW protection is not personal. Anyone who thinks it is 
>really needs counselling.

The problem with all this protection is not that they prevent someone
from stealing it, they prevent the legitimate user from potentially
being able to use it. We have an IAR compiler for the 68HC16 which
have used on a number of earlier designs. We will not   the 68HC16
again on new designs, but we do have the requirement of having to add
some small functionality to these old products once in a while.
The protection software does not run on new hardware. IAR's response
is that they can offer an upgrade. This is not acceptable.  We
potentially might have to change some code. It can have different
bugs, and often the changes are laterally a few lines of code. This
sort of problem becomes a nightmare when companies are bought out, or
goes
under. We have actually switched to gcc on some older 68k projects,
because the very expensive 68k compilers we bought is totally
unusable. 
The company we bought it from lost the software to generate an
authenticate code that is required to run it on a new hard drive. We
had the choice of either reverse engineer the protection code, or
switching. Switching to gcc turned out to be a blessing. It generated
MUCH better code than the very expensive commercial compiler we had
used. 
To get back to you car analogy. Yes, one does lock one's car, but if
the car had some sensor to check that you parked in your own garage
every 48hours, or it would refuse to start, then people will not use
it. If one had problems with such a system after a year or two of
ownership, and the car manufacturer told you that you had to buy a new
car because your model is now out of date, would you accept this ?
Why are consumers to accept terms for software , which would be
totally unacceptable for anything else ?

Anton 
  Erasmus