TCP/ IP, USB stacks and ThreadX

Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a écrit:

>> So you release these stacks under GPL ?
> 
> That is not remotely what he said.
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.
> 
> OT:  Why do news group posters place a space before punctuation marks?
> 
Because this is one of strange rules of French writing syntax.
> 
>

-- 
HBV

Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:20:43 +0100, David Brown a écrit:

> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a écrit:
>> 
>>>> So you release these stacks under GPL ?
>>> That is not remotely what he said.
>> 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.
> 
Hi !
> He said "without copy protection" - the GPL *is* copy protection too,
What do you mean with "the GPL *is* copy protection too" ? Please give me
some examples that illustrate this.
> 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.
I agreed with you. It does not happen to a month without discovering
obvious infringment to the GPL in many embedded systems.
> 
>>> OT:  Why do news group posters place a space before punctuation marks?
>>>
>> Because this is one of strange rules of French writing syntax.
>>>
>>

-- 
HBV

Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a écrit:
> 
>>> So you release these stacks under GPL ?
>> That is not remotely what he said.
> 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.

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.

>> OT:  Why do news group posters place a space before punctuation marks?
>>
> Because this is one of strange rules of French writing syntax.
>>
> 

"FreeRTOS.org" wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> OT:  Why do news group posters place a space before punctuation marks?

That doesn't bother me.  But failing to put a space AFTER
punctuation marks does.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
   Try the download section.



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

Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:20:43 +0100, David Brown a écrit:
> 
>> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
>>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a écrit:
>>>
>>>>> So you release these stacks under GPL ?
>>>> That is not remotely what he said.
>>> 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.
> Hi !
>> He said "without copy protection" - the GPL *is* copy protection too,
> What do you mean with "the GPL *is* copy protection too" ? Please give me
> some examples that illustrate this.

"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).

>> 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.
> I agreed with you. It does not happen to a month without discovering
> obvious infringment to the GPL in many embedded systems.
>>>> OT:  Why do news group posters place a space before punctuation marks?
>>>>
>>> Because this is one of strange rules of French writing syntax.
> 

Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:18:25 +0100, David Brown a écrit:

> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:20:43 +0100, David Brown a écrit:
>> 
>>> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
>>>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a écrit:
>>>>
>>>>>> So you release these stacks under GPL ?
>>>>> That is not remotely what he said.
>>>> 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.
>> Hi !
>>> He said "without copy protection" - the GPL *is* copy protection too,
>> What do you mean with "the GPL *is* copy protection too" ? Please give me
>> some examples that illustrate this.
> 
> "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).
> 
>>> 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.
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.

>> I agreed with you. It does not happen to a month without discovering
>> obvious infringment to the GPL in many embedded systems.
>>>>> OT:  Why do news group posters place a space before punctuation marks?
>>>>>
>>>> Because this is one of strange rules of French writing syntax.
>>

-- 
HBV

Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:18:25 +0100, David Brown a écrit:
> 
>> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
>>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:20:43 +0100, David Brown a écrit:
>>>
>>>> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
>>>>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a écrit:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you release these stacks under GPL ?
>>>>>> That is not remotely what he said.
>>>>> 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.
>>> Hi !
>>>> He said "without copy protection" - the GPL *is* copy protection too,
>>> What do you mean with "the GPL *is* copy protection too" ? Please give me
>>> some examples that illustrate this.
>> "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).
>>
>>>> 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.
> 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 <474e79bb$0$20339$426a74cc@news.free.fr>, Habib 
Bouaziz-Viallet <habib@rigel.systems> writes
>Le Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:28:41 +0000, Chris Hills a &#4294967295;crit:
>
>> In message <474D8531.F0BD8E6@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
>> <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes
>>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>>> vivek <gvivek2004@gmail.com> writes
>>>>
>>>... snip ...
>>>>
>>>>> Are these stacks RTOS dependent ? so that i can buy only the core
>>>>> OR should i buy these stacks that come with ThreadX.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Who said 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
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>>>suites with anti-copying gyrations etc.
>> .
>> BTW the TCP/IP and USB stacks I do are in source form without copy
>> protection....
>Hi Chris,
>
>So you release these stacks under GPL ?

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


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

In message <474ea186$0$4075$426a74cc@news.free.fr>, Habib 
Bouaziz-Viallet <habib@rigel.systems> writes
>Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a &#4294967295;crit:
>
>>> So you release these stacks under GPL ?
>>
>> That is not remotely what he said.
>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.

You mentioned licences and copy protection as separate items.
The course code is not copy protected but it is licensed.


>Then i just assumed
Clearly

>that he has done under the GPL, like
>many others out down here.

No others assumed....



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

In message <474ed081$0$3193$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown 
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes
>Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:20:43 +0100, David Brown a &#4294967295;crit:
>>
>>> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote:
>>>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a &#4294967295;crit:
>>>>
>>>>>> So you release these stacks under GPL ?
>>>>> That is not remotely what he said.
>>>> 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.
>> Hi !
>>> He said "without copy protection" - the GPL *is* copy protection too,
>> What do you mean with "the GPL *is* copy protection too" ? Please give me
>> some examples that illustrate this.
>
>"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).

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.

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