Forums

TCP/ IP, USB stacks and ThreadX

Started by vivek November 27, 2007
Chris Hills wrote:
> 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 &#2013265929;crit: >>> >>>> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote: >>>>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a &#2013265929;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. >
I don't think the lack of complaints of your license compared to complaints about the GPL is of any relevance - unless you license is applied to software used somewhere on virtually all computers in the world, and read by millions of developers and users. Focus on the relevant points, and people will listen. Taking silly cheap shots at open source makes you look as fanatical (and therefore as irrelevant) as the "*all* software should be free" crowd.
In message <474fdfde$0$3197$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown 
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes
>Chris Hills wrote: >> 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 &#2013265929;crit: >>>> >>>>> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote: >>>>>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a &#2013265929;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 >> >> > >I don't think the lack of complaints of your license compared to >complaints about the GPL is of any relevance - unless you license is >applied to software used somewhere on virtually all computers in the >world, and read by millions of developers and users. Focus on the >relevant points, and people will listen. Taking silly cheap shots at >open source makes you look as fanatical (and therefore as irrelevant) >as the "*all* software should be free" crowd.
The point is that far more people complain about the restrictions in GPL3 than do in the software source we supply. The point is that "open" source may have far more licensing restrictions than commercial source. This is something few OS devotees will admit. Incidentally it is wrong to suggest that Opens Source is used on "virtually all" computers world wide. It amuses me that OS people make these wild claims and then complain and nit-pick when taken to task. The fact is GPL license is controversial and not accepted by many in it's own community. Other commercial licenses for source are often far more simple and less restrictive. Numbers of users is irrelevant -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
David Brown wrote:
> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote: >
... snip ...
> >> 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.
Now this is a sensible attitude, rather than the violent anti-open-source one too often displayed here. This makes the major problem a suitable library license, that will allow library (etc.) use without opensourcing the caller. -- 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
Chris Hills wrote:
> David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes >
... snip ...
> >> I don't think the lack of complaints of your license compared to >> complaints about the GPL is of any relevance - unless you license >> is applied to software used somewhere on virtually all computers >> in the world, and read by millions of developers and users. >> Focus on the relevant points, and people will listen. Taking >> silly cheap shots at open source makes you look as fanatical >> (and therefore as irrelevant) as the "*all* software should be >> free" crowd. > > The point is that far more people complain about the restrictions > in GPL3 than do in the software source we supply. > > The point is that "open" source may have far more licensing > restrictions than commercial source. This is something few OS > devotees will admit. > > Incidentally it is wrong to suggest that Opens Source is used on > "virtually all" computers world wide. > > It amuses me that OS people make these wild claims and then > complain and nit-pick when taken to task. > > The fact is GPL license is controversial and not accepted by > many in it's own community. Other commercial licenses for source > are often far more simple and less restrictive. Numbers of users > is irrelevant
No, the difference is that people can see what is available under GPL, and express their wishes for further access to it. How can you object to the author freely releasing his code and its source, under the license of his choice, while the normal commercial release a) requires money and b) forbids further promulgation and c) often forbids alteration. Or more. That code is copyright by the author, and s/he has the complete right to determine the conditions of release. Many GPL authors also release material under public domain. For some examples, just explore my pages (see sig for URL). The code for nmalloc, ggets, stripovr, strlcpy is all in public domain, for example. Likewise everything in the cpm/ directory, whether or not so marked. Also note the paucity of re-releases, which are primarily triggered by bug reports. -- 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
Chris Hills wrote:
> In message <474fdfde$0$3197$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown > <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes >> Chris Hills wrote: >>> 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 &#2013265929;crit: >>>>> >>>>>> Habib Bouaziz-Viallet wrote: >>>>>>> Le Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:58:25 +0000, FreeRTOS.org a &#2013265929;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 >>> >> >> I don't think the lack of complaints of your license compared to >> complaints about the GPL is of any relevance - unless you license is >> applied to software used somewhere on virtually all computers in the >> world, and read by millions of developers and users. Focus on the >> relevant points, and people will listen. Taking silly cheap shots at >> open source makes you look as fanatical (and therefore as irrelevant) >> as the "*all* software should be free" crowd. > > The point is that far more people complain about the restrictions in > GPL3 than do in the software source we supply. >
That may well be true (since I don't know what software you supply, and how many complaints you get). But also remember that the GPL license itself, and projects using it, use an open development model - they encourage feedback (positive or negative). Thus there were huge numbers of discussion threads, blogs, articles, etc., around the drafting process for GPL3. People complain publicly about the GPL, because it can make a difference - complaints have helped shape the GPL, and influence the choice of licence in open source projects. Contrast this with, say, the license of Windows Vista. Some people complain publicly, but most people who read it (thus discounting the masses who ignore all licenses) just swear quietly to themselves - there is absolutely nothing they can do about the license, so they must accept it or not use the software.
> The point is that "open" source may have far more licensing restrictions > than commercial source. This is something few OS devotees will admit. >
Open source *may* have more, less or different restrictions from commercial source code. There are a fair number of popular open source licenses, and endless varieties of closed source licenses, and thus every case should be looked at individually. It is certainly true that many OS devotees gloss over this issue - but then, it is particularly relevant for us in the world of embedded development (key points being static linking, and "closed box" systems), while most OS devotees, like most programmers, live in the world of PC software development.
> Incidentally it is wrong to suggest that Opens Source is used on > "virtually all" computers world wide. >
Obviously a hefty proportion of servers and other internet infrastructure computers either run an open source OS directly, or use major OS software such as web servers, php/perl engines, etc. And obviously the huge majority of web connections and emails pass through open source servers, routers, email transports, etc. The majority of PC clients use some variety of windows (the Linux, BSD, MacOS, etc., machines are all heavily open source dependant). I'd expect that the majority of these have some third-party open source software (Firefox, Thunderbird, Bittorrent clients, graphics programs, pdf writers, anti-spyware programs, zip utilities, open office, etc.). Then there are the closed source programs that use open source components or libraries (programs written in languages like python, software that handles graphics formats such as png, pretty much everything that can open a zip file, etc.). For the most part, you won't know that these are using open source libraries without doing a lot of investigation. Then there are the closed source programs that use parts of BSD-licensed open source code (which requires a copyright notice, but you don't have to release the source code) - Windows itself famously used the BSD TCP/IP stack in earlier versions, and I don't think anyone would believe claims that there are no BSD-licensed open source code in the Windows code. Finally, there are the closed source programs that illegally make use of open source code without following the licensing requirements - there is no way to judge the level at which this is done, but you'd be na&#2013265935;ve in the extreme to think it is uncommon. Of course, not all the above cases are GPL'ed software, rather than other open source licenses.
> It amuses me that OS people make these wild claims and then complain and > nit-pick when taken to task. > > The fact is GPL license is controversial and not accepted by many in > it's own community. Other commercial licenses for source are often far > more simple and less restrictive. Numbers of users is irrelevant
The GPL license is not suitable for all software - people know this, and they choose appropriate licenses for their software. It's not "controversial" - developers have a choice, and they use that choice. Sometimes different developers on open source projects disagree about the best license for their project - that would happen in the closed source world too if developers (rather than their PHB) had a say in the matter. While it is certainly true that some commercial source licenses are simpler and less restrictive than the GPL, it is by no means a black and white issue. Which license is most restrictive - one that says you must release your own source code, or one that says you can keep your code but you can only compile it on the one specified computer? Which is simpler - understanding the GPL, or figuring out if version 1.1 of your product counts as a separate "product" and requires a separate "single product license" from your RTOS vendor? The questions are meaningless - as with everything in embedded development, the answer is "it depends", and each case must be considered individually.
> 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.
For what its worth, since settling on the modified GPL license for FreeRTOS.org I have had very little time taken up with license discussions on the subject (prior to that there was quite a lot). Our commercially licensed OpenRTOS product on the other hand is a different matter. The license is often scrutinised by the customers legal department, then ping ponged back and forth. If we took this time into account in our pricing we should double the price! With respect to GPL 3, as you point out in your article this month, only 10% of projects have moved to GPL 3. BTW Chris, when was the last time your column did not mention open source software in some way? One could draw the conclusion you were obsessed ;o) -- Regards, Richard. + http://www.FreeRTOS.org 14 official architecture ports, 1000 downloads per week. + http://www.SafeRTOS.com Certified by T&#2013265948;V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.
> BTW Chris, when was the last time your column did not mention open source > software in some way? One could draw the conclusion you were obsessed ;o)
I've given up reading his column because of the bias displayed.
In message <6CU3j.55527$c_1.47591@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
FreeRTOS.org <noemail@address.com> writes
>> 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. > >For what its worth, since settling on the modified GPL license for >FreeRTOS.org I have had very little time taken up with license discussions >on the subject (prior to that there was quite a lot). > >Our commercially licensed OpenRTOS product on the other hand is a different >matter. The license is often scrutinised by the customers legal department, >then ping ponged back and forth. If we took this time into account in our >pricing we should double the price!
Interestingly I have had few problems with licenses for the source code we supply. One was with a US based legal department for one company that went through every "what if" scenario they could think of... At the moment I have a customer in a particular situation so I have just emailed him the word version of the licence with the agreed changed marked up so they can edit it before we agree it an PDF it as the license for them. That said with 99% of the time no license agreement has proved a problem with any of my customers. Many do have a problem with the GPL as they will not make their source open.
>With respect to GPL 3, as you point out in your article this month, only 10% >of projects have moved to GPL 3.
TO be fair I think that another 50% said they would move "next year" However 40% said "Never". As I said GPL licensing is not all plain sailing as there have been quite a lot of arguments. I think it is the difference between the Utopian OS people and the Commercial OS people. Also I suspect some FUD and "help" from the Great Satan along the way. :-)
>BTW Chris, when was the last time your column did not mention open source >software in some way? One could draw the conclusion you were obsessed ;o)
It's not my fault if a lot of OS stuff has all happened around the same time. The trouble is one column gets emails on the topic with raise pints for the next one. No mention of it in the next one. A lot of other stuff happening. Just had the MISRA- conference and they released 3 new documents with another couple on the way for an end of Q1 2008 release. One thing I saw that amused me (I have the photo) was a company at the event appearing to claim support for Do178C..... So you read it... that is a 30% increase! Me, my mum, the Editor and now you!! :-) -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> The trouble is one column gets emails on the topic with raise pints for > the next one.
Raising 'pints' seems a lot more fun than talking about licensing, especially on a Friday.
>One thing I saw that amused me (I have the photo) was a company at the >event appearing to claim support for Do178C.....
Who was that? -- Regards, Richard. + http://www.FreeRTOS.org 14 official architecture ports, 1000 downloads per week. + http://www.SafeRTOS.com Certified by T&#2013265948;V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.
In message <RCW3j.55626$c_1.35196@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
FreeRTOS.org <noemail@address.com> writes
>> The trouble is one column gets emails on the topic with raise pints for >> the next one. > >Raising 'pints' seems a lot more fun than talking about licensing, >especially on a Friday. > >>One thing I saw that amused me (I have the photo) was a company at the >>event appearing to claim support for Do178C..... > > >Who was that?
You have my number. It would embarrass them If I mentioned it here. Besides they have enough problems as it was noticed by two other companies that were exhibiting who claim support for Do178B and are actually working on Do178C (whereas the one mentioning Do178C does not ) It was also noticed by quite a few people who are in Aerospace and involved in writing Do178C. So I will leave them to shoot themselves in the foot. When challenged by some one who is working on Do178C they said it was a miss print. Difficult as the two lines above said 61508 and Do178B. Apparently one person on the stand then claimed it was a "car registration number" and they were trying to suggest they were in the automotive market. Hmmmm doesn't look that way in the photo. No one else was convinced either. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/