Forums

Does Microchip play fast and loose with the GPL?

Started by Eric March 18, 2008
CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes:

> John Devereux wrote: >> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes: >>> Paul Curtis wrote: >>>> "Mike Silva" <snarflemike@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> >>> ... snip ... >>>>> >>>>> I would think MIPS would be rather annoyed about this, assuming >>>>> they make money on devices sold, not compilers sold. >>>> >>>> I think MIPS wouldn't have much to be grumpy about--I'm sure >>>> Microchip coughed up the required license fee and didn't >>>> guarantee a royalty revenue stream to MIPS. >>> >>> FYI all software owned by GNU (which definitely includes gcc) is >>> provided only under the GPL licence. This does not allow use (and >>> release) of that software without releasing the source too. I.e. >>> there is no such 'required license fee' available. Read the GPL >>> license.
There was no sign, in this comment, that you understood we were discussing two different things. So I thought it worth clarifying.
>> >> The license fee is for the the MIPS architecture itself. > > Which doesn't affect the gcc situation.
-- John Devereux
John Devereux wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes: >> John Devereux wrote: >>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes: >>>
... snip ...
>>>> >>>> FYI all software owned by GNU (which definitely includes gcc) is >>>> provided only under the GPL licence. This does not allow use (and >>>> release) of that software without releasing the source too. I.e. >>>> there is no such 'required license fee' available. Read the GPL >>>> license. > > There was no sign, in this comment, that you understood we were > discussing two different things. So I thought it worth clarifying. >>> >>> The license fee is for the the MIPS architecture itself. >> >> Which doesn't affect the gcc situation.
It's not important, but the subject was about GPL, and the previous commentary was about gcc. Sounds like there is no problem. Thanks for taking the trouble. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
On Mar 19, 10:55=A0pm, DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote:
> Eric <englere_...@yahoo.com> writes: > > The reason I'm asking is because I wanted to try out the PIC32 family > > but I can't afford the fee to buy the compiler, and a 64K limit is > > quite small for a 32 bit processor. > > A code-size limit is likely to be in the linker, not the compiler.
I found this statement in the Microchip forum: "if you were over the code-size limit, you would see linker errors indicating that sections were overlapping." http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=3D292995&mpage=3D2 But I looked at the ld source (that came with the c32 source) and I can't find anything about this. I guess they've tried hard to hide that license checking code so people wouldn't try to work around it. There is also apparently no license manager such as that used by the PIC24's C30 compiler (pic24-lm.exe). Can anyone find the code that checks license keys in the C32 source? The source is here: http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=3DSS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=3D1= 406&dDocName=3Den023073 Eric
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:47E176E2.4CDCD47A@yahoo.com...
> Paul Curtis wrote: >> "Mike Silva" <snarflemike@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > ... snip ... >>> >>> I would think MIPS would be rather annoyed about this, assuming >>> they make money on devices sold, not compilers sold. >> >> I think MIPS wouldn't have much to be grumpy about--I'm sure >> Microchip coughed up the required license fee and didn't >> guarantee a royalty revenue stream to MIPS. > > FYI all software owned by GNU (which definitely includes gcc) is > provided only under the GPL licence. This does not allow use (and > release) of that software without releasing the source too. I.e. > there is no such 'required license fee' available. Read the GPL > license.
Actually, the original "miffed" is about Microchip charging for the tools versus Atmel not and "I would think MIPS would be rather annoyed about this, assuming they make money on devices sold, not compilers sold." The implication is clear, if you charge for tools you possibly may not sell as many devices as you had hoped. MIPS have been paid for licensing both core and instruction set, so they have nothing to be grumpy about Microchip selling tools rather than giving them away. That's a business model decision. I'm well aquainted with the GPL, but this thread diverged to a free-versus-paid argument. I'm sorry you didn't follow it in its entirety. -- Paul.