Forums

LPC2103 in IAR EWARM

Started by Langosta39 January 17, 2006
Hi all,

I just received the .menu, .i79, and .xcl files from an IAR tech to
allow programming and debugging the LPC2103 in the IAR Embedded
Workbench (my version is 4.30a). They list support for the 2103 on
their website but don't distribute these files yet, for some reason.
What's missing is the iolpc2103.h file, but you can make one of those
pretty easily, and I'll probably be doing that today.

So, if anyone wants them, let me know.
Andy



An Engineer's Guide to the LPC2100 Series



> Hi all,
>
> I just received the .menu, .i79, and .xcl files from an IAR tech to
> allow programming and debugging the LPC2103 in the IAR Embedded
> Workbench (my version is 4.30a). They list support for the 2103 on
> their website but don't distribute these files yet, for some reason.
> What's missing is the iolpc2103.h file, but you can make one of those
> pretty easily, and I'll probably be doing that today.
>
> So, if anyone wants them, let me know.
> Andy

With respect - if they are not distributing them yet - neither should you.
I presume they are copyrighted?

Regards,
Richard.

http://www.FreeRTOS.org


Hi Andy,

I talked with IAR about 1 1/2 weeks ago about the very subject and
said they had nothing and where not planning to create files for the
2103. I complained and also emailed them a comment from Philips app.
about the differences between the parts (2103 versus 2106 which they
said I should use). They have not gotten back to me on this.

regards,
Charles --- In lpc2000@lpc2..., "Langosta39" <ahuska@a...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I just received the .menu, .i79, and .xcl files from an IAR tech to
> allow programming and debugging the LPC2103 in the IAR Embedded
> Workbench (my version is 4.30a). They list support for the 2103 on
> their website but don't distribute these files yet, for some reason.
> What's missing is the iolpc2103.h file, but you can make one of those
> pretty easily, and I'll probably be doing that today.
>
> So, if anyone wants them, let me know.
> Andy
>




Tom,

> >With respect - if they are not distributing them yet -
> neither should you.
> >I presume they are copyrighted?
> >
> Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a
> boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even
> trivial code,
> or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register
> locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header
> files, they
> are using the exact verbage as Philips.
>
> Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite
> on something
> that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to use
> Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?!

All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those are
also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the person
who typed in the names does it for the company they are working for and,
as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial things are
copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM chips
have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an essential
part of software and product development to ensure that a competitor
does not simply steal your work.

The copyright is on the item that was written. Philips copyright their
manuals and data sheets. However, I do not believe they would stifle
product development by requiring tool vendors to pay them a license fee
to use their peripheral register names. If they did, they'd not be
competetive.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors



FreeRTOS Info wrote:

>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I just received the .menu, .i79, and .xcl files from an IAR tech to
>>allow programming and debugging the LPC2103 in the IAR Embedded
>>Workbench (my version is 4.30a). They list support for the 2103 on
>>their website but don't distribute these files yet, for some reason.
>>What's missing is the iolpc2103.h file, but you can make one of those
>>pretty easily, and I'll probably be doing that today.
>>
>>So, if anyone wants them, let me know.
>>Andy
>>
>>
>
>With respect - if they are not distributing them yet - neither should you.
>I presume they are copyrighted? >
Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a
boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even trivial code,
or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register
locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header files, they
are using the exact verbage as Philips.

Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite on something
that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to use
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?! TomW

--
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------


Paul Curtis wrote:

>Tom, >
>>>With respect - if they are not distributing them yet -
>>>
>>>
>>neither should you.
>>
>>
>>>I presume they are copyrighted?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a
>>boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even
>>trivial code,
>>or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register
>>locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header
>>files, they
>>are using the exact verbage as Philips.
>>
>>Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite
>>on something
>>that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to use
>>Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?!
>>
>>
>
>All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those are
>also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the person
>who typed in the names does it for the company they are working for and,
>as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial things are
>copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM chips
>have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an essential
>part of software and product development to ensure that a competitor
>does not simply steal your work. >
Well, apparently you went to a different school than I did. Copyright
can only be asserted on an original work, simply reformatting an
existing work does not automagically create a copyright. Nor does
"sweat" justify assigning a copyright. Respectfully, it is my opinion
that you spend some time looking into copyright practice.

TomW

--
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Walsh" <tom@tom@...>
To: <lpc2000@lpc2...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [lpc2000] LPC2103 in IAR EWARM > Paul Curtis wrote:
>
>>Tom,
>>
>>
>>
>>>>With respect - if they are not distributing them yet -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>neither should you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I presume they are copyrighted?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a
>>>boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even
>>>trivial code,
>>>or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register
>>>locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header
>>>files, they
>>>are using the exact verbage as Philips.
>>>
>>>Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite
>>>on something
>>>that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to use
>>>Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those are
>>also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the person
>>who typed in the names does it for the company they are working for and,
>>as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial things are
>>copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM chips
>>have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an essential
>>part of software and product development to ensure that a competitor
>>does not simply steal your work.
>>
>>
>>
> Well, apparently you went to a different school than I did. Copyright
> can only be asserted on an original work, simply reformatting an
> existing work does not automagically create a copyright. Nor does
> "sweat" justify assigning a copyright. Respectfully, it is my opinion
> that you spend some time looking into copyright practice.

FWIW, it used to be the case that anything written in the UK was
automatically copyright. I'm not sure if it still applies, though.

Leon


Tom,

> Well, apparently you went to a different school than I did.

Unless you went to Bournemouth School then, yes, I did indeed go to a
different school.

> Copyright can only be asserted on an original work, simply
> reformatting an existing work does not automagically create
> a copyright.

Hell, I didn't simply reformat any of Philips documents. Constructing
an XML description of a part *is* an original work IMO. You don't get
anything other than numbers, names, and punctuation in the XML
description so it's hardly plagiarism.

> Nor does "sweat" justify assigning a copyright.

You know what, I didn't claim it did.

> Respectfully, it is my opinion that you spend some time looking into
copyright practice.

I know all about copyright thanks. Given good ties with many silicon
manufacturers I'm happy with what our company produces and the copyright
we assert, and the same is true with other tool vendors I'm sure. This
is an argument I'm not being drawn into.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors




I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly most large
companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e. copyright
everything they do).

Don't forget that just because something is copyright doesn't mean to
say it can't be freely distributed under whatever terms the company
or organisation chooses.

I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was distributing
copyright material without explicit permission from the owner,
regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an
interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I think it
trivial").

As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating the work
in the first place. If they want to distribute it freely (and as you
point out, there's plenty of cases where they'd be mad to do
otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check before offering
somone else's work around first (I'm not implying this wasn't done in
this case, by the way: just making a general observation).

Brendan --- In lpc2000@lpc2..., "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> > >With respect - if they are not distributing them yet -
> > neither should you.
> > >I presume they are copyrighted?
> > >
> > Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a
> > boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even
> > trivial code,
> > or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing
register
> > locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header
> > files, they
> > are using the exact verbage as Philips.
> >
> > Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite
> > on something
> > that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to
use
> > Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?!
>
> All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those
are
> also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the
person
> who typed in the names does it for the company they are working for
and,
> as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial things
are
> copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM
chips
> have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an
essential
> part of software and product development to ensure that a competitor
> does not simply steal your work.
>
> The copyright is on the item that was written. Philips copyright
their
> manuals and data sheets. However, I do not believe they would
stifle
> product development by requiring tool vendors to pay them a license
fee
> to use their peripheral register names. If they did, they'd not be
> competetive.
>
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>



Tom,

I'm no legal expert, but I'd use the term "copying" when talking
about "reformatting an existing work". Precisely what copyright is
designed to control (i.e. establish ownership of the work). If the
owner is happy to distribute it widely, that's fine, but I'd still
recommend checking first...

As for something like a header file mapping names to addresses,
there's certainly work in preparing it, so I don't see any problem
with putting a copyright notice on it. But as I say, I'm no legal
expert.

Brendan

--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., Tom Walsh <tom@o...> wrote:
>
> Paul Curtis wrote:
>
> >Tom,
> >
> >
> >
> >>>With respect - if they are not distributing them yet -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>neither should you.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I presume they are copyrighted?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a
> >>boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even
> >>trivial code,
> >>or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing
register
> >>locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header
> >>files, they
> >>are using the exact verbage as Philips.
> >>
> >>Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite
> >>on something
> >>that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to
use
> >>Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those
are
> >also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the
person
> >who typed in the names does it for the company they are working
for and,
> >as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial
things are
> >copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM
chips
> >have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an
essential
> >part of software and product development to ensure that a
competitor
> >does not simply steal your work.
> >
> >
> >
> Well, apparently you went to a different school than I did.
Copyright
> can only be asserted on an original work, simply reformatting an
> existing work does not automagically create a copyright. Nor does
> "sweat" justify assigning a copyright. Respectfully, it is my
opinion
> that you spend some time looking into copyright practice.
>
> TomW
>
> --
> Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
> http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
> "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
> ----------------
>