Hi Paul,
to be honest I do NOT surprise which only few knows about uEZ...
I find simply nothing searching for uEZ on the company sites you say involved in
this project !
Only Sourceforge has the Doc files, but you must know the URL, as you.
For LPC beginners like me, this resource is simply hidden...
SQLITE database
Started by ●August 18, 2009
Reply by ●August 19, 20092009-08-19
Reply by ●August 19, 20092009-08-19
Forgive me if I am being a bit dense, (and I didn't know about uEZ
either), but what does it actually do? Does it provide the low-level
"drivers" to USB, Ethernet etc, or do you still have to write those?
--
Tim Mitchell
either), but what does it actually do? Does it provide the low-level
"drivers" to USB, Ethernet etc, or do you still have to write those?
--
Tim Mitchell
Reply by ●August 19, 20092009-08-19
Hi,
> Forgive me if I am being a bit dense, (and I didn't know about uEZ
> either), but what does it actually do?
Lots. But then you have a web connection and a pair of eyes... ;-)
> Does it provide the low-level "drivers" to USB
Device? Yes.
> Ethernet
Yes.
> etc,
Yes.
> or do you still have to write those?
For drivers that uEZ doesn't have, yes, you have to write those yourself. [
Duh! ;-) ]
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks V2 is out for LPC1700, LPC3100, LPC3200, SAM9, and more!
> Forgive me if I am being a bit dense, (and I didn't know about uEZ
> either), but what does it actually do?
Lots. But then you have a web connection and a pair of eyes... ;-)
> Does it provide the low-level "drivers" to USB
Device? Yes.
> Ethernet
Yes.
> etc,
Yes.
> or do you still have to write those?
For drivers that uEZ doesn't have, yes, you have to write those yourself. [
Duh! ;-) ]
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks V2 is out for LPC1700, LPC3100, LPC3200, SAM9, and more!
Reply by ●August 19, 20092009-08-19
Hi,
> Hi Paul,
> to be honest I do NOT surprise which only few knows about uEZ...
> I find simply nothing searching for uEZ on the company sites you say
> involved in this project !
> Only Sourceforge has the Doc files, but you must know the URL, as you.
Source files are available.
There is some confusion over the licensing. I really have zero idea what
license is applied to this. LGPL is specified as the licence covering the
SourceForge package, but FreeRTOS looks like it's included which I *know*
has a different license arrangement and the FDI sources certainly are *not*
LGPL according to the comments embedded in their header files.
I know it's lamentable, but that's the way it is.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks V2 is out for LPC1700, LPC3100, LPC3200, SAM9, and more!
> Hi Paul,
> to be honest I do NOT surprise which only few knows about uEZ...
> I find simply nothing searching for uEZ on the company sites you say
> involved in this project !
> Only Sourceforge has the Doc files, but you must know the URL, as you.
Source files are available.
There is some confusion over the licensing. I really have zero idea what
license is applied to this. LGPL is specified as the licence covering the
SourceForge package, but FreeRTOS looks like it's included which I *know*
has a different license arrangement and the FDI sources certainly are *not*
LGPL according to the comments embedded in their header files.
I know it's lamentable, but that's the way it is.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks V2 is out for LPC1700, LPC3100, LPC3200, SAM9, and more!
Reply by ●August 19, 20092009-08-19
Paul Curtis wrote:
> There is some confusion over the licensing. I really have zero idea what
> license is applied to this. LGPL is specified as the licence covering the
> SourceForge package
LGPL? On the page you linked to, it just claims:
"License: GNU General Public License (GPL)"
... which is not really specific enough for my liking. The licence at
the top of the source files looks like a fairly generic zero-warranty
affair, but there's no real licence information in the download itself
(which I thought was a GPL requirement).
Also, I downloaded the sources and it looks to me like this hardware
abstraction library only works for NXP (only folder in
'Source/Processor') and then only the LPC2478, but perhaps there's
something extra that I failed to download?
I have to conclude that this isn't ready to be used yet, and I
personally wouldn't even consider contributing unless the licence issues
are cleared up.
And what's NXP's involvement in this? They aren't mentioned anywhere on
the project site that I could see...
Pete
> There is some confusion over the licensing. I really have zero idea what
> license is applied to this. LGPL is specified as the licence covering the
> SourceForge package
LGPL? On the page you linked to, it just claims:
"License: GNU General Public License (GPL)"
... which is not really specific enough for my liking. The licence at
the top of the source files looks like a fairly generic zero-warranty
affair, but there's no real licence information in the download itself
(which I thought was a GPL requirement).
Also, I downloaded the sources and it looks to me like this hardware
abstraction library only works for NXP (only folder in
'Source/Processor') and then only the LPC2478, but perhaps there's
something extra that I failed to download?
I have to conclude that this isn't ready to be used yet, and I
personally wouldn't even consider contributing unless the licence issues
are cleared up.
And what's NXP's involvement in this? They aren't mentioned anywhere on
the project site that I could see...
Pete
Reply by ●August 19, 20092009-08-19
> LGPL? On the page you linked to, it just
claims:
>
> "License: GNU General Public License (GPL)"
Ok, my bad. I thought I saw an additional L there. GPL is even worse
from a "use this" perspective. :-(
> ... which is not really specific enough for my liking. The licence at
> the top of the source files looks like a fairly generic zero-warranty
> affair, but there's no real licence information in the download itself
> (which I thought was a GPL requirement).
I know.
> Also, I downloaded the sources and it looks to me like this hardware
> abstraction library only works for NXP (only folder in
> 'Source/Processor') and then only the LPC2478, but perhaps there's
> something extra that I failed to download?
This is targeted at the NXP IRD and FDI's development board(s). As far as
I am aware, FDI developed the NXP IRD hardware (EA were in the mix at one
point for the processor card IIRC) and were paid for the development. I
also believe that NXP have some engineers working on this. I do't think
that FDI or NXP have any interest in non-NXP device support in this
framework.
> I have to conclude that this isn't ready to be used yet, and I
> personally wouldn't even consider contributing unless the licence issues
> are cleared up.
I agree the license issues do need to be cleared up.
> And what's NXP's involvement in this? They aren't mentioned anywhere on
> the project site that I could see...
I believe you'll find that NXP funded some of the development effort--more
than that, I don't know, but can ask.
Regards,
-- Paul.
>
> "License: GNU General Public License (GPL)"
Ok, my bad. I thought I saw an additional L there. GPL is even worse
from a "use this" perspective. :-(
> ... which is not really specific enough for my liking. The licence at
> the top of the source files looks like a fairly generic zero-warranty
> affair, but there's no real licence information in the download itself
> (which I thought was a GPL requirement).
I know.
> Also, I downloaded the sources and it looks to me like this hardware
> abstraction library only works for NXP (only folder in
> 'Source/Processor') and then only the LPC2478, but perhaps there's
> something extra that I failed to download?
This is targeted at the NXP IRD and FDI's development board(s). As far as
I am aware, FDI developed the NXP IRD hardware (EA were in the mix at one
point for the processor card IIRC) and were paid for the development. I
also believe that NXP have some engineers working on this. I do't think
that FDI or NXP have any interest in non-NXP device support in this
framework.
> I have to conclude that this isn't ready to be used yet, and I
> personally wouldn't even consider contributing unless the licence issues
> are cleared up.
I agree the license issues do need to be cleared up.
> And what's NXP's involvement in this? They aren't mentioned anywhere on
> the project site that I could see...
I believe you'll find that NXP funded some of the development effort--more
than that, I don't know, but can ask.
Regards,
-- Paul.
Reply by ●August 19, 20092009-08-19
Hi:
Note that this uEZ project is based on other projects: the RTOS comes from FreeRTOS.org, the TCP/IP comes from lwIP project, Ethernet MAC comes from Keil, Fat System from the FatFs project, and so on.
Regards,
Alex
Note that this uEZ project is based on other projects: the RTOS comes from FreeRTOS.org, the TCP/IP comes from lwIP project, Ethernet MAC comes from Keil, Fat System from the FatFs project, and so on.
Regards,
Alex
Reply by ●September 11, 20092009-09-11
