[En-Nut-Discussion] Stellaris Licences, was: Re: Ethernut on TI's ...
phip at hb9etc.ch
Mon Oct 29 21:27:41 CET 2012
On 10/29/2012 09:15 PM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> I also just had another look in the Stellarisware directories and especially
> ./MANIFEST.TXT and
> For files in./driverlib things are consistant. The file talk are labelled
> // This is part of revision 9107 of the Stellaris Peripheral Driver Library.
> and ./MANIFEST.TXT are grants license to "Stellaris Peripheral Driver
> Library" another time. However the headers under ./inc, like e.g.
> inc/lm3s9b96.h talk about
> // This is part of revision 9107 of the Stellaris Firmware Development Package.
> and "Stellaris Firmware Development Package" never mentions that name in
> ./MANIFEST.TXT. But in my opinion the disclaimer in the header files itsself
> is enough to be sufficent liberal for inclusion.
Ok, good to know.
> Philipp> Additionally, I've found TI's CMSIS files for their devices in
> Philipp> a different package. This is where the lm3s9b96_cmsis.h file
> Philipp> comes from (originally named LM3S9B96.h). This package does
> Philipp> only contain one licensing file, named "LICENSE.txt", which you
> Philipp> can find in the same folder as the others above. As far as I
> Philipp> can tell, this contains the same as the license.html file. So
> Philipp> this would probably render their CMSIS files useless as they
> Philipp> might not be used for almost anything.
> Is that "other" source also "revision 9107". That would be strange!.
No, that "other" source is this one:
It seems rather unrelated to the StellarisWare package and is tagged
with revision "32" of 27 March 2009.
It could be possible to write a translator which generates a CMSIS file
from the StellarisWare header, so we could get around this licensing
issue. But besides being an annoying task, this would simply be stupid
as the files are readily available...
More information about the En-Nut-Discussion