[En-Nut-Discussion] Stellaris Licences, was: Re: Ethernut on TI's ...

Philipp Burch phip at hb9etc.ch
Tue Oct 30 06:41:09 CET 2012

Hi Uwe,

----- Original message -----
> > > > > > "Philipp" == Philipp Burch <phip at hb9etc.ch> writes:
>         Philipp> Uwe, On 10/29/2012 09:33 PM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
>         >>>>>>> "Philipp" == Philipp Burch <phip at hb9etc.ch> writes:
>         >>   ...
>         Philipp> It seems rather unrelated to the StellarisWare package and
> is       Philipp> tagged with revision "32" of 27 March 2009.
>         >>
>         Philipp> It could be possible to write a translator which generates a
>         Philipp> CMSIS file from the StellarisWare header, so we could get
>         Philipp> around this licensing issue. But besides being an annoying
>         Philipp> task, this would simply be stupid as the files are readily
>         Philipp> available...
>         >>   There was a TI license change somewhere in between. Before that
>         >> change the files contained a disclaimer _not_ allowing to use the
>         >> header in conjunction with BSDL like licenses. So forget about old
>         >> revisison and use _only_ revisions after that license change.
>         Philipp> it's not that I wanted to use old files/revisions. This is
>         Philipp> simply the only CMSIS-like distribution I could find at
> all. Or       Philipp> am I missing something?
> I downloaded the headers from
> http://www.ti.com/tool/cmsis_dsp_headers,
> and, in fact, peeking into the zip file you see " legally binding
> agreement", "sole purposes of designing and developing object and
> executable versions", "You shall maintain the source code versions of
> the Licensed   Materials under password control protection" and much more
> to scare you.
> So I think it's a NO-NO to use their headers and my conclusion would be
> to at least suspend such a port until they change their mind.

No way. Suspending that port is not an option. I need it and I need it now. Since the issue concerns some rather important device-related files, it would not even be possible to use another OS instead of Nut/OS.
If or when the port is published is another story however, so as long as we keep it internal, there should not be trouble.

Another option whoich I've mentioned already would be not to include the header in the distribution and have the user to download itself. Annoying, but possible.


More information about the En-Nut-Discussion mailing list