[En-Nut-Discussion] MCD_ST_LIBERTY and ST_GUIDANCE_ONLY question

Uwe Bonnes bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de
Mon May 20 12:08:51 CEST 2013

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Kipp <harald.kipp at egnite.de> writes:

    Harald> Hi Uwe, On 10.05.2013 13:47, Uwe Bonnes wrote:

    >> In the meantime, a lot changed and files with MCD_ST_LIBERTY and
    >> ST_GUIDANCE_ONLY are used for 1. for the basic headers, defining the
    >> device 2. for system initialization 3. for some F1 devices 4. for the
    >> ST CDC USB implemenations.
    >> To keep in sync with the vendor, I think (1.) will not change

    Harald> This is bad.

libopencm3 tries to rewrite the STM32 headers. But they are a _rewrite_,
incomplete and more error-prone. Do you think we should cosinsider for
Ethernut to switch to those headers?

    >> (2.) could be rewritten.

    Harald> Probably.

    >> (3.) will go away with some more work on the devices

    Harald> Same view here.

    >> (4.) I like to pull from the tree, as libopencm3 has much easier to
    >> use USB implementaion and a free license

    Harald> All this lawyer stuff requires precise statements. The STM
    Harald> licenses are "free licenses" as well. From a first short look I
    Harald> see, that libopencm3 is published under LGPLv3.

    Harald> Note: You can link against LGPL libraries, because it is up to
    Harald> the vendor of the final product to check, whether all licenses
    Harald> fit. Basic Nut/OS is BSDL. If any source code is included into
    Harald> Nut/OS, which isn't BSDL, the user needs to, in general,
    Harald> explicitly confirm the use of another license. This, however,
    Harald> does not apply to similar or more permissive licenses like
    Harald> "Public Domain".

    >> So I would like to remove the MCD_ST_LIBERTY and ST_GUIDANCE_ONLY
    >> from many configuration places. I would only keep it where we list a
    >> ST licended C-File in the configuration item, e,g,
    >> arch/cm3/stm32f4.nut STM32F4 PLL Configuration. On items where we
    >> compile our code I would like to remove the requirement, e.g. at
    >> following configuration item:

    Harald> What I understood so far: You want to use header files published
    Harald> under STM license into BSDL code and declare the result BSDL'ed
    Harald> code. Is that what you meant?

If we remove (2) and (3), this would be the long time result. However at the
moment I am asking if it is okay to remove the LICENSE_ST_GUIDANCE_ONLY and
LICENSE_MCD_ST_LIBERTY from all configuation items that only enumerated our
own code(1). We would still keep the LICENSE_ST_GUIDANCE_ONLY and
LICENSE_MCD_ST_LIBERTY requirement where we enumerate STM code, that is the
PLL configuartion.

(1) Our code would still include the ST licensed headers.

B.t.w. If I remember right, Ulrich sometimes talked about anexception he got
from ST? Ulrich, can you send a reference for that!


Uwe Bonnes                bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

More information about the En-Nut-Discussion mailing list