[En-Nut-Discussion] MCD_ST_LIBERTY and ST_GUIDANCE_ONLY question
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.
>> (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
(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