[En-Nut-Discussion] MCD_ST_LIBERTY and ST_GUIDANCE_ONLY question

Harald Kipp harald.kipp at egnite.de
Mon May 20 15:50:01 CEST 2013

Hi Uwe,

On 20.05.2013 12:08, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
>>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Kipp <harald.kipp at egnite.de> writes:
>     Harald> Hi Uwe, On 10.05.2013 13:47, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> 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?

Changing from STM licensed code to incomplete LGPL licensed code with
errors doesn't make sense to me.

> 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.

Headers are part of the code. If headers are published under a different
license, then the final code is affected as well.

Actually these headers should never have made it into the "normal"
directories. Their right place is the contrib directory, which would
make it a bit easier to distribute pure BSDL versions. Well, thanks to
the Configurator, we are able to exclude such code.

As an alternative we may completely remove all non-BSDL header files and
let the user get them from a different source, clearly stating the
related license.



More information about the En-Nut-Discussion mailing list