[En-Nut-Discussion] MCD_ST_LIBERTY and ST_GUIDANCE_ONLY question
bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de
Mon May 20 17:07:29 CEST 2013
>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Kipp <harald.kipp at egnite.de> writes:
Harald> Headers are part of the code. If headers are published under a
Harald> different license, then the final code is affected as well.
Harald> Actually these headers should never have made it into the
Harald> "normal" directories. Their right place is the contrib
Harald> directory, which would make it a bit easier to distribute pure
Harald> BSDL versions. Well, thanks to the Configurator, we are able to
Harald> exclude such code.
Did you have a look at the layout? Most ST provided headers are now in their
own stm/vendor directory.
Harald> As an alternative we may completely remove all non-BSDL header
Harald> files and let the user get them from a different source, clearly
Harald> stating the related license.
The files need to be downloaded from different places, with lot of junk to
be removed. Pathes have to be adapted, some definitions added. Requiring the
user to do so will put many obstacles in his way. And providing a batch file
to do so is error prone. So a loud voice to distribute the headers in
question with the ethernut code.
But back to my original question: Does every file written by us but
including the ST headers need to have the ST license tag in the
configurator? As long as we compiled ST code (system_stm32xxxx.c) it is
enough to tag that code with the license requirement in th configurator.
Without accepting the license the user will get a non-functional nut-os
library with non-functional startup code.
Requiring the license acceptance in the configurator on every piece of (our)
code using the ST header is then superflous in my eyes.
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