so you are 100% sure that the "only
to be used with
authentic Microchip devices" requirement is not GPL compatible?
I haven't re-read the GPL license yet, so if you already know which
statement in the license is in contradiction with the requirement,
please let me know.
On 09/22/2010 09:17 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Am 21.09.2010 19:02, schrieb Joe.Drzewiecki@microchip.com:
Borut and gang,
Here’s the email thread, released, to share and discuss. J
Thanks for being so persnickety!
Now you are all named.
Let me know what you decide.
This looks like a difficult situation. It seems we do not have any free
PIC headers. While the copyrightability of headers and (even more so) of
that XMl database is questionable, some jurisdictions have additional
database protection laws that could apply in this case.
It seems we cannot replace the headers by something free in the short
term. The XML database offered probably will give us the highest-quality
(from a purely technical perspective, leaving our worlds horrible laws
aside) way of getting header files. They probably would be no less free
than the exisitng ones.
We should have a way of getting clean sdcc tarballs and an additional
tarball for the tainted headers. This would make life for distributions
(e.g. Debian could only distribute the tainted headers in non-free, and
probably wouldn't want to touch them at all) easier.
In the long term we would want to have header untainted header files,
which could go into the main tarball.
In the medium term we would want untainted header files at least where a
compatible chip not made by Microchip Technology Inc. exists.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----