As the hardware addresses have no utility other than for mchp hardware, it would follow that the license is not the issue.  

ps.  if mchp's goal is to preserve or manage the truthfulness of "if you're making money, we want to make money", then since "if you're not making money, then we're making money" is also true, there's really not likely to be a rational objection.

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Borut Razem <> wrote:
On 03/30/2011 11:20 AM, Raphael Neider wrote:
> Hi,
>> I am curious if there is any interest in GPL+LE/LP pic/pic16 headers?
> Well, yes!
> I just want to inform you that, IIRC, Microchip recently offered half a
> year or maybe a year ago (I believe after Borut asked them?) to somehow
> publish their device descriptions in some kind of XML database for use by
> gputils/sdcc/whoever.
> This would probably not solve the licensing issues towards making the
> files (L)GPL'able (not sure what license would be possible), but it would
> be an alternative source of data, e.g., for verifying your results.
> Unfortunately, I have no idea as to if or how or where said XML database
> is available already.

Yes, I exchanged several e-mails with them.They said several times that
they'll give us access to the XML pic device database, but this never
happened. But anyway, the pic .h and .c files, produced from the their
XML database wold have the same legal limitations as the current ones,
generated from MPASM include files: they can be used only for chips,
produced by Microchip. So no GPL.

I think the correct way to produce the GPL .h and .c files is directly
from the documentation, as Wes suggested. But even for this approach I'm
not sure if it is 100% legal. Has anybody take a detailed look into the
documentation if there is a statement which prohibits such actions?


Create and publish websites with WebMatrix
Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself;
WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and
publish your website.
Sdcc-user mailing list