I downloaded the msp430ware stuff, thinking it might help me. Hidden in a file called MAP430ware_Manifest.html that it installed I found this:
4. Audit Right. At TI's request, and within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice, you shall permit an independent auditor selected by TI to have access, no more than twice each calendar year (unless the immediately preceding audit revealed a discrepancy) and during your regular business hours, to all of your equipment, records, and documents as may contain information bearing upon the use of the Licensed Materials, or any derivatives thereof,. You shall keep full, complete, clear and accurate records with respect to product sales and distributions for a period beginning with the then-current calendar year and going back three (3) years.
I can assure you that I will remove this TI junk from my computer. I'm worried that a clause like this is hidden in other TI stuff that I've downloaded. I feel relatively certain that the boss won't allow an auditor in the front door. It's a shame because on my last project here they made me use a PIC and I learned the hard way why it's considered to be a hobbyist processor. I used Code Composer on a DSP project about 13 years ago and really liked it - that was before TI bought it, but they supported it with PRINTED documentation (those wonderful yellow books).
When a company is working on a defense-related project, how does anyone use a TI product? I'm quite certain that access won't be provided for a vendor's auditor, especially when it is for a device like a microprocessor that can be provided by many sources. On the bright side, I haven't started with the software yet, or even the uP hardware.
I also found this in the referenced document: "If you choose not to accept or agree with these provisions, do not download or install the Licensed Materials. " I had to download it before I could read it. This strikes me as being pretty slimy.
Does anyone know if Freescale and Intel have also become this slimy? I don't want to use the PIC again because the "free" ($700) gnu-based compiler is so weak.
Thanks,
Bob
Bob,
I agree with your concern and are trying to correct this. We are working on releasing MSP430ware with a BSD license and in general going BSD as much as possible.
Regards,Chris
Sotirios "Chris" Tsongas
Chris TsongasI agree with your concern and are trying to correct this
Thank goodness for a voice of reason!
Whoever wrote that nonsense needs to be given a jolly good kicking!!
You've been through all this before with StellarisWare.
There really are only 2 conditions that you need in your licence:
That's it.
Simples!
Sadly, TI is not the only one to let the lawyers lose all sight of reality...
Bob Whitehow does anyone use a TI product?
Note that the licence has nothing to do with your use of the product (the MSP430) - it relates solely to the software.
There was a big fuss on the ST-Micro forum a while back about similar licensing issues, and I believe ST issued a statement to the effect that all examples, firmwares, and libraries will not be bound by any licence (ie public domain), and that if a customer wants a licence they can request a custom one from ST.
Hope TI can do something similar, or at least as Chris suggested license most things under BSD.
Tony
Andy NeilWhoever wrote that nonsense needs to be given a jolly good kicking!!
Andy NeilSadly, TI is not the only one to let the lawyers lose all sight of reality...
_____________________________________Before posting bug reports or ask for help, do at least quick scan over this article. It applies to any kind of problem reporting. On any forum. And/or look here.If you cannot discuss your problem in the public, feel free to start a private conversation: click on my name and then 'start conversation'. But please do so only if you really cannot do it in a public thread, as I usually read all threads. And I prefer to answer where others can profit from it (or contribute to it) too.
TonyKaoThere was a big fuss on the ST-Micro forum a while back about similar licensing issues
Indeed there was - and they hastily re-wrote the licence terms!
TonyKao I believe ST issued a statement to the effect that all examples, firmwares, and libraries will not be bound by any licence (ie public domain),
No, that's not true. As I said before, there are two conditions that all companies doing stuff like this need to have:
For free software, I think these are perfectly fair & reasonable.
Jens-Michael Grossif TIs lawyers don't put such stuff in, someone else will ose all sight of reality and sue them
That's the purpose of the "No Warranty" term.
Andy Neil You've been through all this before with StellarisWare.
The original Luminary Micro licence (before the TI takeover) was a pretty reasonable, lightwieght document. covering the necessary points without excessive or undue restrictions.
TI did weigh-in with a load of legal nonsense, but that was soon beaten down to something more reasonable; although it is stil 2.5 times the length of the Luminary original - unnecessarily so, IMO.
Andy Neil There really are only 2 conditions that you need in your licence: No Warranty. Not for use on non-TI products.
Additionally, TI (and Luminary before them) are concerned about so-called "viral" open-source. And, being a US company, I guess they're lumbered with stuff about "export controls".
Andy Neil No, that's not true. As I said before, there are two conditions that all companies doing stuff like this need to have: No warranty. Not to be used on any other manufacturer's products. For free software, I think these are perfectly fair & reasonable.
Well, this is at the bottom of the release notes for STM32x1 USB library:
The enclosed firmware and all the related documentation are not covered by a License Agreement, if you need such License you can contact your local STMicroelectronics office.
However this is included in the STM32F4-Discovery library instead:
The use of this STM32 software is governed by the terms and conditions of the License Agreement "MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement 20Jul2011 v0.1.pdf" available in the root of this package.
But much of that library is in the STM32F4 DSP and Periphs library, which again is explicitly not covered by any licence like the STM32x1 library.
The "MCD-ST Liberty" licence includes some of the previously "problematic" clauses, so I'm not sure what's going on. Could be a mixed up, but you have me worried now...
Bob WhiteHidden (sic) in a file called MAP430ware_Manifest.html that it installed I found this
Now that's not quite fair, is it?
The licence terms are not hidden - you have to specifically click "I Agree" to the licence terms before the code will install!
Bob Whitedo not download or install the Licensed Materials. " I had to download it before I could read it. This strikes me as being pretty slimy.
I don't know if it's actually "slimy", or just plain stupid!
Nowhere in the download process was I even offered the chance to view the licence terms - and I was specifically looking for them!!
Andy NeilJens-Michael Grossif TIs lawyers don't put such stuff in, someone else will ose all sight of reality and sue themThat's the purpose of the "No Warranty" term.
Jens-Michael GrossWell, on American Law, "no warranty" means "no warranty, unless you find a lawyer who still tries to sue us and manages to win"
Oh I wouldn't know; north of the 49th and all ;)
However, the BSD/MIT-style licences that I believe Andy was referring to (with use restricting to TI hardware) explicitly states that the author is not responsible for any damages applicable under tort law etc. if you accept the licence.
Jens-Michael Grosson American Law, "no warranty" means "no warranty, unless you find a lawyer who still tries to sue us and manages to win"
But that can always be said!!
In fact, this can be used as an argument to keep your licence terms to the absolute minimum - the more stuff you put in, the more opportunity it gives others to pick holes!!
Andy Neil I don't know if it's actually "slimy", or just plain stupid!
An application of Hanlon's Razor:
Robert J. Hanlon Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
Andy Neil Jens-Michael Grosson American Law, "no warranty" means "no warranty, unless you find a lawyer who still tries to sue us and manages to win" But that can always be said!! In fact, this can be used as an argument to keep your licence terms to the absolute minimum - the more stuff you put in, the more opportunity it gives others to pick holes!!
I totally agree. However, in American law, it's not that way. If you do not explicitely exclude something, people will still successfully claim that they expected this and you didn't explicitely exclude it.
Like standing up from the drivers seat of a mobile home during driving (!) for making coffee.Every sane person would say that you need a drivers license to drive a mobile home and if you got a license you knwo that you must not leave the drivers seat while driving. However, the manufacturer lost this case.
Or the woman who sued McDonalds for compensation for pain when she bought a cofee, clamped it between their legs when driving on and then spoiled it. I don't actually know whether she won, but the fact that this case was ever accepted (instead of revoking the driving license and sending her into an asylum) tells enough.
Some licenses contain the term 'not for use of any other uses' or something like that, to make clear that the list of allowed uses is not a suggestion but acomplete list and everything else is not allowed.
Totally superfluous in my opinion. But obviously neccessary in the world of senseless law.