@orinem,
I appreciate your comments on this topic. I went back and reread your post, and honestly I think you are using the most restrictive interpretation.
In the first case, developing code that runs on Stellaris and then moving to another processor: the paragraph you cite includes the phrase "Licensed Materials". I believe the intent is that you cannot take the Licensed Materials, modify them, and then run on another processor. I don't think it means that code that you develop that is not part of the Licensed Materials cannot later be used on another processor. That other code, either you are using library calls in which case you will have to change them anyway, or else it is separate code (like an algorithm) that does not directly link to the Licensed Materials in which case I don't think there is even any issue.
In the second case, whether you can disclose the APIs: well I can understand your interpretation of this, but I think the intent is that you cannot post the source code to the Licensed Materials. For example you cannot take the driver library source code and post it somewhere or redistribute it. You must keep it under your control. If you have your own program that make API calls and you post that, your are not disclosing the library source code. Again, I think you are making a most restrictive interpretation here.
Obviously I cannot tell you what a lawyer or judge or jury will say it means, but I can tell you that the intent of the Stellaris team is not to make the restrictions that your are reading in your interpretation.
Stellaris Joe For example you cannot take the driver library source code and post it somewhere or redistribute it. You must keep it under your control. If you have your own program that make API calls and you post that, your are not disclosing the library source code. Again, I think you are making a most restrictive interpretation here.
For example you cannot take the driver library source code and post it somewhere or redistribute it. You must keep it under your control. If you have your own program that make API calls and you post that, your are not disclosing the library source code. Again, I think you are making a most restrictive interpretation here.
I don't!
That clause is a fundamental barrier to any contract soft/firmware developer: As a contract developer, the source code is my deliverable; and my client will want that to be complete - including any Stellarisware sources used.
I think this is a fine example of the "law of unintended consequences", and the only way to get around it is to cut the licence back down to the simples basics; viz:
Is there anything else that you really need to say?
Andy Neil That clause is a fundamental barrier to any contract soft/firmware developer: As a contract developer, the source code is my deliverable; and my client will want that to be complete - including any Stellarisware sources used.
Actually, I don't see a real problem here. Ideally, your client gets the StellarisWare sources and hands them to you to use - the license seems to cover that. But I don't see any reason you can't each get your own copy and individually agree to the licensing terms, but I am not a lawyer etc. etc.
It's the "most restrictive" view as Joe describes it that I have a problem with. TI's intent doesn't count in a court of law and my guess would be that they would argue this most restrictive view should they ever sue to enforce the license.
It is most disheartening that we have to consult our own lawyers to interpret the license agreement. It adds additional unnecessary cost to using Stellaris devices and is a point against using them.
Orin.
Jean,
That is absurd. It would be like buying a car then having to pay the dealership to see if you can park it in a garage.
Bottom line is TI needs to change its stance around open source software. While they claim it not about open source itself, I do not buy it. It would be MUCH easier to say. This sofware cannot be used on any other processors other than TI's. Vs. this "viral open source" clause that admittedly takes a lawyer and a risk assessment? to interpret. Really, hiding behind the statement that you are trying to protect your IP from competitors from this statement is laughable. Its a damn shame because your stuff is really good.
With the big push of TI trying to get hobby / makers into the Stellaris, MSP430 etc stuff, it might be advisable for your PR guys to talk to your Legal team. Riley
riley porter While they claim it not about open source itself, I do not buy it
I do.
It is not about Open-Source per se: it is about those licences that seek to draw-in your entire codebase when you use any part of their code in your project - these are so-called "viral" licence terms.
This is a problem for anyone trying to use such code in conjunction with proprietary or "closed" code - not just TI.
I think it's more of an issue for those open-source fundamentalists who want to force their "high ideals" onto everyone else...
Riley - have you actually read the GPL license?
Generally if you incorporate code that's covered by a GPL license into your code, you are required to extend the GPL license to your code too. Your project has become open source, and you are now required to make your entire source code available upon request.
TI doesn't want any of their code distributed under a GPL license, and that's completely appropriate. They spend a lot of time and effort developing the code, and should have rights to control the distribution of the source code.
This is the type of viral license that's being discussed. What makes the GPL license viral is that it includes text that requires it to expand to cover any other code that incorporates any code that's covered by a GPL license. If you have a better term to define this aspect of the GPL license (and other similar licenses) it would be good to hear it.
Which is already available from TI. However some require that, that code is then GPL'ed too. Which I agree is a bit much.
GPL states that if code is statically linked, then the source code must be made available and that code must be under GPL. Which is a no go also.
However, LGPL is what I had in mind. But is this considered "viral open source"? Do I need a lawyer to figure this out? What about BSD. TI being purposely vague on these questions / answers just leads to more questions and less answers. Not to mention customer dissatisfaction.
Riley
Interesting article about using "open-source" here: http://www.eetimes.com/design/microcontroller-mcu/4219375/Making-embedded-processing-development-easy---part-4?cid=NL_MCU&Ecosystem=microcontroller-mcu - note that the author is a TI guy!
Note that he speaks a lot about "the community"; too many people see "open source" as just a freebie - they have no intention to contribute or participate in the "community"...
Just noticed that StellarisWare driverlib version 9107 has now changed it's licensing to BSD - from the release notes: