This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

MSP430 Flasher Source Code??

Hi everyone. Wasn't sure which forum to post this in, the Development Tools forum doesn't seem to have a place for this.

The MSP430 Flasher claims to be under the BSD License --

"The MSP430 Flasher itself is under BSD license, however the package also includes MSP430.dll and HIL.dll which are under "TI Proprietary""

Which BSD License? There are a few different versions. Also, more importantly, where is the source code? There are no links to it from any of the TI Wiki pages about it.

It also mentions that it's compatible with Linux -- however, it then says it's only compatible with Ubuntu, which is not the only Linux... if the source was easily available, I could just build it myself. Not to mention I could help fix the code and submit bug fixes, etc.

Any info would be much appreciated!

  • Aurelius Rowsell said:
    Also, more importantly, where is the source code?

    It is in the folder named "Source" when you download and install the MSP430Flasher Tool.

    To find the download, on the TI home page, type "MSP430 Flasher" in the search menu and select the top result.

  • Aurelius Rowsell said:
    t also mentions that it's compatible with Linux -- however, it then says it's only compatible with Ubuntu, which is not the only Linux...

    By that extension, you should complain that it says it is compatible with Windows even though I'm sure it doesn't run on Windows 1, Windows 2, or Windows 3 (and probably not even Windows 9x/ME/2000).

    You surely can't expect TI to test the code on every flavor and every fork of Linux out there. And every distribution they claim to support means they have to expend resources to test and validate against.

  • Actually, you've got those arguments completely wrong. Windows 1/2/3 etc are over twenty years old. Debian, Fedora, Arch etc are all kept up to date. It would be like two different versions of Windows 8. What you're implying is that they're so old supporting them is a waste of resources. No, of course I don't expect them to support every distro of Linux. However, many developers (incorrectly) assume that Ubuntu is a good 'lowest common denominator' for packaging binaries. Even supporting just Debian and Red Hat/Fedora would cover a ton of other distros. RPM is supported across many different flavors, as is dpkg. Not to mention, having the source separate would enable it to be built on any Linux platform.
    Also, in almost %90 percent of cases I've seen, supporting different Linux distros is not much harder than a few mouse clicks. The commonality of all Linux distros is the kernel, which is (almost) the same between all Linuxes. Packaging the installer for different versions is not that difficult. I may even pitch in and package it myself, if I can find the developers.

    Anyway, the point is moot as I later found out that .run files can sometimes be run on distros besides Ubuntu.

    For example (and for those experiencing the same issue I had), on my Fedora 20 LXDE laptop, all you have to do is add execution permissions to the .run file (sudo chmod +x ./MSP430.......) and then simply execute it, just like a .bin file. Not sure what libraries it depends on, if I find more info I'll post here.

    Also, my other point about the licensing stands. I'm going to assume in good faith that they're implying it's under the standard, 3-clause BSD license.

    Plus, not being able to install it can be a barrier to accessing the source code. An open-source project should try and make the source available separately from the installer (seeing as half the point of making source code available is to be able to build it without the installer).

    Thanks for your comments though, gave me something to think about.

**Attention** This is a public forum