Perhaps some important custom piece in the tool chain is not GPLed? Bob Ammerman RAm Systems ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wouter van Ooijen" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [PIC:] dsPIC30F > > it does seem a bit odd, but, presumeably mchip have made the > > decision that > > they wanted to use GPL'd code (perhaps to make their compiler > > easier to > > write), thus resulting in the GPL. They can charge $800, and > > probably the > > "bulk" of that is for support. Maybe they will even > > distribute the compiler > > (alone, no support) for free? > > The consequence of using GPLed code is that when I buy the compiler they > are obliged to provide me the sources, and I am free to re-distribute > (for $$ or for free, as I see fit, but of course still under GPL) the > compiler. Hence it is a bit strange to charge $$ for the compiler in the > first place. Of course charging $$ for support is a viable buisiness > model, but that is not wat the documents I saw stated. > > Wouter van Ooijen > > -- ------------------------------------------- > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl > consultancy, development, PICmicro products > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different > ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.