> You must carefully define GNU stuff.

I am fully aware of the intricacies of GPL and LGPL. I was talking about
two things:

1- The C30 compiler is described as 'GNU based'. That definitely sounds
as 'containing GNU code', not as 'compiled by a GNU compiler'. Nobody
knows (or cares) what compiler is used to create the Jal, HiTech, CCS or
whatever other compiler (except in some rare cases where there are
royalties (or an LGPL!) attached to the run-rime libraries). So it is a
bit strange that uChip asks $$ for the compiler. But they do seem to
provide the sources for the compiler on their website, so they are fully
within the GPL.

2- I saw a Microchip C30 book with the GFDL (gnu free documentation
license) in an appendix, but not statement in the book that this license
actually applied. This is of course strange, and it would be illegal if
the content was based on GFDL stuff *and* that book was sold and/or
given to the outside world. I honestly don't think an almost in-company
introduction day counts as such. It was probably just an unfinished
book.

So I have not said that Microchip is voilation a GPL, LGPL or GFDL
license, just that I saw some things that were funny.

The interesting news is that C30 seems to be GCC-based, so it will
probably be better than C18, and (whether Microchip likes it or not) be
available for free. And that is good news for the acceptance of the
dsPIC in the hobby / small-scale professional circuit, and that it good
news for me, because that is where I sell most of my PICs.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body