On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Olin Lathrop wrote: > Xiaofan Chen wrote: > > Olin's programmer does not really belong to open source because of the > > license limit. > > That's quite unfair. Just about all "open" software has some usage > limitation. I based on the popular definition of "open source". > People seem to consider GPL source "open", although its > restrictions can be rather onerous in some cases. Agreed. Personally I believe Modified BSD license is actually more "free" even according to FSF's meaning of "free". ********************************************************************** Quoting: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html "Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four freedoms that every user should have: the freedom to use the software for any purpose, the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and the freedom to share the changes you make. When a program offers users all of these freedoms, we call it free software." ************************************************************************ To me GPL does not meet the 3rd condition of free. But in practical, GPL is more successful than BSD (but BSD is also very successful) and thus it is good to me as well. > My restrictions are > different, but the important point is the code is open for all to see. If > you require that "open" also means totally free to use for whatever you want > in any way you want, then most of what is commonly referred to as "open" > isn't, including everything from the Open Software Foundation. You restriction is perfectly ok to me. I am a pracgmatist. I am not a Linux fan boy or a GPL fan boy. > If your goal is to make your own firmware for a USBProg, then my copyright > doesn't stop you. Note that you could even sell your modified code without > having to disclose the source, which is something you couldn't do with GPL > code. No I do not have a USBprog and I have no plan with it. I was interested in your USB firmware framework since it has some features that Microchip's did not have. I still have some interests but less now that Microchip's USB firmware is getting better. > > It is also not easy to hack as well. > > Sure it is. The source code and build scripts are all there. > What exactly did you find "not easy to hack"? Did you even try or look at > the source code? I'm generally willing to help people with it. Yes I am looking at it but with low priority. I am more at home with C18 than assembly. > > > EasyProg's source > > codes have been available for years and nobody has even write the > > host software for it under Linux. The EmbedInc programming > > specification > > is also available long ago and only one very old attempt was made to > > use it with Wisp628 (http://www.philpem.me.uk/elec/pic/easyisp/). > > And this is the fault of the code or the specification how exactly? No, it is not your fault. I just want to tell Alan Pearce that by having the source and specification does not mean someone can easily hack the things. > I think this mostly points out that open source is overrated. Far too many > people make a big deal about whether code is open or not, but in the end > most people just want to get their job done and not have to screw with their > tools to do so. I actually agree with you on the programmer part. It is a tool. It is no fun reading the programming specifications. So it is better to leave the jobs to experts like you. I always recommend people to buy a proper programmer like PICkit 2 and not mess with those simple programmers like JDM or whatever it is called. > However, I recognize that a small few do want to hack the > code, so I've made it available and am even willing to help. What more > exactly do you want? No more. I think your offering is very reasonable and good enough for that small few. But I am just thinking that "small few" is almost "zero" now. > > And hacking a programmer is actually difficult for PICs. Even though > > PICkit 2's source codes are available, it is not really that easy to > > understand it thanks to the complexity of Microchip programming > > specifications. > > Yes, the programming specifications are complex, and you shouldn't expect to > understand code that implements them without understanding the > specifications. However, have you looked at my code? I think you will find > its documentation to be above all others. I agree. But it is still complicated. I am more interested in the USB part and not the programmer part. Xiaofan -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist