Xiaofan Chen wrote: > Just read my reply to Olin and you will know I was just talking > based on the popular definition of "open source". Then you misunderstand the popular definition. I think the general consensus of "open source" means you can look at it. In most cases you can do more, usually much more. But some restrictions, like GPL or my copyright, don't disqualify it from being "open source". There are probably others listening in wondering what the fuss is about. Here is the copyright notice of the source files that do not directly implement a programming algorithm or are part of the USB framework: *************************************************************** * Copyright (C) 2008, Embed Inc (http://www.embedinc.com) * * * * Permission to copy this file is granted as long as this * * copyright notice is included in its entirety at the * * beginning of the file, whether the file is copied in whole * * or in part and regardless of whether other information is * * added to the copy. * * * * The contents of this file may be used in any way, * * commercial or otherwise. This file is provided "as is", * * and Embed Inc makes no claims of suitability for a * * particular purpose nor assumes any liability resulting from * * its use. * *************************************************************** Geesh guys, all I'm asking for is to be credited in the source, and you don't even need to show it to your customers or anyone else. This is a *way* less restrictive than the GPL. By the way, all my PIC development environment (http://www.embedinc.com/pic) code either has this same copyright or none at all. The USBProg USB framework modules or modules that implement programming algorithms are more restricted: **************************************************************** * Copyright (C) 2008, Embed Inc (http://www.embedinc.com). * * All rights reserved except as explicitly noted here. * * * * Permission to copy this file is granted as long as this * * copyright notice is included in its entirety at the * * beginning of the file, whether the file is copied in whole * * or in part and regardless of whether other information is * * added to the copy, and one of the following conditions is * * met: * * * * 1 - Any executable derived from the this file is only run * * on a Embed Inc product. * * * * 2 - Any device that contains executable code derived from * * this file is not sold, not distributed for commercial * * advantage, and not more than 10 (ten) instances of the * * device are created. * * * * To copy this file otherwise requires explicit permission * * from Embed Inc and may also require a fee. * * * * The information in this file is provided "as is". Embed Inc * * makes no claims of suitability for any particular purpose * * nor assumes any liability resulting from its use. * **************************************************************** Basically I don't want my hard work coming back and competing with me, and if someone else is going to make a buck from it I want a make some too. I'm not trying to stop anyone that is truly doing personal projects, and note that any hacking of a USBProg is explicitly allowed. You could even add a feature to the USBProg and sell your modified firmware for profit without disclosing the code, which is something you couldn't do under the GPL. But the main point is, restrictions or not, it's still "open source" by common usage of that term. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist