On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist@embedinc.com> wrote:
> 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.                                                    *
> ***************************************************************

This is open source. This is kind of modified BSD license.

> 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.

They are all considered as open source. I was talking about the USB
driver and the USBProg firmware.

> 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.            *
> ****************************************************************

This is not. It is like the PICKit 2 source codes.

> 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.

GPL is recognized as an Open Source license. But I have some
reservation about how free it is according to FSF's own definitions
of Free.

> But the main point is, restrictions or not, it's still "open source" by
> common usage of that term.
>

I do not agree on this one. But I agree that your license is very
reasonable and makes perfect sense.

Xiaofan
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist