> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu On Behalf Of alan.b.pearce@stfc.ac.uk
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:17 AM
>
> Has anyone else seen this discussion on the MPLAB x EULA?
>
> http://www.microchip.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=3D630935

According to a June 2009 forum post, they have this clause in the dsPIC dev
kit EULA too. http://www.microchip.com/forums/m428684.aspx

I do not believe our corporate lawyers will allow me to agree to a EULA wit=
h
this onerous of a condition. So I won't be trying out MPLAB X for debugging
if Microchip keeps this requirement.

Seeing this I got nervous because I hadn't carefully read the licenses for
MPLAB 8 and Hi-Tech C Pro that we recently started using on a new project.
So I checked and MPLAB 8 and Hi-Tech C Pro do not include this clause. This
is a big relief because if this clause was there I would have to bring it t=
o
the lawyers which incurs $$$. If the lawyers said no as I suspect, I'd have
to uninstall the software and remove the Microchip processor from the desig=
n
since AFAIK there is no way to use Real-Ice for debugging Hi-Tech C code
without MPLAB. Then of course the entire corporation would be pissed off at
Microchip because we'd be out a few thousand bucks and a couple months
behind on a development project.

I hope they come to their senses and remove this insane EULA condition.

Oh and in case Microchip sees this, even if I had signed such a EULA there
is no way I'd let you uninvited on premises so you'd have to get a court
order. Why not just skip the ridiculous EULA clause and if you ever feel th=
e
need to enter a customers premises without their permission just go and get
the court order first.

Paul Hutch

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.