Awesome... This (including other replies on this subject) clarifies a lot.

I do want to keep this PIC-based, as it makes more sense for me.  And I=20
will be doing this in C.  PIC 18 would be nice, but I'm also considering=20
PIC32.

Was not aware that mchp had FAT libraries, but thing I'll go their route=20
first (and hopefully only).  Don't need to have LFN -- 8.3 is fine for now.

My quick ballpark calcs tell me that I will need to save ~1k bits per=20
second.  That's my content, and at this point I'm not sure how much=20
overhead data will be added to this, but this page (=20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital ) tells me that I can do=20
50Mbits/sec in SPI mode, which seems like it would be much more than I=20
need, so I can stick with SPI mode for now.

Thanks for the info,
-Neil.



On 6/15/2012 4:39 AM, alan.b.pearce@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>>> ... using FAT32 requires a licence.
>> I understand that that point is contestable, but you may need vastly dee=
p pockets to
>> contest it.
> I don't believe FAT32 requires a license, but many people confuse FAT32 w=
ith using Long File Names, which certainly does require a license from Micr=
osoft, the last I heard.
>
> I don't know how Microchip get on supplying LFN support in their library,=
 or if they rely on the end user (programmer, OEM) getting an appropriate l=
icense. I haven't gone looking at that part of the MAL license.

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