Hello, CAN drivers exist in Linux too, so I don't think there is any issue with patent or license regarding CAN software.
In my opinion the licensing takes place at hardware level, so the chip manufacturer is responsible for that, though IANAL. Regards, Vincent Le samedi 28 juillet 2018 à 13:12 +0200, Gunar Schorcht a écrit : > Hello, > > RIOT defines a low-level CAN device driver interface. > > Suppose the MCU (for example, Espressifs ESP32) provides a CAN > hardware > implementation that could be used to integrate CAN peripherals into > RIOT > if there were a low-level CAN device driver for it. So I thought > about > including such a low-level CAN device driver in my ESP32 port. > > In accordance with the license terms of Bosch, each implementation of > the CAN protocol and the CAN FD protocol requires a license. From my > point of view, the hardware manufacturer would normally be > responsible > for getting a license. > > However, Espressif simply states: "Since the selling price of the > ESP32 > includes no such royalty fee, Espressif hereby disclaims any > liability > or obligation regarding the CAN Protocol license. Users of the CAN > Protocol via the ESP32’s CAN peripheral should contact Robert Bosch > GmbH > directly for the necessary license." > > In this case, should no CAN device driver be available to prevent > license violation by RIOT users? Or should I implement the CAN device > driver and give an important note as it is done by Espressif? > > Regards > Gunar > > -- > Wenn du laufen willst, lauf eine Meile. Wenn du ein neues Leben > kennenlernen willst, dann lauf Marathon. (Emil Zatopek) > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
