Am 09.01.2018 um 06:12 schrieb Georg Icking-Konert:
> hi Philipp,
> 
> great to hear that - also the upcoming GDB support! Consequently I will
> (have to) modify my templates under
> https://github.com/gicking/STM8_templates to use the new headers
> instead. Therefore I have some questions:
>   - when is 3.7.0 scheduled to be released?
>   - for the meantime: do the headers happen to be same or similar than
> the (patched) SPL ones?
>   - are there any other features, e.g. language changes, I need to
> consider?
>   - are similarly big changes (for the end-user) planned in future
> releases? While common headers are great, adapting my projects is a lot
> of effort. And I would hate to do that repeatedly...
> 
> For a short feedback thanks a lot in advance!
> 
> Regards,
> Georg
> 
> 
> Am 09.01.2018 um 00:07 schrieb Philipp Klaus Krause:
>> Am 08.01.2018 um 19:58 schrieb Eric Neblock:
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>    I was wondering if there was a "missing" header for the stm8.
>>> >From the wiki, I found this site:
>>>
>>> http://www.colecovision.eu/stm8/STM8SVLDISCOVERY%20LED.shtml
>>>
>>> and in the code example, it has things that we'd expect to be in
>>> a header file.
>>>
>>> So I don't know if I'm not calling things correctly or if this needs
>>> to go to the devel list or something else.
>>>
>>> Let me know and thanks for your time!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Eric
>> Such header files exist as part of ST's STM8 SPL, but due to the unclear
>> license situation the headers will not be included in SDCC before 3.7.0.
>>
>> Philipp
>>

Well, I was only referring to the headers in teh SPL, and "the headers
will not be included in SDCC before 3.7.0" doesn't mean we'll have
headers immediately after 3.7.0 either.

The main prpblem is the same as with the pic headers: The unclear
license situation. In both cases a vendor wishes to impose non-free term
upon the headers for their hardware. Changing their mind hasn't worked
so far, an thus is unlikely to work in the short term.

However there is another important question here: Does the vendor have
the right to impsoe license terms on their headers? Are the headers even
copyrightable? Are the register locations just noncopyrightable facts?

IANAL, but IMO, in many restrictions, the contents of the header files
would be considered non-copyrightable facts. See e.g.:

http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.

After the 3.7.0 release, I'll look into reaching out to entities/places
dedicated to discuss leagal issues related to free software, to get
these questions clarified.

I hope the resolution will allow SDCC to

1) Ship PIC headers as free
2) Include free STM8 headers

Philipp


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user

Reply via email to