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
