As Frédéric Nadeau wrote:
> Why don't you do like Micro$oft?, hide the acknoledgement in your
> binary.
> I do not encourage it, but it is sure an alternative to having the
> acknowledgement in the manual.
It's completely pointless here. Those people who don't want to go
opensource (and only th
> -Original Message-
> From:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> org] On Behalf Of Frédéric Nadeau
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:17 PM
> To: Sebastien Lelong
> Cc: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Open Source l
Why don't you do like Micro$oft?, hide the acknoledgement in your binary.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=BSD%20Code%20in%20Windows
It does however use some code space, but heck, sure you can spare 200
bytes for that :)
I do not encourage it, but it is sure an alternative to having the
ackn
As Weddington, Eric wrote:
> > What's your opinion on this ? How did you deal with this ?
> Yes avr-libc has been used in commercial products, without
> problems. In practice, many people do not put the copyright notice
> in their documentation even though they are supposed to. I don't
> have a b
> -Original Message-
> From:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> org] On Behalf Of Sebastien Lelong
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:35 AM
> To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
> Subject: [avr-libc-dev] Open Source license for embedded systems
>
> Dear AVR guys,
>
>
> I'm
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Sebastien Lelong wrote:
> 2. BSD is an appropriate license to distribute programmed chips.
> Distributing/selling programmed chips requires the copyright notice to be
> reproduced, but that's a restriction people have to deal with if they want
> to use it.
>
> I'm 100% in fav
Personal opinion: _No one_ distributes _just_ programmed chips. They
usually ship a manual of some sort with the chip. Include the copyright
notice in the manual. No muss, no fuss. Credit given where there is
the likelihood that someone will actually read it. (Okay, only women
will read it bec
