AVR-Chat

Graham,

> > You might come a cropper with Atmel ...
> > I think they're wanting to protect their IP
> > Do you have Atmel's permission ...
> 
> No, I don't have Atmel's permission, but I can't quite see what IP 
> I'm stealing.

I never intimated that you were stealing.  If, however, you ship the
device already programmed then there may be a problem.

> My hardware design is adapted from information on the 
> Web and in Atmel's publications. My bootloader is adapted from an 
> Atmel application note and conforms to a published protocol. I looked 
> for but did not find any language prohibiting running software 
> delivered as part of AVR Studio on non-Atmel hardware.  In fact, the 
> license for AVR Studio allows re-distribution.  Also, why would Atmel 
> care where people get JTAG-ICE's from? They make tools because they 
> couldn't sell chips if they didn't exist but I doubt that it's part 
> of their profit model.

I only recount what I have heard from people within Atmel: the Mk II
isn't compatible with the Mk I because of 3P cloning.  Whether Atmel
make money out of tools or not, I have no idea, I haven't looked too
closely.  ARM certainly do, it's a *big* money spinner for them, just
read their accounts.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and (soon) Atmel AVR processors

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:

> I never intimated that you were stealing.

Well, whatever word you use instead of stealing, it amounts to the 
same thing. I'm either doing something Atmel can justifiably object 
to or I'm not.

> If, however, you ship the device already
> programmed then there may be a problem.

I would prefer to ship it blank, which is why I think it's good that 
it's very quick to load up. If Olimex ship their clone programmed, 
this quick load is not an advantage to the end user, though.  Even 
so, if Atmel specifically allow AVR Studio to be redistributed and 
this includes the software for the JTAG-ICE, I don't know if they'd 
care whether that software was redistributed on a CD-ROM or in an 
ATmega16's flash memory.

> ... I have heard from people within
> Atmel: the Mk II isn't compatible
> with the Mk I because of 3P cloning.

(3P -> third party -> someone other than Atmel or the end user, that 
is, someone like Paul and his compiler or me and my JTAG-ICE clone.)

Well, this could be from the horse's mouth or from some other 
orifice. The Mk II has a USB interface on the PC/host side and 
supports DebugWire for the newer ATmegas as well as JTAG. The 
internal MCU has got to be different (bigger/faster?). What do we 
mean by isn't compatible, anyway? Won't run software written for the 
Mk I?  Isn't a software upgrade to the Mk I hardware?  Atmel need a 
new ICE for DebugWire. There are PCs out there with no serial ports, 
only USB. Hence the Mk II. Obviously, it won't work with Mk I 
software and its software won't work with the Mk I. I can't see third 
party clones as a driving force for this. The clones give on-chip 
debug access to people who might not shell out $300 to get it. This 
puts the ATmega chips in a better light and could win business for 
Atmel. This may sound as if I'm pooh-poohing your input, but I value 
it greatly so please don't take my comments as other than spirited 
discussion.

>  ARM certainly [make money out of tools] ...

Ah, but ARM don't make chips. Their business model is to license the 
ARM architecture and the development tools. If Atmel wanted income 
from the tools, why would they give AVR Studio away?

Graham.