Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2006-01-17 by Langosta39
Hi all, I just received the .menu, .i79, and .xcl files from an IAR tech to allow programming and debugging the LPC2103 in the IAR Embedded Workbench (my version is 4.30a). They list support for the 2103 on their website but don't distribute these files yet, for some reason. What's missing is the iolpc2103.h file, but you can make one of those pretty easily, and I'll probably be doing that today. So, if anyone wants them, let me know. Andy
2006-01-17 by FreeRTOS Info
> Hi all, > > I just received the .menu, .i79, and .xcl files from an IAR tech to > allow programming and debugging the LPC2103 in the IAR Embedded > Workbench (my version is 4.30a). They list support for the 2103 on > their website but don't distribute these files yet, for some reason. > What's missing is the iolpc2103.h file, but you can make one of those > pretty easily, and I'll probably be doing that today. > > So, if anyone wants them, let me know. > Andy With respect - if they are not distributing them yet - neither should you. I presume they are copyrighted? Regards, Richard. http://www.FreeRTOS.org
2006-01-17 by charlesgrenz
Hi Andy, I talked with IAR about 1 1/2 weeks ago about the very subject and said they had nothing and where not planning to create files for the 2103. I complained and also emailed them a comment from Philips app. about the differences between the parts (2103 versus 2106 which they said I should use). They have not gotten back to me on this. regards, Charles --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Langosta39" <ahuska@a...> wrote:
> > Hi all, > > I just received the .menu, .i79, and .xcl files from an IAR tech to > allow programming and debugging the LPC2103 in the IAR Embedded > Workbench (my version is 4.30a). They list support for the 2103 on > their website but don't distribute these files yet, for some reason. > What's missing is the iolpc2103.h file, but you can make one of those > pretty easily, and I'll probably be doing that today. > > So, if anyone wants them, let me know. > Andy >
2006-01-17 by Paul Curtis
Tom, > >With respect - if they are not distributing them yet - > neither should you. > >I presume they are copyrighted? > > > Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a > boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even > trivial code, > or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register > locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header > files, they > are using the exact verbage as Philips. > > Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite > on something > that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to use > Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?! All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those are also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the person who typed in the names does it for the company they are working for and, as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial things are copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM chips have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an essential part of software and product development to ensure that a competitor does not simply steal your work. The copyright is on the item that was written. Philips copyright their manuals and data sheets. However, I do not believe they would stifle product development by requiring tool vendors to pay them a license fee to use their peripheral register names. If they did, they'd not be competetive. -- Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
2006-01-17 by Tom Walsh
FreeRTOS Info wrote: > > >>Hi all, >> >>I just received the .menu, .i79, and .xcl files from an IAR tech to >>allow programming and debugging the LPC2103 in the IAR Embedded >>Workbench (my version is 4.30a). They list support for the 2103 on >>their website but don't distribute these files yet, for some reason. >>What's missing is the iolpc2103.h file, but you can make one of those >>pretty easily, and I'll probably be doing that today. >> >>So, if anyone wants them, let me know. >>Andy >> >> > >With respect - if they are not distributing them yet - neither should you. >I presume they are copyrighted? > > > Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even trivial code, or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header files, they are using the exact verbage as Philips. Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite on something that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to use Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?! TomW -- Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..." ----------------------------------------------------
2006-01-17 by Tom Walsh
Paul Curtis wrote: >Tom, > > > >>>With respect - if they are not distributing them yet - >>> >>> >>neither should you. >> >> >>>I presume they are copyrighted? >>> >>> >>> >>Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a >>boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even >>trivial code, >>or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register >>locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header >>files, they >>are using the exact verbage as Philips. >> >>Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite >>on something >>that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to use >>Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?! >> >> > >All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those are >also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the person >who typed in the names does it for the company they are working for and, >as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial things are >copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM chips >have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an essential >part of software and product development to ensure that a competitor >does not simply steal your work. > > > Well, apparently you went to a different school than I did. Copyright can only be asserted on an original work, simply reformatting an existing work does not automagically create a copyright. Nor does "sweat" justify assigning a copyright. Respectfully, it is my opinion that you spend some time looking into copyright practice. TomW -- Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..." ----------------------------------------------------
2006-01-17 by Leon Heller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Walsh" <tom@...> To: <lpc2000@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [lpc2000] LPC2103 in IAR EWARM > Paul Curtis wrote: > >>Tom, >> >> >> >>>>With respect - if they are not distributing them yet - >>>> >>>> >>>neither should you. >>> >>> >>>>I presume they are copyrighted? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a >>>boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even >>>trivial code, >>>or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register >>>locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header >>>files, they >>>are using the exact verbage as Philips. >>> >>>Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite >>>on something >>>that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to use >>>Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?! >>> >>> >> >>All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those are >>also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the person >>who typed in the names does it for the company they are working for and, >>as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial things are >>copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM chips >>have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an essential >>part of software and product development to ensure that a competitor >>does not simply steal your work. >> >> >> > Well, apparently you went to a different school than I did. Copyright > can only be asserted on an original work, simply reformatting an > existing work does not automagically create a copyright. Nor does > "sweat" justify assigning a copyright. Respectfully, it is my opinion > that you spend some time looking into copyright practice. FWIW, it used to be the case that anything written in the UK was automatically copyright. I'm not sure if it still applies, though. Leon
2006-01-17 by Paul Curtis
Tom, > Well, apparently you went to a different school than I did. Unless you went to Bournemouth School then, yes, I did indeed go to a different school. > Copyright can only be asserted on an original work, simply > reformatting an existing work does not automagically create > a copyright. Hell, I didn't simply reformat any of Philips documents. Constructing an XML description of a part *is* an original work IMO. You don't get anything other than numbers, names, and punctuation in the XML description so it's hardly plagiarism. > Nor does "sweat" justify assigning a copyright. You know what, I didn't claim it did. > Respectfully, it is my opinion that you spend some time looking into copyright practice. I know all about copyright thanks. Given good ties with many silicon manufacturers I'm happy with what our company produces and the copyright we assert, and the same is true with other tool vendors I'm sure. This is an argument I'm not being drawn into. -- Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
2006-01-17 by brendanmurphy37
I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly most large companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e. copyright everything they do). Don't forget that just because something is copyright doesn't mean to say it can't be freely distributed under whatever terms the company or organisation chooses. I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was distributing copyright material without explicit permission from the owner, regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I think it trivial"). As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating the work in the first place. If they want to distribute it freely (and as you point out, there's plenty of cases where they'd be mad to do otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check before offering somone else's work around first (I'm not implying this wasn't done in this case, by the way: just making a general observation). Brendan --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote: > > Tom, > > > >With respect - if they are not distributing them yet - > > neither should you. > > >I presume they are copyrighted? > > > > > Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a > > boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even > > trivial code, > > or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register > > locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header > > files, they > > are using the exact verbage as Philips. > > > > Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite > > on something > > that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to use > > Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?! > > All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those are > also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the person > who typed in the names does it for the company they are working for and, > as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial things are > copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM chips > have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an essential > part of software and product development to ensure that a competitor > does not simply steal your work. > > The copyright is on the item that was written. Philips copyright their > manuals and data sheets. However, I do not believe they would stifle > product development by requiring tool vendors to pay them a license fee
> to use their peripheral register names. If they did, they'd not be > competetive. > > -- > Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk > CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors >
2006-01-17 by Tom Walsh
brendanmurphy37 wrote: >I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly most large >companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e. copyright >everything they do). > >Don't forget that just because something is copyright doesn't mean to >say it can't be freely distributed under whatever terms the company >or organisation chooses. > >I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was distributing >copyright material without explicit permission from the owner, >regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an >interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I think it >trivial"). > >As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating the work >in the first place. If they want to distribute it freely (and as you >point out, there's plenty of cases where they'd be mad to do >otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check before offering >somone else's work around first (I'm not implying this wasn't done in >this case, by the way: just making a general observation). > >Brendan > > > By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application and handed it to someone to retype, then you "own" the copyright to that work! That is what I'm saying. So, taking a PDF, XML, or marking on mud tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an original work. It is merely transcription. I admit, this is a very sore point with me. People who claim copyright over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing everyone a dis-service. Regards, TomW -- Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..." ----------------------------------------------------
2006-01-17 by brendanmurphy37
Tom, I'm no legal expert, but I'd use the term "copying" when talking about "reformatting an existing work". Precisely what copyright is designed to control (i.e. establish ownership of the work). If the owner is happy to distribute it widely, that's fine, but I'd still recommend checking first... As for something like a header file mapping names to addresses, there's certainly work in preparing it, so I don't see any problem with putting a copyright notice on it. But as I say, I'm no legal expert. Brendan --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Tom Walsh <tom@o...> wrote: > > Paul Curtis wrote: > > >Tom, > > > > > > > >>>With respect - if they are not distributing them yet - > >>> > >>> > >>neither should you. > >> > >> > >>>I presume they are copyrighted? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a > >>boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even > >>trivial code, > >>or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register > >>locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header > >>files, they > >>are using the exact verbage as Philips. > >> > >>Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite > >>on something > >>that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to use > >>Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?! > >> > >> > > > >All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those are > >also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the person > >who typed in the names does it for the company they are working for and, > >as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial things are > >copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM chips > >have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an essential > >part of software and product development to ensure that a competitor > >does not simply steal your work. > > > > > > > Well, apparently you went to a different school than I did. Copyright > can only be asserted on an original work, simply reformatting an > existing work does not automagically create a copyright. Nor does > "sweat" justify assigning a copyright. Respectfully, it is my opinion
> that you spend some time looking into copyright practice. > > TomW > > -- > Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant > http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com > "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..." > ---------------------------------------------------- >
2006-01-17 by Paul Curtis
Tom, > By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application > and handed it to someone to retype, then you "own" the copyright > to that work! You know, I didn't say that. The context is clear, generating an XML description of a part from a piece of paper or electronic equivalent. I did not say "transcribe". I have not "trascribed". I didn't say "by extension" that allws you to infer anything. You are certainly twisting things. > That is what I'm saying. So, taking a PDF, XML, or marking on mud > tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an > original work. It is merely transcription. > I admit, this is a very sore point with me. People who claim > copyright over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing > everyone a dis-service. You cannot copyright an algorithm, that is clear. However, this is not the context of my assertion. -- Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
2006-01-17 by FreeRTOS Info
> By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application and handed > it to someone to retype, then you "own" the copyright to that work! > That is what I'm saying. So, taking a PDF, XML, or marking on mud > tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an original > work. It is merely transcription. > > I admit, this is a very sore point with me. People who claim copyright > over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing everyone a dis-service. > > Regards, > > TomW > Ok, so I really wish I had not said anything now. To hopefully close off this OT thread I would say my original point was more that the first two emails in this thread seem to indicate that IAR do not want/intend the files to be distributed. Regards, Richard. http://www.FreeRTOS.org
2006-01-17 by brendanmurphy37
Tom, I'm inclined to agree with Paul and just bow out of this discussion, which is going nowhere and is certainly off-topic. However, before doing this, I would point out that you can't copyright an algorithm. Common practice, and I see nothing wrong with it despite your objection, is to copyright all source code that is created within an organisation. If it's a straight copy of something else, that's something else. From what Paul says, it sounds like what he's done is a long way from a straight copy (unless I missed the XML addendum to the Philips documantation, that is) Brendan --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Tom Walsh <tom@o...> wrote: > > brendanmurphy37 wrote: > > >I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly most large > >companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e. copyright > >everything they do). > > > >Don't forget that just because something is copyright doesn't mean to > >say it can't be freely distributed under whatever terms the company > >or organisation chooses. > > > >I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was distributing > >copyright material without explicit permission from the owner, > >regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an > >interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I think it > >trivial"). > > > >As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating the work > >in the first place. If they want to distribute it freely (and as you > >point out, there's plenty of cases where they'd be mad to do > >otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check before offering > >somone else's work around first (I'm not implying this wasn't done in > >this case, by the way: just making a general observation). > > > >Brendan > > > > > > > By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application and handed > it to someone to retype, then you "own" the copyright to that work! > That is what I'm saying. So, taking a PDF, XML, or marking on mud > tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an original > work. It is merely transcription. > > I admit, this is a very sore point with me. People who claim copyright > over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing everyone a dis- service.
> > Regards, > > TomW > > > -- > Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant > http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com > "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..." > ---------------------------------------------------- >
2006-01-17 by Langosta39
My original thought was that this would help IAR more than anything, but I suppose there are some that could argue either way. I think I will just keep the files to myself unless IAR gives me permission. Until then, just ask them yourselves. I'm just about finished with the iolpc2103.h file, but that has copyrighted material in it so I'll hold off on that as well. Andy --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "brendanmurphy37" <brendan.murphy@i...> wrote: > > > Tom, > > I'm inclined to agree with Paul and just bow out of this discussion, > which is going nowhere and is certainly off-topic. > > However, before doing this, I would point out that you can't > copyright an algorithm. > > Common practice, and I see nothing wrong with it despite your > objection, is to copyright all source code that is created within an > organisation. If it's a straight copy of something else, that's > something else. From what Paul says, it sounds like what he's done is > a long way from a straight copy (unless I missed the XML addendum to > the Philips documantation, that is) > > Brendan > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Tom Walsh <tom@o...> wrote: > > > > brendanmurphy37 wrote: > > > > >I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly most large > > >companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e. > copyright > > >everything they do). > > > > > >Don't forget that just because something is copyright doesn't mean > to > > >say it can't be freely distributed under whatever terms the > company > > >or organisation chooses. > > > > > >I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was distributing > > >copyright material without explicit permission from the owner, > > >regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an > > >interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I think it > > >trivial"). > > > > > >As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating the > work > > >in the first place. If they want to distribute it freely (and as > you > > >point out, there's plenty of cases where they'd be mad to do > > >otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check before > offering > > >somone else's work around first (I'm not implying this wasn't done > in > > >this case, by the way: just making a general observation). > > > > > >Brendan > > > > > > > > > > > By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application and > handed > > it to someone to retype, then you "own" the copyright to that > work! > > That is what I'm saying. So, taking a PDF, XML, or marking on mud > > tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an > original > > work. It is merely transcription. > > > > I admit, this is a very sore point with me. People who claim > copyright > > over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing everyone a dis-
> service. > > > > Regards, > > > > TomW > > > > > > -- > > Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant > > http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com > > "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..." > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > >
2006-01-17 by Tom Walsh
brendanmurphy37 wrote: >Tom, > >I'm inclined to agree with Paul and just bow out of this discussion, >which is going nowhere and is certainly off-topic. > >However, before doing this, I would point out that you can't >copyright an algorithm. > >Common practice, and I see nothing wrong with it despite your >objection, is to copyright all source code that is created within an >organisation. If it's a straight copy of something else, that's >something else. From what Paul says, it sounds like what he's done is >a long way from a straight copy (unless I missed the XML addendum to >the Philips documantation, that is) > > > You are confusing copyright with compensation. Regards, TomW -- Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..." ----------------------------------------------------