I've been looking at the PIC24 and PIC32 compilers from Microchip
lately. These are based on the gnu toolchain.

Their PIC24 compiler works for a month in a full-featured manner, and
after that it goes down to a "student edition" that has most
optimizations disabled. Once you pay megabucks you get them back. I
initially thought this wasn't a violation because I assumed they wrote
their own closed source optimizer. However, this appears not to be the
case, and the source code they released for their C30 compiler doesn't
have any reference to any kind of limitiations. So the executable they
released was clearly not built from the source code they released.

Even worse, their PIC32 compiler, called C32, has a 64K code
limitation unless you pay megabucks and that limitation also doesn't
appear in the source that they released.

Am I looking at this wrong? I thought the GPL says that you have to
release all of the source code you used to build your shipping
compiler? Can someone enlighten me?

Eric

On 18 Mrz., 16:03, Eric <englere_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
well, deriving code from GPL GCC (MIPS compiler?) renaming mips-gcc to
pic32-gcc and selling for 1200$ sounds like Microchip lawers either
HAVE not done their homework, or that they have dont it extremly well.

So or so, its really shame, that Microchip tries to sell MIPS GCC for
1200 usd

well, there NO PIC32 silicon yet available, only starterkits.

Antti

Antti <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com> writes:

Why would a *device manufacturer* do this anyway? Idiots.


--

John Devereux

On Mar 18, 11:45*am, John Devereux <jdREM...@THISdevereux.me.uk>
wrote:

Hmmm. $1200 or market share. $1200 or market share. Which to
choose?!

On Mar 18, 9:01 am, Mike Silva <snarflem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which is yet another one of the reasons that I use AVR's instead.

G.

On Mar 18, 12:26 pm, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:

Not exactly. Choice (a) is ship the source with the binaries,
effectively to customers only. If that is not taken, choice (b)
requires offering it to any third party at copying cost. Choice (c)
inheritance is not available for commercial distribution, but choice
(b) probably includes third parties in order to support inheritance
for choice (c) non-commercial redistribution.

Eric wrote:
Yes, the GPL requires them to release the source code for the binaries
they ship - but only to those to whom they have given the binaries, and
then only if they ask for them. So they are (AFAIK - IANAL) allowed to
offer for downloaded a crippled binary version, and an uncrippled source
version which does not match the binary version. But if you download
the crippled binary, you can ask them for the crippled sources (and they
must inform you of that right, and make it clear that the versions are
different). If the uncrippled sources are easily available, then it's
quite likely no one has bothered asking specifically for the crippled
sources.

If, on the other hand, the downloadable sources are not full-featured
(for example, they are missing the optimisations), then Microchip are on
shaky ground. Anyone may buy the full version, insist on getting the
source, and then publicly release the source - any attempt to restrict
that would be a violation of the GPL.

It is close to impossible to integrate closed-source optimisers with gcc
- the gcc architecture is specifically monolithic to avoid it. There
have, I believe, been regular suggestions from gcc developers wanting to
make the compiler more modular (such as actively separating the front
and back end binaries) and to support plugins (it would make testing
much easier). These ideas have been rejected because the FSF wants to
make it hard (technically and legally) to mix closed-source code within
the gcc compiler.

So any optimisers that Microchip have written for their ports of gcc
will also be under the GPL.

Wherever they stand with regard to the letter of the law on the GPL,
these time- and space-limited binaries are certainly not within the
spirit of the GPL.

It's okay to add non-GPL'ed tools along with the GPL'ed tools (such as
simulators, IDEs, hardware debugger interfaces, etc.), of course.

On Mar 18, 12:18*pm, ghel...@lycos.com wrote:
I would think MIPS would be rather annoyed about this, assuming they
make money on devices sold, not compilers sold.

Eric <englere_geo@yahoo.com> writes:
Having looked at their PIC24 gcc source code, the key is that they
call out to a license manager executable which determines the license.
If the LM says so, the code in gcc simply shuts off various -O and -f
options. Rebuilding with that code disabled (the sources disable it
by default, but it's just a -D to turn it on) gives you a fully
functional compiler. This is fine with the GPL.

Since the compilers are distributed over the web, and the sources are
also, the GPL is satisfied via clause 3a. The LM bits and the license
key are not covered by the GPL, so they need not worry about how they
ship those to customers.

As for charging a fee, the GPL ALLOWS this. The GNU philosophy
encourages you to charge what the market will bear, providing you
offer sources with whatever binaries you distribute.

Microchip's license for their runtime explicitly precludes
non-microchip compilers, but I can't say if rebuilding their compiler
from their sources results in a not-their-compiler, from a legal point
of view. I think this is something that GPL3 addresses, in that the
user must be able to rebuild and *use* the binary, not just be able to
rebuild it.

cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I follow what you wrote - there are no requirements
involving third parties. The GPL (in this case) only affects Microchip,
and anyone to whom Microchip distributes the software. As you say,
Microchip must either give them the source with the binaries, or a
written offer of availability of the source for no more than a
reasonable handling fee. But third parties have no writes to the code -
I cannot insist that Microchip gives me source for their compiler,
unless they have sold it to me, or let me download it.

"Eric" <englere_geo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:780640bf-35e2-4b49-9435-2b1084f1b423@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Why bother with Microchip PIC24 C compiler?
Get the Hi-Tech PIC24 C compiler, its more efficient.

I've played with both and came to the conclusion
the Microchip GCC version was wasteful.

On Mar 18, 9:19*pm, David Brown wrote:
Not all entirely true. GPL V2 uses the phrase "third party" and GPL V3
requires distribution to "anyone who possesses the object code". This
only applies if the source code was not shipped with the object code
(i.e. case b).

Paul

On Mar 18, 10:19 pm, David Brown
<david.br...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:

While this is true, the distinction isn't all that important.

Anybody who buys a GPL'ed binary from Microchip, and gets the source
code, can turn around and distribute this source code to everybody
else. Given that, it's not really worth the trouble for companies to
restrict the source distribution of GPL software.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> writes:
Not quite true in some cases. If a distributor chooses to use clause
3(b) (the written offer), anyone who possesses such an offer can share
the offer with ANY third party, and the distributor is required to
honor it - even if the third party has never had possession of the
program.

For this reason, use of 3(b) is very rare.

If you read 3(b) carefully, you'll see this (emphasis mine):

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, TO GIVE ANY THIRD PARTY, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

I don't know if Microchip uses 3(b) though; I did get one CD-ROM copy
of their tools as part of the contest, but it included neither the
sources nor an offer, and by the time I went looking for the sources
they weren't online anymore[*]. So now I give advice on how to disable
their license manager in gcc :-)
[*] I could have upgraded the tools and gotten *those* sources,
though.

"Moon Shine" <4moonshine@gmail.com> wrote:

Because the Hi-Tech compiler is more expensive?
Because the Hi-Tech compiler comes with a shitty activation scheme?
Because Hi-Tech will always be playing catch up (if they bother to catch
up) supporting Microchip debuggers, IDE, and processors?
Because the Microchip compiler includes free support and updates for life
not for 12 months?
Because you know all the Microchip libraries, application notes and
evaluation products are going to be compatible with the compiler used to
create them?




--

"nospam" <nospam@please.invalid> wrote in message
news:mhi0u3181ilu5e1bcqmrbgsiectkkrh2b0@4ax.com...
Because if your code won't fit on the chip with Microchip compiler,
you'll have to use Hi-Tech compiler.

Because Hi-Tech has been making reliable C compilers for PICs
far longer than Microchip itself.

Because Microchips first attempt to compete with Hi-Tech
was abandoned after their botched hack of a SwitchCraft
compiler was a disastrous failure.

"Eric" <englere_geo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:780640bf-35e2-4b49-9435-2b1084f1b423@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Having had dealings with Microchip in the past with reference to open source
code I would say Microchip don't play "fast and loose" with anything, but
are in fact very careful about such things. I can't imaging that they would
not be in compliance with all licensing conditions - they are after all too
bigger a player to make themselves a target through any clumsiness.

I think from memory (correct me if I'm wrong) that they provide their own
library and chip specific headers, etc, and these are probably worth the
outlay if you consider the saving they would give you. You could of course
use newlib instead.

--
Regards,
Richard.

+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org & http://www.FreeRTOS.org/shop
16 official architecture ports, 5000 downloads per month.

+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
Certified by TÜV as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.

"Mike Silva" <snarflemike@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8458c0ff-c9d8-4518-800a-5ae456324e20@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 18, 12:18 pm, ghel...@lycos.com wrote:
I think MIPS wouldn't have much to be grumpy about--I'm sure Microchip
coughed up the required license fee and didn't guarantee a royalty revenue
stream to MIPS.

-- Paul.

On Mar 18, 11:09*pm, DJ Delorie wrote:
Rather than being rare, the few I've seen seem to follow this route.

Since updates for most products can be obtained from a website without
proof of product ownership, it would follow that the source can be
obtained in the same way (i.e. without proof).

Paul

Paul Black <nospam@nospam.saturnine.org.uk> writes:
Providing sources on a web site doesn't satisfy 3(b). Providing a
written document, good for three years (that's the catch) along with
the binaries does.

The only time I've seen 3(b) happen is with my Nokia 770. The printed
manual had a page at the end that basically said "some programs on
your device are covered by the GPL. Up to three years from now, you
can write to this address and we'll send you the sources..."

Now, if a product came with a written note that said "we guarantee
that until 2011-Mar-19 you can download the sources for this product
from http://..." then that might satisfy 3(b) (one could argue that
they must provide them on the same media as the product itself, likely
a cd-rom) but the trick then is dating the offer. 3(b) requires a
minimum of three years, which means either (1) each offer is
individually dated, or (2) they honor them all until three years past
their last shipment.

IMHO the key is that there must be a legally binding document to
satisfy 3(b) since it's a license and it's date-sensitive. Putting
sources on your web site and then not telling your customers about it
in the distribution doesn't count.