Created Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:32:24 +0000 by avenue33
Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:32:24 +0000
Should you need to implement makefile for the new MPIDE, feel free to use those I've developed for embedXcode, a template for Xcode.
I guess some directories may need to be adapted to Windows and Linux distributions, but the makefile is robust and performant. They are under CC = BY SA NC.
Learn more at embedXcode.weebly.com.
Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:53:05 +0000
Thank you; this is good news. You have done excellent work to advance the art of MPIDE(s)
Excuse my noobness, but what does "CC = BY SA NC" mean?
Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:07:36 +0000
In few words,
- Attribution â€” You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
This licence is understandable, complies with the French Law â€”especially, droits moraux inaliÃ©nablesâ€”and can be waived, for example for a commercial usage.
Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:42:08 +0000
Is the NC required for french law? My favorite licenses are MIT / BSD / Apache where its compatible with open source but can be used for commercial applications as well. I really like the BSD philosophy of forget copyright and copyleft and just take to the copy center and copy it.
Sat, 06 Apr 2013 18:11:50 +0000
The Attribution is compatible with the French Law â€”droits moraux inaliÃ©nables.
The Noncommercial is to try to protect against companies taking the ideas â€”unfortunately, it has happened...
Sat, 06 Apr 2013 18:33:35 +0000
Companies are made of people. Some of these people see the value in open source (Microchip among others). By making a license non-commercial your discouraging people in these companies from using your code and possibly contributing back to the community.
Non-scrupulous people (or companies) will disregard this no matter what, so why not help the companies that will possibly contribute by removing this restriction from your license?
Sat, 06 Apr 2013 20:47:13 +0000
Sorry, but I don't understand the concept of a not-for-profit company.
Either it is a not-for-profit organisation, and there's no problem with the CC BY-NC-SA, or it is a company which makes profit, and thus shall pay for the resources it's using.
It seems to me an oxymoron.
Whatever the case, please refer to the very first post of the thread: I gave chipKIT.org the authorisation to use the makefiles I've developed.
Are you a representative from Diligent?
Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:17:19 +0000
Sorry, but I don't understand the concept of a not-for-profit company. Either it is a not-for-profit organisation, and there's no problem with the CC BY-NC-SA, or it is a company which makes profit, and thus shall pay for the resources it's using.
Its not a matter of being a not-for-profit company but rather a company that in the business of making a profit has motivation to contribute as well. Not all companies are built the same or are run purely for profit.
For myself I recognize the value in open source to advance both my company and society as a whole. But if a library is restricted for non-commercial use I will respect the licence and just write my own or find one that is not restricted. If I write my own I may or may not share it as is my prerogative, however if I use someone else's library I'm likely to contribute back. The contributions maybe as simple as saying I got it to work in X or may be as much as finding, reporting and repairing bugs. Since I have a commercial motivation for using the library I also am motivated to make sure that its working bug free with the latest tool set.
It seems to me an oxymoron. Whatever the case, please refer to the very first post of the thread: I gave chipKIT.org the authorisation to use the makefiles I've developed. Are you a representative from Diligent?
I am not a representative from Diligent or Digilent, Inc. The company I work for is pontech.com