License agreement has me puzzled.

Comments

• idbruce Posts: 6,197

  2019-01-25 14:49

  The wording of the agreement does sound kind of strict. I don't remember such wording in past eval boards that I was interested in, but perhaps it is just my memory fading.
  
  The overall wording of the document suggests to me that it is a dangerous design, with minimum safety circuitry, and that they are trying to prevent liability issues which could occur from duplication of the circuitry.
  

  So I am supposed to use their power device but come up with a completely different circuit design? Why bother publishing the reproduction info?

  
  My answer to your first question would be to come up with a similar circuit design, not completely different. As for the second question, the reproduction info would allow competent and equipped entities to quickly test their product concept, and guide these entities into creating similar circuitry that utilize their product.
  
  Just my 2 cents.
• kwinn Posts: 8,697

  2019-01-25 15:31

  Basically what idruce posted. The board can drive a 3KW 3 phase motor so high voltages and currents are involved, which can be dangerous. It's a case of CMA, they don't want the evaluation board or an exact copy of it used in a product because that may expose them to liability.
• Mickster Posts: 2,603

  2019-01-25 19:37

  I think you guys are right. It's too over-the-top to be anything else.
• localroger Posts: 3,451

  2019-01-30 02:36

  There is similar, if not quite so draconian, language in the documentation for the Parallax P2-Eval board and for similar reasons; it's an untested product whose performance is not guaranteed, so should not be used in any product. Language is a little harsher when it's high power. Basically you should only use it in a situation where failure is an expected possibility and you have the ability to deal with that.