Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Non-GPLed TCP/IP Stack for Propeller? — Parallax Forums

Non-GPLed TCP/IP Stack for Propeller?

JBX5JBX5 Posts: 3
edited 2009-10-14 19:25 in Propeller 1
Hi,
I would like to cheaply network enable the propeller (probably with the ENC 28J60). The problem is the tcp/ip·stack that comes with the ENC28J60 is of course not propeller code and·proptcp http://obex.parallax.com/objects/245/·states it is GPL code in multiple locations. I really don't want to be forced to release my code under the GPL. Has anyone else came up with a cheap solution?
Thanks,
James

Comments

  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,864
    edited 2009-10-06 16:01
    I thought everything in OBEX had to be MIT license...

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    My Prop Info&Apps: ·http://www.rayslogic.com/propeller/propeller.htm
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,261
    edited 2009-10-06 16:11
    There are older objects that have not yet been MIT licensed. In fact, my older 8x8 code is that way.

    (need to change that, and I will)

    Parallax sent notices to everyone to update. Some of us didn't do it...

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
    Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
    Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
  • JBX5JBX5 Posts: 3
    edited 2009-10-06 16:16
    Well according to the OBEX it says all code must be MIT or (in the past) public domain. However, it doesn't appear the author intended it to be either because throughout the code and on his website it has GPL written all over the place, does the author post here? Maybe he could clarify?··
  • Jeff MartinJeff Martin Posts: 760
    edited 2009-10-06 16:27
    Hi guys,

    Thank you, and Mike, for bringing this up.· I will contact the author to get this resolved.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    --Jeff Martin

    · Sr. Software Engineer
    · Parallax, Inc.
  • lonesocklonesock Posts: 917
    edited 2009-10-06 17:21
    Check out etherCog:

    http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?p=744035

    Jonathan

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    lonesock
    Piranha are people too.
  • JBX5JBX5 Posts: 3
    edited 2009-10-12 21:36
    Any luck with a response?
    Thanks,
    James
  • Jeff MartinJeff Martin Posts: 760
    edited 2009-10-14 17:32
    Folks,

    I spoke with the author of the submission in question (which is not the author of the actual GPL'd code).· He contacted the original author, who was unable to grant our request of MIT (and not GPL) code.

    After considering various alternatives, we had no recourse except to remove the ENC28J60 demo in question from the Object Exchange site to keep the integrity of the MIT License requirement intact.

    This is very unfortunate, and definitely not the outcome we were hoping for, but unless licensing terms change on the code in question, it will remain this way.

    Thanks for your understanding.


    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    --Jeff Martin

    · Sr. Software Engineer
    · Parallax, Inc.
  • heaterheater Posts: 3,370
    edited 2009-10-14 18:13
    Unfortunate indeed. And very confusing as according to some the MIT licence is quite compatible with the GPL. For example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License "The license is also GPL-compatible, meaning that the GPL permits combination and redistribution with software that uses the MIT License."

    Or: "Please, where possible, use an existing widely-used (standard) license for your software, one that is known to be compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). In particular, please select the GPL, LGPL, the MIT/X, or BSD-new license (or possibly the Apache 2.0 license)." From David Wheeler in a long essay on the topic here: www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    For me, the past is not over yet.
  • Bill HenningBill Henning Posts: 6,445
    edited 2009-10-14 18:25
    I believe the case is that GPL software may pull in MIT code, but MIT code cannot pull in GPL code.
    heater said...
    Unfortunate indeed. And very confusing as according to some the MIT licence is quite compatible with the GPL. For example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License "The license is also GPL-compatible, meaning that the GPL permits combination and redistribution with software that uses the MIT License."

    Or: "Please, where possible, use an existing widely-used (standard) license for your software, one that is known to be compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). In particular, please select the GPL, LGPL, the MIT/X, or BSD-new license (or possibly the Apache 2.0 license)." From David Wheeler in a long essay on the topic here: www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Please use mikronauts _at_ gmail _dot_ com to contact me off-forum, my PM is almost totally full
    Morpheus & Mem+dual Prop SBC w/ 512KB kit $119.95, 2MB memory IO board kit $89.95, both kits $189.95
    www.mikronauts.com - my site 6.250MHz custom Crystals for running Propellers at 100MHz
    Las - Large model assembler for the Propeller Largos - a feature full nano operating system for the Propeller
  • Nick McClickNick McClick Posts: 1,003
    edited 2009-10-14 18:30
    MIT is essentially public domain ('do whatever you want, just don't blame me'), GPL is restrictive ('If you make a derivative version, you must share it freely' and some other stuff). BSD and Apache are similar to the MIT license.

    So you can use MIT license code in a GPL project, but the licenses are not interchangeable. Personally, I'm not a big fan of GPL. I guess it's better than nothing, but it doesn't seem nearly as 'free' as the MIT license.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Gadget Gangster - Share your Electronic Projects
  • RaymanRayman Posts: 14,864
    edited 2009-10-14 18:36
    Micah's code that lonesock linked to above sounds like a pretty good alternative...

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    My Prop Info&Apps: ·http://www.rayslogic.com/propeller/propeller.htm
  • ericballericball Posts: 774
    edited 2009-10-14 18:44
    Bill Henning said...
    I believe the case is that GPL software may pull in MIT code, but MIT code cannot pull in GPL code.
    Correct.· The MIT license is far more permissive than the GPL.· (In fact, the MIT/X11 license is probably the most permissive license.)· Therefore MIT licensed code may be used in a GPL'd project.· But as soon as you use GPL'd code in a project you are obligated to apply the GPL to the project.· (Such is the nature of copyleft.)

    And I can understand Parallax wanting all ObEx code to have a very permissive license - it makes it very easy for anyone to use the code, irrespective of what it will be used for.· GPL'd code, due to the license, typically cannot be easily used in commercial, proprietary, closed products - which is a potential market for the Propeller.· If there were multiple licenses then the ObEx would be much less usefull because it would become a game of "hunt the license".· Also, there would be a risk of GPL'd code "infecting" other projects, decreasing the value of the ObEx.

    On the other hand, there's no reason why someone cannot make code available with a different license.· That code just can't be included in the ObEx.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Composite NTSC sprite driver: Forum
    NTSC & PAL driver templates: ObEx Forum
    OnePinTVText driver: ObEx Forum
  • ericballericball Posts: 774
    edited 2009-10-14 18:55
    Nick McClick said...
    MIT is essentially public domain ('do whatever you want, just don't blame me'), GPL is restrictive ('If you make a derivative version, you must share it freely' and some other stuff). BSD and Apache are similar to the MIT license.
    Yes.· There are a lot of similarities between the non-copyleft licenses.· However, the MIT/X11 license is typically more permissive, so be careful including code under another license, even a non-copyleft license as it may not be possible to license the entire project under the MIT/X11 license used by the ObEx.
    Nick McClick said...
    So you can use MIT license code in a GPL project, but the licenses are not interchangeable. Personally, I'm not a big fan of GPL. I guess it's better than nothing, but it doesn't seem nearly as 'free' as the MIT license.
    The GPL "philosophy" seems to be, "Our stuff is free to use.· But if you want to use our stuff in something you create then your creation must also be free for everyone to use and carry the same restrictions."


    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Composite NTSC sprite driver: Forum
    NTSC & PAL driver templates: ObEx Forum
    OnePinTVText driver: ObEx Forum
  • heaterheater Posts: 3,370
    edited 2009-10-14 18:58
    Bill: I believe you are right.

    Nick: GPL's idea of "free" does take a special way of looking at "free". For example:

    1) I write some super duper code that you may very much might want to use. Unlikely but bear with me.
    2) If you or anyone else uses this code I'd very much like it to be free for you and everyone else to read, hack, change, redistribute, etc, etc for ever.
    3) You choose not to use my code because it's full of bugs or the user interface sucks or its impossible to configure or there are some critical features missing or won't run on your OS or whatever.
    4) A third party comes along, takes the code, fixes all the problems and sells it, or gives it for free to you to use. Without the source.

    Result: You may be happy that you have my super duper code to use. However I may not be happy, you and perhaps millions of others are now using a derivative work of my code but it is no longer open for reading, hacking, changing etc.

    So I invent something like the GPL to prevent this outcome.

    The GPL "free" applies more to the code than the users, distributors. It's as if the code was a living breathing thing that has the right not to be imprisoned in the dark out of sight.




    4)

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    For me, the past is not over yet.
  • Bill HenningBill Henning Posts: 6,445
    edited 2009-10-14 19:13
    Good summary.

    There is another advantage to the GPL.

    Say someone writes Whizzbang.spin, and it is very useful... and saves people money.

    Say that someone wants to make it available for free for non-commercial use - GPL is great here, because most commercial entities do not want to give out the code that would call Whizzbang.spin

    Said someone can also offer to license Whizzbang.spin to commercial entities for some money, thus being able to make some money.

    Pretty much everyone wins in this case:

    - students/hobbyists just experimenting can use it for free, and see the code

    - commercial entities who license their code under the GPL "pay" by licensing their code under the GPL as well

    - commercial entities who don't want to give out their source code can pay to license it outside of the GPL, so the author gets some $$$

    Only one that loses is commercial entities who want to use the code, not pay, and don't pay to license it... Linksys and many others had to fork out major $$$ and release code when they broke the rules.

    Personally, I use GPL or MIT as I see fit, on a per source file basis.
    heater said...
    Bill: I believe you are right.

    Nick: GPL's idea of "free" does take a special way of looking at "free". For example:

    1) I write some super duper code that you may very much might want to use. Unlikely but bear with me.
    2) If you or anyone else uses this code I'd very much like it to be free for you and everyone else to read, hack, change, redistribute, etc, etc for ever.
    3) You choose not to use my code because it's full of bugs or the user interface sucks or its impossible to configure or there are some critical features missing or won't run on your OS or whatever.
    4) A third party comes along, takes the code, fixes all the problems and sells it, or gives it for free to you to use. Without the source.

    Result: You may be happy that you have my super duper code to use. However I may not be happy, you and perhaps millions of others are now using a derivative work of my code but it is no longer open for reading, hacking, changing etc.

    So I invent something like the GPL to prevent this outcome.

    The GPL "free" applies more to the code than the users, distributors. It's as if the code was a living breathing thing that has the right not to be imprisoned in the dark out of sight.




    4)
    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Please use mikronauts _at_ gmail _dot_ com to contact me off-forum, my PM is almost totally full
    Morpheus & Mem+dual Prop SBC w/ 512KB kit $119.95, 2MB memory IO board kit $89.95, both kits $189.95
    www.mikronauts.com - my site 6.250MHz custom Crystals for running Propellers at 100MHz
    Las - Large model assembler for the Propeller Largos - a feature full nano operating system for the Propeller
  • heaterheater Posts: 3,370
    edited 2009-10-14 19:25
    Bill: All very good.
    However this "- commercial entities who don't want to give out their source code can pay to license it outside of the GPL, so the author gets some $$$" seems to be very rarely the case. The majority of authors using the GPL don't seem to be into any alternative commercial (or othewise) licensing.

    A notable recent exception is Nokia buying up TrollTech and the Qt library. And then promptly dual licensing it, LGPL and commercial. Brilliant, works just as you say.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    For me, the past is not over yet.
Sign In or Register to comment.