SAVE THE STM32: an appeal for sanity

[lanchon]

Posted on June 23, 2008 at 16:38

SAVE THE STM32: an appeal for sanity

[slawcus]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:35

So ST firmware library is useless but that doesn't mean that one can't use STM32 at all. Markenting guys can't advertise STM32s advantage in quick development startup.

However how many manufacturers do you know that provide firmware library?

[miles]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:35

Quote:

On 06-06-2008 at 23:25, Anonymous wrote:

Quote:

Companies can use the executables it in their products, no?

NO. you can't even do that - here it is again:

Quote:

No source code and/or object code relating to and/or based upon Licensed Firmware is to be made available by You to any third party for whatever reason.

The part you quoted I believe falls under the ''RESTRICTIONS'' section, which begins ''Unless otherwise explicitly stated in this Agreement,''. And that follows the ''LICENSE'' section, which is a bit hard to parse, but seems to be the place where they say what you *can* do, as opposed to *can't*.

Number 'iii' under the LICENSE seems to mean you can sell a ''Product'' (as defined in the license) with object code in it. Number 'ii' under the LICENSE refers to how you can use object code (''internally'', whatever that means), and number 'i' refers to how you can use source code. Besides the vague use of 'internal', they also say ''You'', without defining it. Perhaps those are common legal terms?

I'm not planning to use fwlib 2.0 unless it's released under a license that doesn't limit redistribution of derived software (talking about bug-fixes on this forum) and object code (distributing field-loadable SW to customers). Assuming this is just a temporary mixup, and ST is going to be able to get rid of those restrictions, I really hope they will switch to a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OSI_approved_software_licences

instead of further hacking their own. There's dozens out there. Using an existing one (LGPL, BSD, MIT/X11, etc) will save developers a huge headache of trying to figure out what the license means.

[st3]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:35

Quote:

Companies can use the executables it in their products, no?

NO. you can't even do that - here it is again:

Quote:

No source code and/or object code relating to and/or based upon Licensed Firmware is to be made available by You to any third party for whatever reason.

[obtronix]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:35

Quote:

On 06-06-2008 at 23:25, Anonymous wrote:

Quote:

Companies can use the executables it in their products, no?

NO. you can't even do that - here it is again:

Quote:

No source code and/or object code relating to and/or based upon Licensed Firmware is to be made available by You to any third party for whatever reason.

source/object code is not the executable, STM allows you to make and sell products with executable (based on their firmware) embedded inside it royalty-free, they just don't want you to sell their source code/obj files (modified or unmodified) to a third party

[st3]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:35

Why does it need any licence at all?

The whole point of providing it is to encourage (potential) customers to use the chips. It should be all about the chips - nobody should have to worry about wading through any licence terms.

All it needs is a sinple disclaimer: ''this software is provided as-is for use entirely at your own risk''

[jj_it]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:35

Hello ST1-

We now have engineers/programmers ''playing lawyer.''

This is not their dominant skill - and IS eroding

the ''design-in'' of STM32 devices.

Both the ''delivery'' and wording of the new license

has caused great upset to your forum community.

Your forum is hugely unhappy - would much prefer

license modeled after those suggested (few posts back.)

In the absence of a more ''reasonable'' license - perhaps

it makes sense to have ST legal explain what we developers

CAN and CANNOT DO! (he who serves as his own lawyer has

a fool for a client)

[lanchon]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:35

@jj

> In the absence of a more ''reasonable'' license - perhaps

it makes sense to have ST legal explain what we developers

CAN and CANNOT DO!

no use; explanations are not binding, only the license is.

@obtronix,

[st3]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:35

Quote:

The whole point of providing it is to encourage (potential) customers to use the chips. It should be all about the chips

For instance, I got this from a distributor yesterday:

Quote:

The STM32 environment allows developers to build applications on a standard core, drawing on a large ecosystem of software and tools. Support for developers includes a new ST evaluation board for the latest models introduced, software and firmware libraries, and a wide variety of compatible third-party tools.

http://www.abacus.co.uk/jkcm/Microcontroller/Focus+Products/STM32+Family+Extension

[st3]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:35

Quote:

the license has 2 points: a lot of silly stuff that has to go, and a restriction to use only on ST's hardware that might stay. the latter represents fear from ST.

Yes, that's certainly something they should be thinking about.

But I think this particular clanger will back-fire on them: there are plenty of Cortex-based microcontrollers to choose from, and their vendors also provide support libraries - but without the stupid licence terms.

That could well be the deciding factor against the STM32...

[lanchon]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:35

regarding the online commenting suggestion, take a look at

http://www.st.com/mcu/forums-cat-6931-23.html

.

clearly the comments posted there won't be found by other users of the relevant manual. but not only that, these comments were all posted before and the maintainer of the rev3 manual never got a hold of them or just forgot to include them! so rev3 continues to be inaccurate.

it takes valuable time to report bugs. when your time and efforts are not valued you're unlikely to help again. such a big plan and so much investment; and to think that the stm32 just might not make critical mass for small mundane details such as these...