SAVE THE STM32: an appeal for sanity

lanchon · ‎2008-06-23

Posted on June 23, 2008 at 16:38

lanchon · ‎2011-05-17

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...

st3 · ‎2011-05-17

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...

slawcus · ‎2011-05-17

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:36

Quote:

Plenty do - and they do it precisely to encourage (potential) customers to use their chips.

Please name them. Atmel doesn't, neither NXP, what about TI, Renesas? We're not talking about simple code examples. Microchip is the only micro manufacturer that provides libraries for graphics, RF and ethernet (of course you must use only microchip controllers).

st3 · ‎2011-05-17

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:36

Quote:

I believe that this license is just done to say that ST Firmware/Software is just for guidance and you can use then re-use for Free

But that is not what it says!

This is what it says:

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.

Which means that I cannot deliver anything that uses the Library to my clients!

Quote:

fomatted in a an official way to say that ST does not guarantee a bug free software/firmware and then to avoid claims.

That can be said in one paragraph - it does not need 4 pages!

Quote:

Anyhow, I will check with my teammates and legal departement at ST what is the purpose and terms of this license ? and then I will keep you posted

Thanks.

As it stands, this looks like a major blunder!

Even if everyone here is misinterpreting it, the fact that it is so open to so much misinterpretation just goes to show that it is a Bad document!

obtronix · ‎2011-05-17

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:36

Quote:

On 07-06-2008 at 11:57, Anonymous wrote:

@obtronix,

> source/object code is not the executable

I don't agree, but my opinion is worthless. that sort of thing can only be decided by a judge over an actual dispute. and then their ruling could be overturned... 🙂

I guess! But this is a common license, at least in my experience. The license makes a very clear distinction between obj and executable (it has seperate statements for each)

Obj files are generic binaries that can be used in multiple applications, whereas a executable is a specific combination of obj files linked together so that they can only work on a specific application (a specific piece of hw).

I'm pretty sure ST is just saying you can't resell their firmware (ie., become a generic STM32 software house reselling their products), similar to open source agreements. Well anyway, that is my take! Hopefully we will get clarification.

st3 · ‎2011-05-17

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:36

http://www.luminarymicro.com - and their licence is less than 1 page.

[ This message was edited by: st7 on 07-06-2008 21:20 ]

lanchon · ‎2011-05-17

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:36

hi ST1,

> Are you talking seriously :| ?

yes, very. here's what's wrong with your post: you're saying ''c'mon guys! are you serious? we're all friends here! BTW, sign right here were it says we can raid your home anytime.'' I know you mean well, but that's orwellian double talk. it's not us who got serious, it's ST, as serious as contracts and the law are.

> I believe that this license is just done to say...

I could tell you that your beliefs are not based in facts, but actually I have no quarrel with them since they are not our concern. what I'm trying to say is that beliefs and explanations are non-binding and we have no use for them. I humbly urge ST not to waste time in that direction.

anyway, thanks for telling us that ST will be looking into this, that's very good news.

here's my take on the issue:

1) HALs such as the firmware lib and examples should be freeware immediately; this is crucial.

2) the USB kit has some little functionality over a HAL, but I believe it should be freeware too. see below.

3) I understand that more ''complex'' libs such as the field-oriented motor control lib (mostly 70's technology!) are harder to free, but it'd be for the best.

why? well the stm32 is AWESOME and the pricing is great, and ST has the back to push it into mainstream. but the quality of your software is nothing to write home about. so lure the open source community and make them work for you. don't loose the community for fear that people will leave the stm32 for a better product. they won't, the stm32 is best-in-class. what you really desperately need is more and better software.

make the examples free so that you can integrate open source software into them. integrate a free file system into your SD and external bus samples. go search for a portable, open source USB device-side stack. write a quality driver for the stm32 and free it. then instead of writing firmware for each function, your clients will be able to integrate available open source usb functions with almost no work. and these functions would have QUALITY, unlike the toy implementations you give us today.

there's no good open source USB device-side stack available? I doubt it, but then just make one! make it REALLY PORTABLE and FREE, otherwise it'll be ignored. let the community debug it and take over, and develop functions for it. clients will choose the stm32 because it's a great platform for a QUALITY usb stack with many available QUALITY functions (not because it has a proprietary buggy usb kit with 3 functions that work half the time).

and while you're at it be smart: develop the stack in C++, not C. besides being much simpler to use and maintain, the real advantage is that you'll leave out most of the 16-bit competition, the segment that you're wanting so bad. dsPICs don't support C++. hit it big with a USB stack (meaning developers make a critical mass of usb functions for it) and dsPICs are out of the picture.

meanwhile, I strongly recommend you repost v1 of the fwlib and usbkit immediately so that new developers have some kind of support while you deal with this issue. (anyone reading this can ask me for them.)

@slawcus,

> Microchip is the only micro manufacturer that provides libraries for graphics, RF and ethernet

you're misinformed but what others do is hardly the point. anyway, I stopped using Microchip products due to licensing issues (my complaints can be found on their forums), so their ROI on all those nice libs you mention went down a little.

cheers!

lanchon · ‎2011-05-17

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:36

and regarding the FOC lib, all manufacturers have one by now. maybe you could GPL it with an exception that permit it to be run on an stm32 without the obligations of the GPL (releasing code with the binaries, etc). the GPL might be enough to draw some attention to it (bugfixes and improvements) and the exception might tilt designs in favor of the stm32.

(gotcha: contributors may choose to remove the exception from their contributions, but if done right many will simply default to keeping the current license.)

these are just a few raw ideas. licensing issues should be studied carefully. get someone that knows, FSF and many other will help you.

16-32micros · ‎2011-05-17

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:36

Dear lanchon, all contributors,

I really appreciate your valuable feedbacks about this Topic when even some among you are working the weekend to provide his opinion.

I assure you that I will keep you informed as soon as I have , the full details about this license & then Official ST statement and next actions.

PS: I expect to get the final decision by next week 16th June latest).

Cheers,

STOne-32. :-[

lanchon · ‎2011-05-17

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:36

thank you very much ST1, it's great to know ST listens. everybody please keep in mind that licensing is a complex issue and ST will need some time to figure out the best course of action. cheers!