eLua open hardware

[BogdanM]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Asko Kauppi <askok at dnainternet.net> wrote:

>
> Has it been considered that this concept could be a USB "dongle" in
> itself?


I thought about that, but I see at least two problems with this:

- it would add more constraints to the physical design (it would have to be
smaller, and maybe it would also need an enclosure).
- I think that the stamp is a better format for experimentation (because of
its standard 0.1'' exported headers) than the stick.

All in all, I can't see the advantage of the stick over the stamp in our
case. Ir would definitely be better for specific applications, but that's
not what we're trying to accomplish right now, we'd rather have a board
suitable for prototoyping use.

Best,
Bogdan

>
> John Hind kirjoitti 12.2.2009 kello 13:30:
>
> > Hi everyone! I am one of the aforementioned refugees from the Lua
> > list, in
> > fact I think it was my posting that got everyone talking about
> > microcontrollers and LuaChips again. I was about to launch my own
> > LuaChip
> > project as a search had revealed nothing existing except the pbLua
> > port to
> > the Lego controller, then Bogdan pointed me to the whole existing
> > world of
> > eLua - not sure if eLua is especially low key or if my search
> > abilities need
> > honing!
> >
> - Show quoted text -
> > I'd like to help in any way towards a target of getting something
> > like the
> > Arduino infrastructure, but based on Lua, 32bit and network
> > capability,
> > available to purchase. This means that for a few tens of dollars I
> > could buy
> > a small pre-built card that I can plug into a PC (Windows, Linux and
> > perhaps
> > OSX) via USB and immediately start programming in Lua. The processor
> > needs
> > to come with the system pre-loaded, or at least an automatic boot
> > loader
> > which installs it on first connection (and updates as necessary).
> > The card
> > needs to have connections at breadboard pitch and/or feasible for hand
> > soldering. Like the Arduino the whole thing including the hardware
> > designs
> > should be open-source, but the real key is the availability of pre-
> > built
> > modules that can be used without a C tool chain, special development
> > hardware or surface-mount assembly tools. Accepting that we have to
> > supply
> > (or get partners to supply) a board-level product means we can
> > access the
> > best chips for the job be they surface-mount or even BGA and it also
> > makes
> > possible a modest revenue stream to help fund the project. (Self-
> > publish
> > manuals following the Lua.org pattern are another possibility here).
> >
> > As for a name, does the Portugese word "apara" work in this context?
> > Can it
> > mean this kind of chip? It sounds well in English, evoking the word
> > "apparatus", and it would be nice not to be saddled with an ugly
> > mixed-language hybrid like "LuaChip". On the other hand, going all
> > English,
> > "MoonChip" has a nice ring to it also.
> >
> > Just some initial thoughts to introduce myself!
> >
> - Show quoted text -
> > _______________________________________________
> > Elua-dev mailing list
> > Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elua-dev mailing list
> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/elua-dev/attachments/20090213/86c49eee/attachment.html 

[BogdanM]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Sam Roberts <vieuxtech at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Yuri Takhteyev <yuri at sims.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
> > IANAL, but I don't believe this is not an "open source" license.
>

There are different levels of "open source" out there, ranging from MIT
(which is probably as liberal as it gets) and going towards GPL (and other
less known licenses) which is quite restrictive in some contexts. In some
sense, Luminary's license it's actually "more liberal" than GPL if I
understand it correctly, as it allows you to use their software in a closed
source system, as long as you don't re-release it as part of a system that
uses a "viral" license (please correct me if I'm wrong about this).

> "only on Luminary Micro microcontrollers" means the license does not
> > qualify as either "free software" or "open source" (per the formal
>

This is true, but it's becoming a wide spread practice nowadays. Microchip
is an example of company that offers a lot of libraries (ZigBee, USB,
TCP/IP, filesystems) that are only licensed for use on their CPUs. I believe
that Atmel also has a few of those, and I'm sure that the examples can
continue. In the end, I can't really blame them for trying to boost their
sales by using this kind of binding.


> But eLua can be used on other devices, right, with non-Luminary hardware?


Sure it can. And on other devices, the Luminary code isn't used at all.

Best,
Bogdan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/elua-dev/attachments/20090213/7ec2bf67/attachment.html 

[BogdanM]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Jesus Alvarez <jalvarez at micromint.com>wrote:

> The Luminary Software License Agreement is listed below. It does appear to
> explicitly classify GPL software as "viral".


It does, I double checked on their forums.


> I have not seen the "viral" open source term in other license agreements
> and
> believe it is inappropriate to say the least. Possibly the Luminary legal
> staff didn't have a good understanding of what open source entails and made
> the license overly restrictive. The wording on the license goes beyond
> their
> stated intention to limit the use of the driver library to products using
> their hardware. If that is their only restriction, why did they have to
> demean a large group of open source software by classifying it as "viral"?

[Yuri Takhteyev]

> There are different levels of "open source" out there, ranging from MIT
> (which is probably as liberal as it gets) and going towards GPL (and other
> less known licenses) which is quite restrictive in some contexts.

Strictly speaking, this is not true. A software license either is
"open source" or it is not. There is a formal definition:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

MIT, BSD, GPL and a number of other licenses satisfy this definition.
They are all "open source," though different kinds. Neither is more
"open source" than the other.

Luminary license, as far as I can see, does not satisfy requirements
#8 and #10 of the definition. So, it's not "open source". This doesn't
mean it's bad, unreasonable or not "liberal". But it's not "open
source" per OSI's definition. (It also isn't "free software" per FSF's
definition.)

But what I was trying to say was a little different. It doesn't matter
whether their license specifically allows you to mix their code with
GPL code. The reason it doesn't matter is because GPL already
prohibits you from doing so. If you distribute a mix that includes GPL
code, you must allow your users to run it on any hardware. If you
don't, you will be in violation of GPL. However, you cannot allow them
to do that, because running the mixed software on non-Luminary
hardware is prohibited by the Luminary license. If they removed the
anti-GPL clause from their license, you _still_ wouldn't be able to
mix it with GPL code.

 - yuri

--
http://spu.tnik.org/

[BogdanM]

> Luminary license, as far as I can see, does not satisfy requirements
> #8 and #10 of the definition. So, it's not "open source". This doesn't
> mean it's bad, unreasonable or not "liberal". But it's not "open
> source" per OSI's definition. (It also isn't "free software" per FSF's
> definition.)


That's true of course, but in practice you can download their code and use
it in our own application for free, as long as you use it only on  their
products. This still sounds like open source to me, even if it's not covered
by FSF. It might actually become a new type of open source license, since
there are more manufacturers releasing software under the same restrictions.

hardware is prohibited by the Luminary license. If they removed the
> anti-GPL clause from their license, you _still_ wouldn't be able to
> mix it with GPL code.


Exactly, this is why their "viral" classification makes sense to me,
although they could probably formulate it a bit better :)

Best,
Bogdan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/elua-dev/attachments/20090213/5c7afb9f/attachment.html 

[John Hind]

Bad idea IMHO (although often done) - USB has four wires while a
microcontroller has potentially a hundred or so I/O pins so you want the
chip near the I/O electronics rather than the PC. However having the option
for USB power is a very good idea - but over a cable. Stamp format need not
be larger than a dongle - in fact it allows you to use a mini-USB connector
which is much smaller than the full size one you have to use on a dongle.
0.1" pitch header pins are important because they allow you to use the
module on a standard solderless "breadboard" OR in a DIP IC socket on a
through-hole PCB of the sort that is within the reach of the
hobbyist/educationalist.

-----Original Message-----
From: Asko Kauppi Sent: 13 February 2009 06:27

Has it been considered that this concept could be a USB "dongle" in  
itself?

- size of a dongle
- powered by the host USB (+ communicating through there)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3200 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/elua-dev/attachments/20090213/d90b9451/attachment.bin 

[Jesus Alvarez]

> From their forums:
>
>
http://www.luminarymicro.com/component/option,com_joomlaboard/Itemid,/func,v
iew/catid,7/id,3340/#3340

That post clarifies their position. It states that if you are using their
driver library you can't use any software licensed under GPL, even if you
are using Luminary hardware. Over half of the open source software available
is licensed under GPL so it can't be used with the Luminary drivers. That is
not consistent with their stated intention to only restrict usage to their
hardware. Yet, as Yuri pointed out, the hardware restriction itself may
prevent use of GPL code even without the "viral" clause.

Is the consensus then that a build of eLua that targets Luminary
microcontrollers can not include any software licensed under GPL?

I am glad to learn that eLua will change its license to BSD with the 0.6
release. The statement on the FAQ about GPL licensing could have prevented
its use with the Luminary driver library. Yet the Luminary license could
still be a problem to users that want to implement new verbs or functions
that require GPL code.

Regards,
Jesus Alvarez

[Sam Roberts]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Bogdan Marinescu
<bogdan.marinescu at gmail.com> wrote:
> From their forums:
>
> http://www.luminarymicro.com/component/option,com_joomlaboard/Itemid,/func,view/catid,7/id,3340/#3340
>
> That actually makes sense IMO.

But it is wrong!

It would be possible to have GPL code using the Luminary library, if
you follow the directions given by the FSF here:

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

This is what GPL software that uses OpenSSL does (OpenSSL's license is
also GPL-incompatible).

Luminary should:

- remove the "anti-GPL" clause from their license
- leave the "only on our hardware" clause
- point out in a FAQ or license comment that this means you can't
distribute GPL apps on top of their library without adding an explicit
exception to your GPL-based license.

Sam

[Dado Sutter]

Hello Guys,

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 16:31, Sam Roberts <vieuxtech at gmail.com> wrote:

> ...........



> Luminary should:
>
> - remove the "anti-GPL" clause from their license
> - leave the "only on our hardware" clause
> - point out in a FAQ or license comment that this means you can't
> distribute GPL apps on top of their library without adding an explicit
> exception to your GPL-based license.
>

Why not take this to the LM Forums ?
They are very open to discussions (not sure about their lawyers though :).
Unfortunately, we are very busy (closing v0.6 !) to do that at the present
moment :(

Thank you all for helping us clarifying these legal aspects. It is really
not our expertise.

Sam


Best
Dado






>
> _______________________________________________
> Elua-dev mailing list
> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/elua-dev/attachments/20090213/ccdef1bd/attachment.html 

[BogdanM]

I'll be frank with you: since we're going BSD, we're going to be
compatible with their license, and that's all I really care about :)
If you think this is wrong, though, you should follow Dado's advice
and attack this problem directly on their forums.

Best,
Bogdan

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Dado Sutter <dadosutter at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Guys,
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 16:31, Sam Roberts <vieuxtech at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...........
>
>
>>
>> Luminary should:
>>
>> - remove the "anti-GPL" clause from their license
>> - leave the "only on our hardware" clause
>> - point out in a FAQ or license comment that this means you can't
>> distribute GPL apps on top of their library without adding an explicit
>> exception to your GPL-based license.
>
> Why not take this to the LM Forums ?
> They are very open to discussions (not sure about their lawyers though :).
> Unfortunately, we are very busy (closing v0.6 !) to do that at the present
> moment :(
>
> Thank you all for helping us clarifying these legal aspects. It is really
> not our expertise.
>
>> Sam
>
> Best
> Dado
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Elua-dev mailing list
>> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elua-dev mailing list
> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>
>

[jbsnyder]

Aside from the project license itself, are we GPL free?  I saw that  
our LICENSE file indicated that the xmodem code was GPL, though it has  
been replaced with BSD code (I just updated the LICENSE file to  
reflect this).

Is newlib an issue?

I would like to see their license be updated to be compatible with  
this exception in the GPL.  I'm not sure, however, how much friction  
there might be to that.

-jsnyder

On Feb 13, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Bogdan Marinescu wrote:

> I'll be frank with you: since we're going BSD, we're going to be
> compatible with their license, and that's all I really care about :)
> If you think this is wrong, though, you should follow Dado's advice
> and attack this problem directly on their forums.
>
> Best,
> Bogdan
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Dado Sutter <dadosutter at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> Hello Guys,
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 16:31, Sam Roberts <vieuxtech at gmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...........
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Luminary should:
>>>
>>> - remove the "anti-GPL" clause from their license
>>> - leave the "only on our hardware" clause
>>> - point out in a FAQ or license comment that this means you can't
>>> distribute GPL apps on top of their library without adding an  
>>> explicit
>>> exception to your GPL-based license.
>>
>> Why not take this to the LM Forums ?
>> They are very open to discussions (not sure about their lawyers  
>> though :).
>> Unfortunately, we are very busy (closing v0.6 !) to do that at the  
>> present
>> moment :(
>>
>> Thank you all for helping us clarifying these legal aspects. It is  
>> really
>> not our expertise.
>>
>>> Sam
>>
>> Best
>> Dado
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Elua-dev mailing list
>>> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Elua-dev mailing list
>> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Elua-dev mailing list
> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev

--
James Snyder
Biomedical Engineering
Northwestern University
jbsnyder at fanplastic.org
http://fanplastic.org/key.txt
ph: [phone]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/elua-dev/attachments/20090213/7cd19c41/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/elua-dev/attachments/20090213/7cd19c41/attachment-0001.pgp 

[BogdanM]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:07 PM, James Snyder <jbsnyder at fanplastic.org> wrote:
> Aside from the project license itself, are we GPL free? ?I saw that our
> LICENSE file indicated that the xmodem code was GPL, though it has been
> replaced with BSD code (I just updated the LICENSE file to reflect this).

I'll re-check, but I remember that XMODEM was the only thing licensed under GPL.

> Is newlib an issue?

Not sure, but I don't think so. Newlib is actually a collection of
libraries from different sources, with different licenses (see
COPYING.NEWLIB in their sourcetree), and I don't think we're messing
that up.

Best,
Bogdan

> On Feb 13, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Bogdan Marinescu wrote:
>
> I'll be frank with you: since we're going BSD, we're going to be
> compatible with their license, and that's all I really care about :)
> If you think this is wrong, though, you should follow Dado's advice
> and attack this problem directly on their forums.
>
> Best,
> Bogdan
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Dado Sutter <dadosutter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Guys,
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 16:31, Sam Roberts <vieuxtech at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...........
>
>
>
> Luminary should:
>
> - remove the "anti-GPL" clause from their license
>
> - leave the "only on our hardware" clause
>
> - point out in a FAQ or license comment that this means you can't
>
> distribute GPL apps on top of their library without adding an explicit
>
> exception to your GPL-based license.
>
> Why not take this to the LM Forums ?
>
> They are very open to discussions (not sure about their lawyers though :).
>
> Unfortunately, we are very busy (closing v0.6 !) to do that at the present
>
> moment :(
>
> Thank you all for helping us clarifying these legal aspects. It is really
>
> not our expertise.
>
> Sam
>
> Best
>
> Dado
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Elua-dev mailing list
>
> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
>
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Elua-dev mailing list
>
> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
>
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elua-dev mailing list
> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>
> --
> James Snyder
> Biomedical Engineering
> Northwestern University
> jbsnyder at fanplastic.org
> http://fanplastic.org/key.txt
> ph: [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elua-dev mailing list
> Elua-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/elua-dev
>
>