[sdiy] STM32F4 synthesis examples

[Martin Klang]

good points -

my concern is with falling under what in GPL parlance is known as Derived Work, or what in their license is called
"source code relating to and/or based upon Licensed Software"

I'm pretty sure that includes code written "on top of" their libraries, using convenience function calls or even register definitions.

Now, since their libs are based on the CMSIS standard, perhaps it is possible to claim that the code is not relating to their work but to CMSIS. Then, as you say, instructions for obtaining the libraries could be distributed with the project source code, without infringement.

This is generally how open-source VST projects do it, however Steinberg's VST license is very different.


On 4 Feb 2013, at 11:50, Hugh Blemings wrote:

> If it would be helpful I can poke a couple of folk and see if there is a
> way you can get a definitive answer on this - as this is heading towards
> legal advice it will be a bit dependent on where you are :)

even an informal opinion would be much appreciated!

/m




On 4 Feb 2013, at 11:50, Hugh Blemings wrote:

> Dear Julian, Martin, All,
> 
> Excellent stuff on the drumsynth, nice piece of work :)
> 
> I was interested to read of the concerns around being able to release
> the drumsynth src as GPL and the snippet of the license provided.
> 
> I am also not a lawyer, but have been working with the GPL in many
> different settings for a while now, and my sense is that you are
> probably ok here.
> 
> So, a few thoughts;
> 
> * The license for any ST provided source code would normally only apply
> if you were actually including their source directly (say a header file)
> or snippets/sample code.
> 
> * If ST have provided libraries (say for doing an FFT with the onboard
> DSP) then you'd need to examine the license for the library to get a
> sense of it's GPL compatibility (or lack thereof)  As I understand it,
> this is in part what libopencm3 addresses.  [1]
> 
> * It would seem unusual (though sadly not without precedent) for a
> modern chip to be brought to market in such a fashion as to preclude
> Open Source software being targeted to it
> 
> * The bulk of the heavy lifting in the drumsynth is in the code that
> Julian has written - worst case it may be a matter of releasing it under
> the GPL with some explanatory notes on how to add in the relevant
> proprietary bits to make it build.  Not optimal, but would allow
> collaboration with a broader audience[2].
> 
> * It may be simpler/safer to use something like libopencm3 as Martin
> suggests and just dodge the bullet entirely :)
> 
> If it would be helpful I can poke a couple of folk and see if there is a
> way you can get a definitive answer on this - as this is heading towards
> legal advice it will be a bit dependent on where you are :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Hugh
> 
> 
> [1] A cursory read of the CMSIS license suggests it's from ARM rather
> than ST, ARM are (relatively) more free software friendly in my
> experience and the license itself doesn't immediately scream GPL
> incompatible to me.  That said, I am not a lawyer...
> 
> [2] So in other words - your code is in github (or wherever) and the
> README tells users where to go to get the ST specific pieces and where
> to drop the relevant files, how to setup the toolchain etc.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy