Post by thread:[PIC] Difference between C32 LITE and normal?

On 06/02/2011 07:25, V G wrote: > Hi all, > > does anyone know the key differences between the Microchip C32 LITE version > and normal version? AFAIK it is just the -o2 and -o3 optimisations are turned off for the lite version. So, if this is the case, then not much really for a lot of stuff - you just may use a bit more code space/cycles (both of which you have a lot of compared to the lower end PICs anyway) What exactly the optimisations do will be documented somewhere if you want to know exactly the differences. Interesting thread here - would need to look more closely, but it seems the whole thing is based on GNU open source, so MC may be rather out of order for charging ~£800 for not much more than repackaging and distributing it... http://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2393.0 Another (more relevant to the question) here: http://www.microchip.com/forums/m504906.aspx

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Oli Glaser <spam_OUToli.glaserTakeThisOuTtalktalk.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> On 06/02/2011 07:25, V G wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > does anyone know the key differences between the Microchip C32 LITE > version > > and normal version? > > AFAIK it is just the -o2 and -o3 optimisations are turned off for the > lite version. So, if this is the case, then not much really for a lot of > stuff - you just may use a bit more code space/cycles (both of which you > have a lot of compared to the lower end PICs anyway) What exactly the > optimisations do will be documented somewhere if you want to know > exactly the differences. > > Interesting thread here - would need to look more closely, but it seems > the whole thing is based on GNU open source, so MC may be rather out of > order for charging ~£800 for not much more than repackaging and > distributing it... > > http://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2393.0 > > Another (more relevant to the question) here: > > http://www.microchip.com/forums/m504906.asp<http://www.microchip.com/forums/m504906.aspx> That's perfect. I don't know why they just don't make an "Arduino" for the PIC32. You have a free compiler and a free IDE. For some reason, I just can't stand the AVR. Luckily, there's the UBW32

On 06/02/2011 09:49, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: >> Interesting thread here - would need to look more closely, but it seems >> the whole thing is based on GNU open source, so MC may be rather out of >> order for charging ~£800 for not much more than repackaging and >> distributing it... > How would they be out of order? Specifically, which clause of the GPL do > they violate? IMHO none. > I'm not sure (hence the use of "may") as I'm no expert on the GPL license. I also didn't necessarily mean "legally" out of order. I thought that under the terms of the GPL it was not legal to charge for the code under that license but legal to charge for the cost of distributing it or something along those lines (not sure what it says about "unreasonable" distribution charges though) I'm sure they have covered themselves legally, but legal doesn't always equal ethical - the folk discussing it on the thread seem to think it was maybe a bit "cheeky", though as I said, I would have to look more closely to come to any conclusion.

> I thought that under the terms of the GPL it was not legal to charge for > the code under that license but legal to charge for the cost of > distributing it or something along those lines (not sure what it says > about "unreasonable" distribution charges though) It is legal to charge for the product itself. Once a customer has the product, the company must offer the source for a reasonable fee. They offer the source on their website for free, so the fact that they *also* offer it in some other way for $100 is IMO not a violation. And when one person a year asks for the sources this way $100 might even be considered a reasonable amount. > I'm sure they have covered themselves legally, but legal doesn't always > equal ethical - the folk discussing it on the thread seem to think it > was maybe a bit "cheeky", though as I said, I would have to look more > closely to come to any conclusion. It would be cheeky if they hid or obfusciated the source, but apparently they did not. The funny thing (if there is any) is that as yet there seems to be no user's website that offers the 'jailbroken' version for free. maybe that indicates a general lack of interest in PIC32 in the hobby/low-cost community? -- Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Wouter van Ooijen <.....wouterKILLspam@spam@voti.nl> wrote: > It would be cheeky if they hid or obfusciated the source, but apparently > they did not. The funny thing (if there is any) is that as yet there > seems to be no user's website that offers the 'jailbroken' version for > free. maybe that indicates a general lack of interest in PIC32 in the > hobby/low-cost community? > That's not true at all. There are many places you can get serials/patches for the full version of C32, unlocking all the goodies. And the UBW is awesome. You get the full power of the PIC32 in a friendly, fun, easy to use package

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:59 AM, V G <x.solarwind.xKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Wouter van Ooijen <.....wouterKILLspam.....voti.nl> wrote: > >> It would be cheeky if they hid or obfusciated the source, but apparently >> they did not. The funny thing (if there is any) is that as yet there >> seems to be no user's website that offers the 'jailbroken' version for >> free. maybe that indicates a general lack of interest in PIC32 in the >> hobby/low-cost community? >> > > That's not true at all. There are many places you can get serials/patches > for the full version of C32, unlocking all the goodies. > > And the UBW is awesome. You get the full power of the PIC32 in a friendly, > fun, easy to use package. > But I'll still just stick with the lite version since it does everything I need it to and I'm not running out of space

On 06/02/2011 10:42, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: {Quote hidden}>> I thought that under the terms of the GPL it was not legal to charge for >> the code under that license but legal to charge for the cost of >> distributing it or something along those lines (not sure what it says >> about "unreasonable" distribution charges though) > It is legal to charge for the product itself. > > Once a customer has the product, the company must offer the source for a > reasonable fee. They offer the source on their website for free, so the > fact that they *also* offer it in some other way for $100 is IMO not a > violation. And when one person a year asks for the sources this way $100 > might even be considered a reasonable amount. > >> I'm sure they have covered themselves legally, but legal doesn't always >> equal ethical - the folk discussing it on the thread seem to think it >> was maybe a bit "cheeky", though as I said, I would have to look more >> closely to come to any conclusion. > It would be cheeky if they hid or obfusciated the source, but apparently > they did not. The funny thing (if there is any) is that as yet there > seems to be no user's website that offers the 'jailbroken' version for > free. maybe that indicates a general lack of interest in PIC32 in the > hobby/low-cost community? > I agree they provided the source - though I don't think that's really the issue they were getting at. More that they took a free compiler, removed (most of) the optimisations and used it to persuade folk to buy the full version (seem to have at least - this is all conjecture based on what others have said, and the small amount I know about C32/MIPS) The only code they seem to have added themselves is the peripheral libraries (I think the standard libraries are included with the free version) I guess it's down to a couple of things: whether you think £895 is reasonable to pay for a few peripheral libraries. Also, what was the motive behind removing a feature (optimisations) that was there already? Surely just to leave it in would be easier - I find it hard to see any "customer friendly" motives here, rather to persuade folk to pay money for the full version. What if you don't want the peripheral libraries? Nothing against MC in general - I like them a lot, their customer service is better than most, and this kind of stuff is pretty much par for the course in business. Compared to e.g. Atmel though, the dev tools philosophy seems a little different. Personally, in practice I don't actually care much (and probably neither do MC) - the lite version works well enough, and for more demanding stuff there are plenty of other options out there. With so many different chips to choose from, all with their good/bad points, I think a lot of these problems become magnified by people wanting to stick with one manufacturer, rather than just using the best chip for the job and getting the best bits of each.

Wouter van Ooijen wrote: >> so MC may be >> rather out of order for charging ~£800 for not much more than >> repackaging and distributing it... > > How would they be out of order? Specifically, which clause of the GPL > do they violate? IMHO none. Exactly. What's cheaper, buying the compiler ready to run out of the box from Microchip, or spending a lot of time downloading source and build tools and futzing around trying to get something that hopefully works and isn't just "mostly" working with some non-obvious flaws. And then do you actually get the extra code Microchip created anyway. Isn't the code you can download and build only for the free version? ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

Oli Glaser wrote: > I thought that under the terms of the GPL it was not legal to charge > for the code under that license but legal to charge for the cost of > distributing it or something along those lines (not sure what it says > about "unreasonable" distribution charges though) I thought the requirement was to provide the source code in buildable form for free. Last I looked there weren't any restrictions on what you can charge for fully built versions or anything else as long as someone can get the code and build it for free. > I'm sure they have covered themselves legally, but legal doesn't > always equal ethical - the folk discussing it on the thread seem to > think it > was maybe a bit "cheeky", though as I said, I would have to look more > closely to come to any conclusion. I don't see anything unethical. If you don't like the pre-built deal, go download the source and build it yourself. Nobody is stopping you. Microchip is only providing a additional alternative for those that think it's worth it. What is unethical about that? ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Olin Lathrop <EraseMEolin_piclistspam_OUTTakeThisOuTembedinc.com> wrote: > Oli Glaser wrote: >> More that they took a free compiler, removed (most of) the >> optimisations > > That doesn't make sense. I expect that the extra optimizations are the ones > that are specific to their chip, and therefore didn't exist in the compiler > they started with. > Actually the C32 license gives some hints about the relation of C32 and GCC. ************ The assembler, binary utilities, compiler, and linker are covered by GPL. “libgcc.a” and “libgcov.a” library files are derived from FSF code governed by the GPL provided with a binary linking exception clause. The Standard Library Files are derived from software developed by the Company, MIPS Technologies, and/or the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. **************************** As for the other libraries, they are the IP of Microchip and its suppliers (especially MIPS). They are covered by proprietary licenses. Microchip complies with the GPL by providing the source codes which are covered by GPL. As for the optimization limitation, I believe it comes from the library but I do not know the exact mechanism. The compiler itself can be built free and can have certain optimizations built-in GCC. The following threads may not be fully applicable now but may still shed some light on this issue. www.microchip.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=292995 http://www.microchip.com/forums/m364626.aspx http://www.microchip.com/forums/m460901.aspx Since Microchip's header files are not covered by GPL and some of the source codes for the libraries are not available (even for the paid version), you will not be able to build the compiler exactly as Microchip's. You can see that to build the C32 compiler from the GPL source, you have to use "--without-headers". That is the key here. To build a fully open-souce C compiler for PIC32, you have to port newlib or other open-source C library to PIC32. It is quite similar situation for commercial GCC for ARM MCUs. Vendors like Code Red, Rowley Associates (CrossWorks) and others base their compiler on GCC but provide their own C libraries instead of glibc/newlib. Microchip C32 is not really more expensive than them. The free GCC ARM compilers seem to be based on newlib mostly. newlib has its own license as well (not GPL). http://sourceware.org/newlib/COPYING.NEWLIB -- Xiaofan

On 06/02/2011 13:53, Olin Lathrop wrote: > Oli Glaser wrote: >> I thought that under the terms of the GPL it was not legal to charge >> for the code under that license but legal to charge for the cost of >> distributing it or something along those lines (not sure what it says >> about "unreasonable" distribution charges though) > I thought the requirement was to provide the source code in buildable form > for free. Last I looked there weren't any restrictions on what you can > charge for fully built versions or anything else as long as someone can get > the code and build it for free. > That sounds about right. {Quote hidden}>> I'm sure they have covered themselves legally, but legal doesn't >> always equal ethical - the folk discussing it on the thread seem to >> think it >> was maybe a bit "cheeky", though as I said, I would have to look more >> closely to come to any conclusion. > I don't see anything unethical. If you don't like the pre-built deal, go > download the source and build it yourself. Nobody is stopping you. > Microchip is only providing a additional alternative for those that think > it's worth it. What is unethical about that? > There may be nothing unethical to see, but one would have to look more closely and possibly have inside info to make any reasonable sort of call. I was just musing on what I read, not making any accusations - "out of order" was probably a bad choice of words. As far as ethical goes, that's a difficult one - you have to begin by defining what it actually means. Some have no problem with selling things at extortionate prices, not "going out of their way" to mention that you can get it free and so on (I'm not saying that's what is happening here, but maybe..) - they would say it's not unethical to "provide a service" "if you don't like it go elsewhere", that kind of thing - basically taking the view that if it's legal, it's ethical. Personally I think it is a little more complex than that, but to discuss it fully would probably get too political for the list. In any case, I get the feeling neither of us would budge much... :-)

> I guess it's down to a couple of things: whether you think £895 is > reasonable to pay for a few peripheral libraries. That might be an issue, but it has nothing to do with GPL. Compare to CodeSourcery (maintainers of the ARM GCC). They charge heavily for a supported version, but an unsupported version is available for free. But it is not really easy to find on their website. -- Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

> Exactly. What's cheaper, buying the compiler ready to run out of the box > from Microchip, or spending a lot of time downloading source and build tools > and futzing around trying to get something that hopefully works and isn't > just "mostly" working with some non-obvious flaws. And then do you actually > get the extra code Microchip created anyway. Isn't the code you can > download and build only for the free version? To comply with the GPL uChip has to provide the code to the full version on request of a customer who has obtained the full version. (Unless what the full adds is a separate program.) -- Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 11:02:00AM -0500, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: > > Exactly. What's cheaper, buying the compiler ready to run out of the box > > from Microchip, or spending a lot of time downloading source and build tools > > and futzing around trying to get something that hopefully works and isn't > > just "mostly" working with some non-obvious flaws. And then do you actually > > get the extra code Microchip created anyway. Isn't the code you can > > download and build only for the free version? > > To comply with the GPL uChip has to provide the code to the full version > on request of a customer who has obtained the full version. (Unless what > the full adds is a separate program.) Presuming that the optimizations are integrated, as Wouter alluded to above, then anyone who gets that full version, with the source code, also has to right to redistribute the code if they so choose to. Mchip only has to make the offer and provide code on request to those who they distribute to. If no one asks, then they are no obligated to hand out anything. BAJ > > -- > > Wouter van Ooijen > > -- ------------------------------------------- > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl > consultancy, development, PICmicro products > docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu > > -

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Byron Jeff <byronjeffspam_OUTmail.clayton.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 11:02:00AM -0500, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: >> To comply with the GPL uChip has to provide the code to the full version >> on request of a customer who has obtained the full version. (Unless what >> the full adds is a separate program.) > > Presuming that the optimizations are integrated, as Wouter alluded to > above, then anyone who gets that full version, with the source code, also > has to right to redistribute the code if they so choose to. > > Mchip only has to make the offer and provide code on request to those who > they distribute to. If no one asks, then they are no obligated to hand out > anything. You can refer to my post to get more information. Microchip does provide the source code for the GPLed part. http://www.microchip.com/c32 http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=1406&dDocName=en023073 The case of C30 is more clear-cut since the extra PA optimization (pic30-pa.exe) is a separate program. The case of C32 is a bit different since non-GPL header files are used in the build of the compiler binary itself. But clearly Microchip has done the necessary work (read: consult with the lawyers) to be compliant with GPL. Ref: http://www.microchip.com/forums/fb.ashx?m=293677 -- Xiaofa

On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 05:06:38AM -0500, Oli Glaser wrote: > On 06/02/2011 09:49, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: > >> Interesting thread here - would need to look more closely, but it seems > >> the whole thing is based on GNU open source, so MC may be rather out of > >> order for charging ~£800 for not much more than repackaging and > >> distributing it... > > How would they be out of order? Specifically, which clause of the GPL do > > they violate? IMHO none. > > > > I'm not sure (hence the use of "may") as I'm no expert on the GPL > license. I also didn't necessarily mean "legally" out of order. > I thought that under the terms of the GPL it was not legal to charge for > the code under that license but legal to charge for the cost of > distributing it or something along those lines (not sure what it says > about "unreasonable" distribution charges though). Two separate issues. You can sell programs. You can charge a reasonable cost to deliver the source code. What you cannot do is say that the program is free but it'll cost you $1,000,000 to get the source. > I'm sure they have covered themselves legally, but legal doesn't always > equal ethical - the folk discussing it on the thread seem to think it > was maybe a bit "cheeky", though as I said, I would have to look more > closely to come to any conclusion. Actually the model isn't too bad. Microchip just needs to be happy that a group hasn't done a purchase, requested and received the source, then redistributed it for free yet. Having a free LITE version will sweep out most with objections. Any professional that pays for the premium version isn't very likely to want to share. So it works out for all involved. BAJ > > > -

On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 11:41:01AM -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote: > Byron Jeff wrote: > > Actually the model isn't too bad. Microchip just needs to be happy > > that a group hasn't done a purchase, requested and received the > > source, then redistributed it for free yet. > > I don't think they are obligated to provide source for their custom > additions, if these take the form of their own code calling the libary. Subject to debate in GPL circles. As best as I can remember from the Usenet GPL wars, that libraries whose only purpose in life were to interact with a single GPLed software product was subject to the license. I no longer follow the ins and out of that debate, so I'm not going to even try to quote it. >From the surface, MCHIP is fulfilling their obligation and I don't begrudge them making money for their efforts. All of this looks like a complete non problem compared to the companies that take GPLed code, release product with absolutely no intention of releasing any type of source at all. BAJ -- Byron A. Jeff Department Chair: IT/CS/CNET College of Information and Mathematical Sciences Clayton State University http://cims.clayton.edu/bjef

On Feb 6, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Byron Jeff wrote: > Microchip just needs to be happy that a group hasn't done a > purchase, requested and received the source, then redistributed it > for free yet. It would be technically possible for microchip to have implemented their proprietary pieces in a way that does not require redistribution, right? Minimally, libraries and include files (for user programs, not for gcc itself) are separate entities can can have separate licenses? The whole "register definition file" question is particularly interesting in the microcontroller realm. Not technically part of the compiler, not something I want to create or maintain myself, not something that is so stable (for a range of micros) that you can do it once and be done. MSPGCC (for TI MSP430) apparently has recently switched to using TI-created .h files from their own versions. A good move, but on somewhat shaky ground WRT "open source philosophy." >>> [microchip charges $$$ for] not much more than repackaging and >>> distributing it... You left out "support." A lot of "real" companies will happily pay much higher costs to have a compiler with some amount of support associated with it (hopefully a useful amount of support.) Figure the average small company spends a significant percentage (5% ?) of its engineering time fiddling with "free" tools, and larger companies have at least one FTE doing tool support (probably true even if the tools are supported, but if paying $5000/y for external support cuts off a significant percentage of this, there's no way it isn't a good deal.) (interpreted uncharitably, the Gnu philosophy turns software authors from artists into janitors. Meh.) BillW

On 06/02/2011 23:19, William "Chops" Westfield wrote: >>>> >>> [microchip charges $$$ for] not much more than repackaging and >>>> >>> distributing it... > You left out "support." A lot of "real" companies will happily pay > much higher costs to have a compiler with some amount of support > associated with it (hopefully a useful amount of support.) Figure the > average small company spends a significant percentage (5% ?) of its > engineering time fiddling with "free" tools, and larger companies have > at least one FTE doing tool support (probably true even if the tools > are supported, but if paying $5000/y for external support cuts off a > significant percentage of this, there's no way it isn't a good deal.) > (interpreted uncharitably, the Gnu philosophy turns software authors > from artists into janitors. Meh.) > I think that was me, and it was pure conjecture based on some stuff I read quickly. On further reading (thanks Xiaofan) it looks as if there is probably nothing to get upset about here. (Anything else would have been a surprise for me - I have come to expect pretty good things from MC, and have always had excellent support) With the price tag, I agree it's nothing unusual, and most companies will purchase without even knowing/caring whether there is a free version, what the difference is, whether they could use that instead, whether the price is unreasonable for the difference, and so on. Certainly good support is absolutely worth it - easy to fall into the false economy trap. I've seen quite few failed attempts (mostly at one particular software place I worked ages ago) at avoiding this type of thing but spending untold (expensive) man hours trying to do it in house (needless to say the company is no longer in business) I imagine it's mostly the small setups/hobbyists who are likely to care about such things, and maybe move to a free platform instead. I know what you are getting at with the GNU comment, but of course the GNU "philosophy" has it's good points (like most things if used in the right way) From a larger perspective I guess the cost is usually balanced somehow anyway - if the IDE/software utilities are free the chips (or something - dev boards, programmers etc) will (probably) cost more, and vice versa. Some may prefer the cheapest chips but various payment options for compilers and so on, and some will prefer having all the software "free" and pay a bit extra on the chips. If nothing else, one thing is for certain - it's hard to satisfy everyone.. :-)

On Feb 6, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Oli Glaser wrote: > From a larger perspective I guess the cost is usually balanced somehow > anyway - if the IDE/software utilities are free the chips (or > something > - dev boards, programmers etc) will (probably) cost more, and vice > versa. Also, I'd bet that if you're a big player, microchip will cut you a deal on development tools (free!) with some sort of commitment to use their products. That seems to be the case with other vendors, where it makes a bigger difference (when you have a compiler that costs a couple $K per user, and a "potential" user community of several thousand engineers, it gets complicated.) (This of course, means hiring someone whose main job is negotiating with vendors.) BillW