gnupic: Re: [gnupic] COD file format
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] COD file format
From:
Walter Banks ####@####.####
Date:
30 Apr 2007 20:22:53 +0100
Message-Id: <46364130.A69B41E3@bytecraft.com>
All,
In response to David Barnett's question this should clear up
whatever misconceptions there may be over the use of
Byte Craft's .COD file format.
Scott Dattalo contacted me at some point and asked me
what the status of the .COD file format was?
He pointing out the sources for the tools he was
writing would be openly available. My response
was the .COD file information could be used
(no problem at all) the information was copyright
Byte Craft and documentation should refer to
Byte Craft for details rather than reproduce the
.COD file document.
The reason is, we did not want to see the standards
for this format "evolve" the way many other debugging
information standards have with many "standard
variations".
Byte Craft's policy related to copies of the .COD
file format is
The .COD file and support tools (including sources for a
.COD file viewer) are emailed to anyone who asks without
charge. We maintain the standard and from time to time
make additions to it in co-operation to those who are
using the .COD file.
Byte Craft provides support for the .COD file information
to developers and interested parties. We are interested in
knowing who is using the .COD file to encourage inter operability
between development tools for embedded systems.
> You can try at http://www.bytecraft.com/more_info/codfile_request.
> I did some time ago, but unfortunately without success :-( . Probably I
> wasn't persistent enough.)
I just checked Borut you contacted us on 3 Feb 2006 and I
couldn't find any trace of us sending a copy to you. I just did.
The form on Byte Crafts web site asks basic contact information
only. COD information is usually sent out within a day or two.
Bill, I could have saved you some time :)
The .COD file is being extended to support multiple
processor execution environments and many new data types.
The .COD file standard is version upward compatible a
critical feature that has made mismatched tools still work
well together.
Contact me directly if you have any specific questions
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
========================================
Borut Razem wrote:
> David Barnett wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Dattalo" ####@####.####
> > To: ####@####.####
> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [gnupic] COD file format
> >
> >
> >> David Barnett wrote:
> >>> Apparently the COD file format is proprietary ByteCraft information,
> >>> but gputils uses the COD format. Did we request information from
> >>> ByteCraft, reverse engineer the format, or something else? I can't
> >>> see how ByteCraft would release proprietary information to us since
> >>> the source code would be pretty revealing.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> Several years ago when I added COD format support to gpasm, I sought
> >> and obtained permission from Walter Banks to use ByteCraft's
> >> proprietary COD format.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> > Interesting. Did they provide any information or did you discover
> > that yourself? Did they restrict how you could use/share that
> > information? It seems like giving permission to use a proprietary
> > format in GPL'd software is effectively open-sourcing it. I don't
> > understand how it can still be proprietary.
>
> You can try at http://www.bytecraft.com/more_info/codfile_request.
> I did some time ago, but unfortunately without success :-( . Probably I
> wasn't persistent enough.
> Let me know if you will succeed - I'll try again.
>
> You are mixing the license of the software (gplink, gpsim, ...) and the
> license of the specification (COD file information), which are two
> different things.
>
> Borut
> Walter provide a document describing the COD file format and supplied a
> Pascal program that could parse a .cod file display its contents much like
> gpvc does.
>
> I used the Pascal program as a guide to write the C version. I used MPASM
> generated outputs to test it. Then I wrote the encoding version. Craig has
> since restructured it quite a bit.
>
> I don't know if his allowing us to use the format is 'effectively
> open-sourcing' it or not. He only asked that we not distribute his
> documentation and source code.
>
> Scott
