Porting a IAR Project to Keil (stm32 + freertos)

it is like sharing a project with the stm std lib or cmsis. it was completly modified, i think no one at ST would say anything because its free marketing for their product.

so i would say back to topic??????

I would suggest that you download a free IAR Kickstart, and use that to build the software.

That will give you a known-good reference point from which to start...

(of course, if you can't even get it to build with IAR, then you have more fundamental problems)

is my english so bad? we have IAR and everything works fine... i just have problems to get the freertos provided with the iar
project compiled in keil. im not a beginner.

So you just think it's okay to ignore "developing executable versions". You really should care more about actual license texts. If you make an open-source application - do make use of open-source code. Not code with specific licenses explicitly saying what you are doing isn't allowed.

"i just have problems to get the freertos provided with the iar project compiled"

What problems, exactly, do you have?

Surely, there must be FreeRTOS examples in Keil for you to study?

i think no one at ST would say anything

But what you think is entirely beside the point there. The only thing that actually matters is what ST, and more to the point, their legal department, says, if and when they decide what to do with you.

How large a portion of your (and/or your employer's) net worth are you willing to gamble on them agreeing with your thinking, taking into account the fact that their actual license statement, as quoted here, rather obviously doesn't?

The firmware ST provides has the following LICENSE:

STMicroelectronics (“ST”) grants You a non-exclusive, worldwide, non-transferable (whether
by assignment, law, sublicense or otherwise), revocable, royalty-free limited license to:
(i) make copies, prepare derivatives works, display internally and use internally the source
code version of the Licensed Software for the sole and exclusive purpose of developing
executable versions of such Licensed Software only for use with the Product;
(ii) make copies, prepare derivatives works, display internally and use internally object code
versions of the Licensed Software for the sole purpose of designing, developing and
manufacturing the Products;
(iii) make, use, sell, offer to sell, import or otherwise distribute Products.

As far as i understand, I can publish my source code which is derivative of ST source code to be used on ST microcontroller. These source code examples meant for GUIDANCE ONLY AIMS AT PROVIDING CUSTOMERS WITH CODING INFORMATION REGARDING THEIR PRODUCTS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO SAVE TIME.
I'm not 100% sure about the exact boundaries of this licence. But i saw many people publish Source code derivatives of ST on GitHub, Google code & SourceForge etc..

Don't be so selective. You only read the words that you think sounds good.

Yes - you may do derivative works.

BUT that sentence is longer than that. It continues with "for the sole and exclusive purpose of developing executable versions of such Licensed Software only for use with the Product;"

You see that "executable" word in there? So what do you then think about "sole and exclusive (inversion of inclusive) purpose of developing executable versions?

No sentence saying you can upload the source code. But that you can make use of the source code for creating your own product.

"for the sole purpose of designing, developing and manufacturing the Products;"

So you can a bit simplified share information within company or with factory when producing your product. But no right to distributing your source code.

And "distribute Products"

You can sell or give away the final product. But no license right to distribute your product with the source code. The license does not contain any single line implying that the code is open-source.

But back to start of the text. Consider:
"non-exclusive, worldwide, non-transferable (whether by assignment, law,
sublicense or otherwise), revocable, royalty-free limited license"

Non-transferable means that you can't sublicense the code. It's a license from ST to you. But if someone else also wants the code, they have to make use of that same non-exclusive license from ST to them. That is incompatible with putting the information on SourceForge.

"Revocable"
How would ST be able to do that, if you think you are in the right to sublicense, without conditions, the code to anyone who can locate SourceForge?

"limited license"
Maybe _you_ could inform us exactly what _you_ think the limitations are.

Maybe time you consider getting a lawyer, since you do not do too good reading the legalese. And you have been - on a public forum - informed about the license issues. That is usually a good time to backtrack, and consider a different route.

"But i saw many people publish Source code derivatives of ST on GitHub, Google code & SourceForge etc.."

I have seen many examples of people uploading Hollywood movies to share hubs. Does that make it legal? Does that make it safe? Does that mean lawyers can't send a letter requiring lots of money for copyright infringements?

As I did write in a previous post: "It's a common assumption that "royalty-free" means public domain, i.e. void of copyright and free for any use or distribution."

This code is not in the public domain. It is explicitly protected by a license. And you are stepping on that license, violating the rights of the copyright holder.

Get ideas from the code. But do not lift the code, if you want to implement an open-source application. Because it isn't in your right to do that, and it's in ST:s right to sue you. Or lift all of the code, if you only distribute executable binaries. Because you are allowed to give away or sell the final product that is the result of compiling the source code. As long as you don't combine the code from this package with code from the GPL license - the GPL license don't allow GPL-covered code to mix with proprietary code. And since you stil haven't the license for the ST code, you would not only violate the ST license but also the GPL license if you make any project that combines GPL code with this code.

thank you for your informations.

point is

"But i saw many people publish Source code derivatives of ST on GitHub, Google code & SourceForge etc.."

I was talking about the people in the official ST-Forum. They uploaded their projects (based on ST Example projects) to share them to the people in the forum discussion for troubleshooting.

maybe i was blinded , but why the admin and ST officals never lost a word about this?

Anyway I contacted ST to get a clear answer and maybe a permission to share my project wich bases on the ST Lib and Code Example's provided with my eval-board in technical forums.
So I hope they give me a quick answer.

"Anyway I contacted ST to get a clear answer and maybe a permission to share my project wich bases on the ST Lib and Code Example's provided with my eval-board in technical forums.
So I hope they give me a quick answer."

And that is the correct route to go.
Step 1 - check what licenses apply.
Step 2 (if needed) - make explicit questions/requests to the license holder.

Note that the ST forum moderators aren't employed by the legal department. Their task would probably be described as "helpful with a low profile".

The interesting thing is that companies often have interesting licenses. Like the manufacturer of a USB thumb memory who had a license forbidding use on multiple computers. I obviously can't connect it to multiple computers concurrently, since it basically forms its own hardware lock. And on the other hand, it's explicitly sold (explicitly mentioned in their marketing material) for transfer of data between computers, so they can't mean that it must be permanently locked down to a single computer.

When companies publish dumb licenses, we can increase their costs by writing them and ask specific questions about the licenses. Sometimes they do realize that it might be better to modify the license.

ST is a case in point!

yes I postet it @ 4/24/2012 but no answers.

i think the problem is the ICF file which contains the offset and stack informations.
I can't get it run it with Keil.