Questions about XCOS licensing and code generation
Hi to all,
I have some questions regarding the license to use with XCOS models and
1) the C code generated from a XCOS model should be released with the
2) what kind of license should be used if the XCOS model contains some
models/palettes released under the GPL license?
Practically speaking I'm wondering if the code generated from an XCOS
model can be used in project with non GPl licences.
Moreover I would like to have some hints on how to interface XCOS with a
joystick and how to send data via UDP.
Re: Questions about XCOS licensing and code generation
Le samedi 28 mai 2011 à 00:20 +0200, [hidden email] a
> Hi to all,
> I have some questions regarding the license to use with XCOS models and
> generated C:
> 1) the C code generated from a XCOS model should be released with the
> same license?
Generated code as the same license the input you provided to generate
IE, if your origin code is under the GPL license, your generated code
will be under the same license.
> 2) what kind of license should be used if the XCOS model contains some
> models/palettes released under the GPL license?
GPL or a compatible license.
> Moreover I would like to have some hints on how to interface XCOS with a
> joystick and how to send data via UDP.
Please be more specific in your question.
AW: [scilab-Users] Questions about XCOS licensing and code generation
I would like to know more about the license of generated code: Are the standard
blocks and palettes that come with XCos under the CeCILL license? If an XCos
user designs an XCos model, generates C code from it and compiles the C code to
object code, can this object code be distributed as open source software only?
When distributing PC software for scientific computation, it is basically no
problem to deliever the source code along with object code and to allow the user
to do anything with it the author can also do.
However, things are different with embedded systems for the following reasons:
1. It might not be possible to change the software on the device it is running
on because the DSP or micro controller it is running on is not accessable. This
is applies to cars, for example. It is difficult to discourage or even to forbid
disassembling a system and to allow modifying the software controlling it at the
2. The safety of the user, the device or the environment might be endangered
when software is modified by people not qualified to do so. If a medical doctor
modifies the software controlling medical equipment, the equipment with the
modified software might be harmful for patients or medical personnel.
I do support the open source concept. However, I do not intend to sacrifice the
safety, security or reliability of a technical system I develop for the sake of
allowing users to play around with the software.