> > If you mean the protected code in the (now) 16F648, unless someone > reverse engineers it, how would that happen? Why would jallib care what > is in the K107 chip itself as long as the commands to control it are, as > far as I can see, public property. The command set has been published, > along with samples of how to use it, for many years now.
I don't mean the protected code, I mean the command set itself(eg. "when sending 'LA34', the LCD should the letter A, ..."). If it is in public property, this is ok ! > > If you mean making their own PCB and putting his chip in it, it can be > done now. The schematics are published in the K107 manual. If you mean > getting the code in the K107 chip itself, I don't see that happening and > would not feel right about that. It is not free code. He developed it > and is selling the chip (with his code) for others to use and shows them > how to use it. No, I don't mean getting the code from the PIC. What I would like to provide is: - jal code for a chip, which acts as a controller, and implements K107 protocol. This jal code is not a reversed engineered code got from one of his chip. It's some code which implements the K107 protocol, following the specifications. - schematics so people can build the controller themselves. > > So the question is: can we, do we have > > the right to implement the K107 protocol, or is it something he, and only > > he, can do ? > > If by 'protocol' you mean the command set, I would think he would > welcome it. He already has example programs in different languages. If > you mean the code he created, then no. I don't mean the code he created. I mean the command set. For me, K107 protocol is a specification which describes how can a command set be used to implement an interface (API) to a LCD. > > I really need you to define just what you mean by 'protocol'. I hope > you mean the command codes. Otherwise I am confused as to why you would > think he would supply the source code for something he is selling? So, this is command set, not the code itself. My question was: do I have the right to use this specification/protocol to implement a new K107 controller ? From what you say, there's no problem. But I prefer having no doubts about this. It's not because it's published that you can use it (see patents for instance: published, not public property...). Can you confirm it's ok ? Let me know if I'm still not clear :) Cheers, Seb -- Sébastien Lelong http://www.sirloon.net http://sirbot.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
