Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
Richard Erlacher
10/29/11 14:46
Read: 390 times
Denver, Co
USA


 
#184429 - FIrst of all, I don't advocate theivery
Responding to: Per Westermark's previous message
Per Westermark said:
Richard Erlacher said:
If a guy builds his own linker that allows code to be loaded and executed at 0x0000 rather than 0x0800 or wherever, do you really think he's got access to the entire package? I doubt it.

There is a reason why Keil don't like to generate assembly listings for the evaluation version - people have to single-step in the debugger to see the assembler - after their linker have built a binary and placed where their linker wants to place the code.

Yes, I can imagine ... That would leave no way at all for a person to get any picture at all of what sort of code the compiler produces, though, wouldn't it? How, then would one get a notion of how good a product the KEIL people have to offer? If they want to demonstrate their product's superiority over their competitors, wouldn't they have to do that in some way, i.e. let the potential purchaser see how good their code is? As an alternative, they could make it possible to run their code on the desired target. They've chosen not to do the latter, haven't they?

I disagree ... mainly because the unscrupulous individuals who might otherwise have to buy a costly software suite such as the one under discussion would not buy it under any circumstances, hence, the vendor has lost nothing.

When there are two alternatives:
- being able to use the tool in a commercial project, or not being able to use it, then people who would otherwise buy a real license would look the other way and keep using the free evaluation version - even when the license specifically says it's not allowed.

Wouldn't the rest of the software still prevent the practical use in a commercial sense? After all, who wants to generate two linkable objects of each module, run them through his own linker, and only then load them into the target. Further, that would still leave the miscreant without the ability to use the simulator and some of the other "features", would it not?

There are free compilers out there. Anyone who do not like the Keil license for the evaluation version really should go for SDCC and ignore the Keil tools. And anyone who thinks it's ok to discuss how to get around the evaluation limitations should be ashamed of them selves.

Is the demo linker the only "protection" that KEIL has built into their demo package? I had the impression that there were other features that also didn't work on larger code bodies and limited the location in the memory map.

As I said before, I suspect that those who are smart, skilled, and diligent enough to do what I suggested have already thought of it themselves, or, much more likely, those bent on stealing someone else's work product are too lazy to do all that work just to be able to load a small code snipped into their target. After all, there are other KEIL features that don't work outside the demo range. I suspect there are other things that KEIL could do if they really wanted to (a) enable people evaluating their product for a specific purpose or use in a chip not presently supported by their linker, but that they have simply chosen not to do that. The result is that all one in that situation can evaluate is their GUI.

RE



List of 53 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
Linking C programs with Keil evaluation      David Prentice      09/06/11 11:02      
   Eval Tools.      Michael Karas      09/06/11 11:15      
      That makes sense      David Prentice      09/06/11 12:11      
         It's not that much more useable      Richard Erlacher      10/25/11 18:44      
            Work-around for evaluation version limitations?      Per Westermark      10/25/11 23:50      
            Marked -1      Michael Karas      10/26/11 06:26      
               I'm not so sure you're right here ...      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 07:55      
                  Irrelevant if people have ideas - should they be debated?      Per Westermark      10/26/11 08:19      
                     There's a reason I haven't done it ...      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 10:36      
                        Would not represent a valid evaluation      Per Westermark      10/27/11 02:00      
                           Wait a minute ... You've got this wrong ...      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 09:57      
                     One question      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 12:43      
                        What about the guy who simply wants to evaluate the product?      Andy Neil      10/26/11 14:05      
                           sometimes coding situations and requirements differ      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 18:57      
                        How would you like it?      Andy Neil      10/26/11 14:13      
                           That's not what I'm asking them to do      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 19:17      
                              A message from the OP.      David Prentice      10/27/11 03:55      
                                 I don't supply the compiler ...      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 10:08      
                        Wrong view on evaluation tools      Per Westermark      10/27/11 03:32      
                           as I've said before, where you sit determines what you see      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 10:47      
                              Still failing to recognize reason for hole in code map      Per Westermark      10/27/11 12:33      
                                 You missed my point again      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 15:35      
                                    Simulate or use Logic Analyser      David Prentice      10/28/11 05:41      
                                       ramblings      Erik Malund      10/28/11 07:51      
                                       Using evaluation software and hardware      Richard Erlacher      10/28/11 09:44      
                                          The above would be true if....      Erik Malund      10/28/11 10:24      
                                             You don't seriously believe that, do you?      Richard Erlacher      10/28/11 18:54      
                                                A thief is a thief        Per Westermark      10/29/11 07:01      
                                                   Indeed...        Michael Karas      10/29/11 09:47      
                                                   FIrst of all, I don't advocate theivery      Richard Erlacher      10/29/11 14:46      
                                                      and more mumbo jumbo in the reply      Erik Malund      10/29/11 15:47      
                                                      Can _you_ not read debugger output?      Per Westermark      10/29/11 17:39      
                                          8255      Andy Peters      10/28/11 13:26      
                                             Yes, but they're still shipped on some 805x trainer boards      Richard Erlacher      10/28/11 18:42      
                                             Just sayin'      Michael Karas      10/29/11 05:50      
                  Square Wheels for the Car      Michael Karas      10/26/11 10:06      
                     I disagree ... not that that should surprise anyone      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 10:54      
                        eval and evaluation      Erik Malund      10/26/11 11:25      
                           Yes, if only they were useful ...      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 12:31      
      Also "LPC900 Studio"      Andy Neil      09/06/11 12:32      
         They all seem crippled      David Prentice      09/06/11 14:22      
            comments      Erik Malund      09/06/11 16:17      
            They all seem crippled      Andy Neil      09/06/11 16:22      
               Yes ... SDCC ... the obvious solution      Richard Erlacher      09/08/11 08:30      
                  what's obvious about it      Erik Malund      09/08/11 09:00      
                     Why not?      Andy Neil      09/08/11 10:48      
                        reasons      Erik Malund      09/08/11 10:59      
                           Unfortunately      Andy Neil      09/08/11 14:13      
                              re Keil      Erik Malund      09/09/11 07:13      
                                 15 years ago?      Maarten Brock      09/09/11 09:28      
                                    OK, maybe not      Erik Malund      09/09/11 09:48      
            reasonable price      Erik Malund      09/07/11 03:41      
            raisonance is 4k with no code offset      Marshall Brown      10/25/11 13:59      

Back to Subject List