I don't think there is anything illegal involved here. The binaries of compiler nor license checker aren't modified in any way, I'm just using command line option that is free version of XC16 distributed with. All in all, even with 16-bitters from Microchip, one isn't completely lost in corporate greed. Mplab Xc8 Activation Key - DOWNLOAD mplab activation keymplab xc32 compiler activation keymplab xc8 pro activationmplab xc8 activation keymplab xc8 compiler.

Karel, the problem with stupidity is that people who are this freaking stupid are too stupid to see their own stupidness. Hence, any attempt to explain the case in a civil or logical manner is utter waste of time. This exact same discussion has been seen several times on these forums, it's always the same couple of people and the discussion is never fruitful. It's best to just update your ignore list and go on. It's the same as trying to discuss with anti-vaccinators or anti-abortion.

It's political even when it should be factual, so it simply won't ever work out, no matter how much effort you put in trying to be sensible. I used Karels method for XC16 & XC32, only not working for XC8. I read there is another method also, and i read it also dont works anymore?

If there is still another method, does it work also for XC8?, and does Karels method still works with new versions? Problem is i want the XC8 also. Maybe they better release a full version for non commercial use, companys will pay, just like microsoft visual studio?, as it looks now companys dont have to pay by law, i guess they can make more money, i bet they read this topic also, especially the word money. Then we dont have to hack unlock to get some more power out of these chips, and we saving energy alltogether to save the world, dont run slow code.

@cv007, you have a field for Mac OS that’s empty for v1.34, I assume you still don’t know. It’s 0x64D8E7. I probably had it first go, but Hex Workshop saves the file original unless I “Save As” and write a new file. With regard to the former, It’s just semantics, and nothing that can be liked to opinions on anti-vac or anti-abortion (now THAT is stupid to even liken to a mere semantic topic). Of course binaries can be patched.

I said binaries are cracked, meaning only binaries are cracked. Now I challenge you to go find any widely accepted reference to a source code that has been “cracked”, because that’s not what you have done. XC16 is a commercial distribution, with a deliberate mechanism in place to restrict access to certain features. To bypass that mechanism without access to it’s complete source code, and rebuilding it is called a crack.

If you have the source code and a means to build it, there’s nothing to crack. Open Source Components. Notwithstanding the license grant in Section 2 above, Licensee further acknowledges that certain components of the Software may be covered by so-called 'open source' software licenses ('Open Source Components'). Open Source Components means any software licenses approved as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative or any substantially similar licenses, including without limitation any license that, as a condition of distribution of the software licensed under such license, requires that the distributor make the software available in source code format. To the extent required by the licenses covering Open Source Components, the terms of such license will apply in lieu of the terms of this Agreement.

To the extent the terms of the licenses applicable to Open Source Components prohibit any of the restrictions in this Agreement with respect to such Open Source Components, such restrictions will not apply to such Open Source Component. I think if you lookup the 'open-source' definition (I guess by those who claim to define it), I don't think you could come up with any license that would meet that definition and also restrict you from making changes (binary or otherwise).

You can take open-source code such as bsd licensed code, put it in your own code, come up with any license (restrictions) you want- but then it no longer qualifies as open-source at that point. Since gcc is gpl (and you cannot do as above with bsd code), we don't have to get too twisted up thinking about various possible scenarios that could be/could have been. I guess you're right in principle. And the way GCC is built, there is now way Microchip could claim having isolated their contributions enough not to make the whole resulting compilers GPL. It's just impossible. So you should be able to do pretty much as you like with the compiler itself. What they can protect though and not make GPL is all their support files for their microcontrollers (headers, libraries.) that they can't help but distribute freely.

Serial number youwave 4shared. 4shared is a perfect place to store your pictures, documents, videos and files, so you can share them with friends, family, and the world. Claim your free 15GB now! Download now the serial number for YouWave for Android 3.13. All serial numbers are genuine and you can find more results in our database for YouWave software. Updates are issued periodically and new results might be added for this applications from our community. YouWave is the best software available for computer. This software is used to run the android apps in your computer. It is also used to play games i.e., android games with the Desktop or laptop using YouWave.Playing with the Android emulator on your computer is a pretty geeky endeavor. But YouWave makes it easy to accomplish on your Windows PC. DOWNLOAD PLZZZ SHARE YOUWAVE 2.3.4 KEY ITS KEY Tune Up Utilities 14.0.1000.296 cm2y3-uzmdj-j4qvg-aalbe-2y7ab-mcvvn GREAT SOFTWARE FOR PC SPEED. Youwave android 2 3 4 serial Hi i got this source: I want youwave for android 2.3.4 serial key plz? Was this Yahoo answers youwave 2 3 4 activation code. 27 Dic 2012 Llevo utilizando YouWave desde. Youwave For automaton Premium 5.7 Crack: fiddling with the automaton soul on your laptop may be a pretty geeky endeavor, however, YouWave makes it simple to accomplish on your Windows computer. What’s New In Youwave For automaton Premium Activation Code:. more additional libraries; fastened a random issue that blocks running on some recent machines.

But those are the files that they should protect actually. It's just that it would be very unpractical to do so, so they protect the binaries instead, which is much easier (but not all that effective obviously). On a legal point of view, I think you should be free to use XC16/32 as you see fit without any restriction, but I'm not sure you'd be authorized to use Microchip's support files. And without those, frankly, you wouldn't be able to do much. You could always rewrite them as long as it's obvious that they are substantially different from the original, but that sounds like a lot of work. (AFAIK, this is what the MinGW team has done for the Windows SDK headers and import libraries?

A lot of work.) Anyway, according to the GPL, you should be free to redistribute the binaries themselves (even Microchip ones) as long as you distribute the source code along with them. Patching them is a different story - I don't know how that would be considered exactly on a legal standpoint. This would be a modification of the binaries that would make them not match the source code anymore, thus breaching the GPL somewhat. OTOH, circumventing artificial limitations in GPL software may not be considered as a modification at all. I guess the end of the story will only be known once a court settles a case like this. I'd tend to doubt Microchip would take this to court though - they probably are borderline with the GPL so they may not want to risk losing a lot in court.

Since there was a reminder that a new version of mplabx was out and xc32 increased recently to v2.10, I thought I would check them out (I'm on Linux fyi). I checked out the new xc32 v2.10 and although the byte offset location remains exactly the same (for the binary mod), it does not work. The source is not available (yet), but at a quick glance it appears from an objdump it is similar to the previous versions- but they must be doing something different, or I am making some mistake.

It is odd that the byte offsets of interest are exactly the same on all 3 files as v2.05- not sure how that happens with different code. I guess when the source becomes available I can check it out, although not terribly important. While checking it out I discovered that gcc is looking for a specs file all over the place, so decided to simplify. I had previously assumed a -specs global option was required for the specs file, and therefore a global option had to be added to the project (every project). It now seems it is much simpler than that- just create a 1 (xc16) or 3 (xc32) line specs file and place it in a specific folder (there are many to choose from, I just picked one of them).

My latest xc32/16 info- I tested with xc32 ver 1.44,2.05,2.10, xc16 ver 1.33,1.34 - but have not tested with Windows, but there is no reason it should not work the same. Business plan examples for students.