Does anyone else find it somewhat offensive that Microchip has taken the free and open source gcc toolchain, crippled it by disallowing optimisations, and is then telling people how wonderful it is that they are giving you it for zero cost?
What they are doing here is within their legal rights under the gcc licence (the GPL), as they do provide access to the source for the compiler and you can re-compile it yourself with optimisations enabled. And they do have the legal right to charge money for or restrict the use of their proprietary libraries.
But to me it feels very much that they have taken the enormous amount of free work done in gcc, and are promoting it and selling it as though it was their own work - while giving nothing back to gcc.
Maybe I've got the wrong impression here (and as I say, I don't think they've broken the letter of the licences here - just the spirit of them), but that's my gut reaction.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.