DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com writes:
PCB elements only have silk on the top layer, sorry.
But you could place the footprint on the bottom layer, if that helps.
--
Stephan
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
I'm looking at using libopenstm32 for ARM chips, and wonder what GPLv3 does
about your ability to sell a system with code in it. Can you sell it without
a complete tool chain? In other words is my compiler cross compile output
a covered work when I use a GPLv3 library like libopenstm32?
I'm
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:17 PM, John Griessen j...@ecosensory.com wrote:
I'm looking at using libopenstm32 for ARM chips, and wonder what GPLv3 does
about your ability to sell a system with code in it. Can you sell it
without
a complete tool chain? In other words is my compiler cross compile
On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:17 AM, John Griessen wrote:
On 10/06/2010 08:47 AM, Steven Michalske wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:17 PM, John Griessenj...@ecosensory.com wrote:
I'm looking at using libopenstm32 for ARM chips, and wonder what GPLv3 does
about your ability to sell a system with code
I have never heard that you needed to supply the entire tool chain, just the
source for the code that you run in your product. I'm strictly a beginner at
such things, though, so take what I say with a kilo or so of salt...
-Original Message-
From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
John Griessen wrote:
On 10/06/2010 10:30 AM, John Doty wrote:
You don't need to deliver *any* source code unless it is requested by
the user.
OK. Let me rephrase that to,
What would I need to make available to comply with GPLv3 for a GPLv3
library delivered as part of an
open hardware
I think a lot of people confuse the difference between a theoretical physicist
and an experimental physicist.
A theoretical uses a whiteboard and marker. He/She writes a paper.
An experimental physicist reads the paper and goes -- Oh, really?. He/She
constructs experimental apparatus using
-Original Message-
From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
[mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Dave N6NZ
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 2:41 PM
To: gEDA user mailing list
Subject: gEDA-user: physicists (Re: new footprint guidelines)
I think a lot of people
I have: http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html.
And yes, Harald Welte has made some vendors to distribute
their sources with entire toolchain.
Unusual, since the compiler... part of the GPL was specifically
added for DJGPP, which is not normally distributed... with the
operating
You don't need to deliver *any* source code unless it is requested
by the user.
In the case of an embedded product, with GPLv3, the *only* way to not
include the source is to include the written offer, which opens you up
for a DDNS. You can only use the web download option if the binary
is
So just to clarify - if you distribute an embedded device that runs a
GPLv3 binary; to comply with the GPLv3 you must not only provide the
source, but also a hardware-programmer/uploader?
I suppose in most cases this isn't necessarily a huge issue - where
firmware upgrade capability is built into
No. GPLv3 says that it must be _possible_ for the user to update his
GPLed code, but it need not be easy. You can even ship GPLv3 code in
an OTP chip. Basically, just don't use DRM to prevent the user from
changing his code when he could otherwise. The intent is to prevent
GPLed code from
No. GPLv3 says that it must be _possible_ for the user to update
his GPLed code, but it need not be easy.
Right, and if they have to buy some off-the-shelf programming device
to do it, well, that's no different than buying a USB cable or PC.
___
ah, cheers - really appreciate the clarification.
Geof
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:30 AM, asom...@gmail.com wrote:
No. GPLv3 says that it must be _possible_ for the user to update his
GPLed code, but it need not be easy. You can even ship GPLv3 code in
an OTP chip. Basically, just don't use
On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:01 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
You don't need to deliver *any* source code unless it is requested
by the user.
In the case of an embedded product, with GPLv3, the *only* way to not
include the source is to include the written offer, which opens you up
for a DDNS. You can
On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Geoff Swan wrote:
So just to clarify - if you distribute an embedded device that runs a
GPLv3 binary; to comply with the GPLv3 you must not only provide the
source, but also a hardware-programmer/uploader?
I suppose in most cases this isn't necessarily a huge
?? OK, I admit I haven't read the GPLv3 that carefully yet. Is it
because it ships as a physical good that the written offer must be
physically realized? Does a silk screen of: For sources:
ftp://foo.org/public/sources/wonderwidget.tgz; comply with the
written offer clause?
I suppose it
But read the text of the exception and try to come to that same
conclusion when you're talking about libgcc.so or libstdc++.so.
Wouldn't the normally supplied... exception in the GPL kick in
anyway? (not that I'm trying to second-guess the experts, the gcc
list has been rife with licensing
On Oct 7, 2010, at 7:00 AM, DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote:
After all, if you write an open source pcb design package, you don't
have to ship a color monitor with it to be in compliance with the
GPL,
*whew*
I wanted one of those setups you were talking about!
John Doty wrote:
On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Rick Collins wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot, NEVER ask a PhD anything to design PCBs. What the
heck are you thinking???
Speaking as a physicist, let me comment.
1. Learning to do a variety of engineering tasks is an important part of an
experimental
DJ Delorie wrote:
I have: http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html.
And yes, Harald Welte has made some vendors to distribute
their sources with entire toolchain.
Unusual, since the compiler... part of the GPL was specifically
added for DJGPP, which is not normally distributed... with
Cross-compiler is not a component of the operating system
on which the executable runs.
Nearly every embedded OS comes *with* a cross compiler. It just
doesn't happen to run *on* the embedded OS.
One could argue that such a cross compiler is a component of the
embedded OS.
On 10/6/2010 7:45 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
But read the text of the exception and try to come to that same
conclusion when you're talking about libgcc.so or libstdc++.so.
Wouldn't the normally supplied... exception in the GPL kick in
anyway?
Maybe for your app, but not for libgcc.so itself,
23 matches
Mail list logo
