> Right. This last line about commercial use makes GPL difficult. Can > we then write a modified version of the LGPL and use that? Basically, > if you extract my reusable elements (symbols/footprints), you can > modify them, but the modified versions must be made freely > redistributable. If you use my reusable elements as building blocks > in a large design (e.g. use my footprints in your circuit), then you > are free to restrict open access to that larger design.
It's always easier to add allowances to the GPL than to add restrictions. I.e. you can define your license as "it's GPL, but we also allow you to do XYZ if you want." So, we could say "Our footprints are licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL. In addition, we permit you to freely use the expression of these footprints; in the form of exported gerbers, prints, circuit boards, or similar physical expression; without the use of these footprints itself causing the expression to be covered by the GNU GPL. > I know more clarifications will be needed, but can we move towards > something like this by editing the LGPL? You wouldn't edit the GPL/LGPL. You'd define your license in terms of it, referencing it as-is and listing the differences in a separate document. _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
