The only bad thing I can see wanting to prevent is if 'we' develop the greatest library in the world and a commercial provider writes a program to convert it to their own format and starts selling it with a non-free license; or someone designs a board, distributes the PCB files and says you can't use the modified (but not new-from-scratch) footprints for yourself. Other than those situations, can anyone think of further restrictions that mesh with the goal of this project?
So what we have is not code, but graphics, a work of art, etc. Why not the Creative Commons license like: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ? Cory Cross > I revised the symbol license text to reflect some of the suggestions > people made. Please find it below. I am calling for comments & > flames. Assuming people like it, I will > put it onto the gEDA webpage this weekend some time. > > BTW: I removed all references to footprints. You folks over on the > PCB side of the fence are of course welcome to use the same text, but > you'll need to do s/symbol/footprint/ and s/gEDA\/gaf/PCB/, but > besides that, it's ready to use. If you want, I'm happy to do the > edits. But since I don't have access to your web server I can't put > it up. (And you probably want to think about the issue for yourselves > anyway.) > > FWIW, I did not explicitly adopt DJ's notion of a dist- > vs. use-license, even though I do like it very much. My reasoning was > this: > > * From a legal standpoint, I figured it was safer to piggyback on the > FSF's verbiage than trying to write our own. IANAL, but they do have > lawyers vetting their stuff, so they should know what they are doing > -- in principle at least! > > * From the standpoint of writing something up for us, I decided I > didn't want to get involved in legal hair-splitting about what "use" > and "distribution" mean, since it would make any text wordy and > confusing. > > * Also, I didn't want to contribute to the population explosion of > open-source licences. Therefore, just sticking to the GPL + exemption > seemed like the right thing to do. > > I *did* write about dist vs. use on our licence web page, so that our > reasoning and intent is clear. > > Stuart > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > A word about licensing. > > All software components of gEDA/gaf are released under the GNU Public > License (GPL). However, some confusion exists about the schematic > symbols. What license do they use? Will GPL symbols "infect" your > design, thereby requiring you to release your design to the public? If > you modify the symbols, must you release the modified versions under > the GPL? > > The goal of the gEDA Project is to provide an open-source EDA Suite > which may be used for commerical as well as non-commercial projects. > Our tools are aimed for use by students, educators, consultants, > hobbiests, and -- yes -- corporate engineers. We are not interested > in exerting any control over your designs, or forcing you to reveal > proprietary information contained in your designs. > > Symbols are similar to the font files used in document > processing software -- they are graphical objects used to express your > ideas. We want you to retain control of your own ideas (your design), > while the gEDA Project retains a say in how you redistribute the > symbols themselves. > > There are three ways a symbol might be distributed: > > 1. As part of a symbol library, or individually as a .sym file > (i.e. as a symbol itself). > 2. Embedded in a .sch file (i.e. part of the soft, or editable copy > of a design). > 3. The resulting graphical expression on a schematic diagram (i.e. as > part of the hard, or non-editable copy of a design, whether as a > print file or as a paper copy). > > There is a distinction between cases 1 and (2, 3). In case 1, the > object of interest is the symbol library (or individual symbol) > itself. In case (2, 3), the object of interest is the design. > Some label case 1 "distribution", and cases (2, 3) "use" of the symbol. > > Our goals for the symbols are: > > * We wish to distribute the symbols under a licencing scheme which > encourages that you give back to the community if you redistribute the > the symbols themselves -- whether modified or unmodified. This is > case 1 distribution. The GPL ensures this. > > * We wish to specifically prohibit anybody from building gEDA's > symbols into their *software* products, and then placing restrictions > on how the resulting product may be used. If you bundle gEDA symbols > -- whether modified or unmodified -- into your software and then > distribute it, then you must allow for the software's (and symbols') > continued redistribution under the GPL. Again, this is case 1 > distribution; the GPL ensures this. > > * However, we do not wish to "infect" your *electronic* design, or > force you to release your proprietary design information if you use or > embedd gEDA symbols in your design. This is case (2, 3) use. > > The Free Software Foundation has recognized a possible conflict of > the base GPL with the use of fonts -- and, by analogy, symbols. > Their solution is to use an exemption clause in the GPL > which you explicitly insert for fonts. Read about it here: > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException > > Therefore, using this as a template, all symbols released with > gEDA/gaf are covered under the GPL with the following exeption clause: > > As a special exception, if you create a design which uses this symbol, > and embed this symbol or unaltered portions of this symbol into the > design, this symbol does not by itself cause the resulting design to > be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not > however invalidate any other reasons why the design itself might be > covered by the GNU General Public License. If you modify this > symbol, you may extend this exception to your version of the > symbol, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not > wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. > > The idea is that case 1 redistribution is covered under the GPL, but > distribution of your design per cases (2, 3) is exempt from the GPL. > This is the scheme under which the gEDA Project licenses its symbols. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev > _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
