Hi all, If "we" indeed were to develop the greatest library in the world ...
Well, let us get there first, and then wounder if achieving all this did go unnoticed by the big commercial EDA companies. IMHO, being "ripped" by a commercial company says more about that company than it says about the gEDA community. I wonder if such a company would take the risks (of liability for this derived product) involved anyway. Just my EUR 0.02 Kind regards, Bert Timmerman. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory R. Cross Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:17 AM To: gEDA developer mailing list Subject: Re: gEDA-dev: Revised symbol license text 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 _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
