On Wednesday 14 May 2008, Peter Clifton wrote: > I suspect the "tivo" additions to GPLv3 don't really apply to > our kind of software.
Yes, they do. Maybe not gschem, because it doesn't push the state of the art, but there are known issues with gnucap. Icarus is vulnerable too. PCB, probably not yet, but if that new autorouter is any good.... > I'm not really sure about the patent aspects, but can't see > how they are of much immediate use to us. I guess it would > perhaps protect us if someone added code they owned a patent > for, or if someone distributing our software did own patents > which we infringed. However, I'm unsure whether either of > these are likely cases for gEDA. You do something that somebody else decides to patent. Somebody else builds on your work, and gets a patent based on their enhancements, something you had already planned to do but didn't yet because of a lack of time. This has actually happened, in EDA. > A more likely scenario would be accidental infringement of > someone else's patent, but no license can exonerate > responsibility for that. "More likely" means "nearly 100% probability". The changes in GPLv3 are the result of actual issues. _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
