> > I think that the proper place to resolve this issue is in the > > actual *licenses,* which as with OSS may vary from permissive to > > restrictive. I'd like to see the evolution of at least one OSHW > > license where a requirement is that the design files for the > > project-- and its derivative works --need to be in open, > > documented formats. > > Keep dreaming, bro. Maybe when gEDA reaches 1/10th the > functionality/usability of say Protel.
You can have an open documented format for a proprietary EDA tool. I don't see what gEDA has to do with anything in that comment. And you don't have to be a dreamer to write a license that has whatever terms you want in it. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
