> > > How's it look? > > http://www.delorie.com/pcb/cy7c1041b.html
Looks great! > Thinking about licenses for symbols and footprints... > > There are really two sets of "terms" a symbol needs. First, terms for > redistributing the symbol itself. I see no reason why the GPL > wouldn't be OK for this; it would apply to gEDA distros or anyone > compiling a symbol library, or people offering downloads of symbols > used in their projects. I suppose it would apply to people publishing > their schematics or PCB files, since symbols and footprints are easily > extracted from those. > > Second, terms for using the symbol. I.e. if you end up producing a > board which used your symbol/footprint, what are the terms for > distributing the board itself? > > If we can agree on some quanta for licenses, perhaps we could specify > a license attribute for them? Like > > Symbols: > T ... > use_license=no-fee > T ... > dist_license=GPL > > Footprints: > # use_license=no-fee > # dist_license=GPL Are you suggesting putting licence attribs onto symbols and comments into PCB netlib footprints? If so, that's fine with me, and is indeed a good idea. As for PCB's treatment of comments, does PCB forward comments embedded in the newlib footprint in the .pcb file? The last time I looked it didn't. Maintining & forwarding comments is a desirable feature, and would facilitate the propagation of your idea. Stuart
