On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Oliver Walters < [email protected]> wrote:
> Wayne, others, > > A lot of input here, thanks everyone. > > Based on the suggestions above, my proposal is as follows: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------------------- > > symbols licence file: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------------------- > Copyright (C) 2017 KiCad > > I agree with Simon that "KiCad" cannot be the copyright holder. Imagine for the sake of argument I need to contact the copyright holder. Say I would like to negotiate with him/her a change of licence. I want to use the material without being subject to the CC-BY-SA licence, and I am willing to pay for it. So I'd like to benefit from some kind of dual-licensing scheme, whereby I receive e.g. a copy of a 3D model file with a special licence just for me. Only the copyright holder can do that. Now I go to the file and I read "Copyright KiCad." Who should I speak to? Who has the right to do what I need? That's just an example. For any action where you would need the copyright holder to do something, you'd bump against the same issue. One could conceivably define KiCad as a valid legal entity, and then you could have KiCad be the copyright holder, as the FSF is the copyright holder of lots of code, but that's a strategic change to be discussed, I guess, with the project leader and the project initiator. Right now, KiCad cannot be the holder of any copyright. The same applies, IMHO, to "KiCad developers." Cheers, Javier
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
