Would it be sufficient to drop the "Copyright (C) 2017 KiCad" header?
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Javier Serrano < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
