Re: gEDA-user: gEDA vs commercial product

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

IANAL but I did find this web site interesting and relevent


http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html


I believe that the IEC database itself can will not be covered by
copyright since the materials lack originality. The fact that they have
a symbol for resistor and that symbol might be copyrightable but the
concept of having such a symbol isn't.

What propbably protects the IEC is that to get to their  database you
have to have a contract with them and their contract forbids actions
such as producing commercial or free copies.

IEC has no protection from another group declairing a standard and
adding to it as requested by others. Which is what geda should do in
conjuction with other open source hardware groups of interest such as
Open Cores.

After all, the IEC database only has 1750 symbols. Collectevly we should
be able to compile a list of needed symbols and then get say 20 of us to
each do 90 symbols over the course of a year.


Steve Meier



On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 13:30 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 23:59 +0200, Alessandro Baretta wrote:
> 
> > [snip]   But it has features I need and cannot do without: a full 
> > standards compliant library of IEC components, a notion of modular components 
> > (think of a relay, where the solenoid appears on one page and each of the 
> > contacts on a potentially different page).
> 
> I looked into this. I presume your meaning IEC 60617 standard symbols. I
> looked to see how much this standard would cost to purchase, so "we"
> could draw a set of compliant symbols.
> 
> Unfortunately, the standard appears only to be available as an on-line
> database (which makes sense given the nature of its scope), and its
> licensing terms won't permit us to make a symbol library from it and
> give it away.
> 
> I've contacted someone who attempted to do this in the past, and he was
> shut down by the IEC's lawyers. He tells me their position was that even
> if he drew the symbols himself, he would not be entitled to distribute
> them.
> 
> I'm dubious as to the legal issues here. Whether it would be possible to
> "clean room" produce a set of "similar" symbols, by having someone
> describe the standard symbol, and another person draw it?
> 
> All in all, it seems like a pretty pointless standard if we can't make a
> free symbol library from it. (Or even one which looks similar, but
> doesn't bear the standard's name).
> 
> 
> There is an option though... if people want a commercial library of
> these symbols, it could be possible to negotiate a deal with the IEC to
> get proper access to their database, bulk convert the symbols, and
> license the resulting product under commercial, restrictive terms.
> Whether they charge a royalty per sale, or expect a hefty up-front fee
> would be the make-or-break to that plan.
> 
> 
> Perhaps for gEDA and the open-source community's sake (who won't want to
> pay for commercial symbols, and certainly can't distribute them), we
> should ignore the standard completely - if anyone wants a particular
> looking symbol, they can draw it - and contribute it back if they wish.
> 
> 
> Does anyone care to comment / speculate how much a standard can cover by
> Copyright? Whether symbols looking similar (or the same, even) are in
> breach of Copyright? If one symbol on its own isn't, is there some
> "literary work" in the database (ie. the list of symbols). It would be
> very difficult to reproduce a library of symbols without copying or
> referring to that.
> 
> Regards,
> 



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user