Re: gEDA-user: gEDA vs commercial product

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 08:56 -0800, Steve Meier wrote:
> 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.

Country specific of course.

Sounds plausible - although for more complex entities, like control
panel components, there may be a number of ways of representing, say,
and emergency-stop push button. The whole point of a "standard" is to
have a common way of representing these ideas.

IANAL either of course.

> 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.

Yep - that one is there. Again IANAL. What happens if the access is done
by someone in a country where the contract is not enforceable. Can they
come after anyone who uses or distributes the resulting "liberated"
symbol library, or is it a case of: once its in the public domain, its
out?

> 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.

That sounds much more like decent goal. "Open Symbols project?" It would
be nice to have some more open standards out there!

I've no idea what the scope of the IEC standard is. Standard electronic
components appear to be covered, as do control system components. We'd
need people familiar in various fields to submit symbols (or
descriptions). Assuming the requests come from people not directly
referencing any protected standard, and with the above comments about
creativity in expressing the symbols - if the open standard contained
symbols similar to the IEC ones, so be it.

These wouldn't be gschem specific - they would be "standard"
descriptions of the symbols, perhaps standard graphics primitives,
sizes, aspect ratios - whatever.

The Licensing would want to be as free as possible, so "Open" standard
doesn't mean "non-commercial". I see the main users (especially of
things like control symbols) being commercial users.

Regards,

Peter C.

-- 
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)



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