Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?

[David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@xxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Andy" == Andy Peters <devel@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> To continue on the "GPL and BSD" topic ...  Just to clarify: if I use
> GPLed or BSD-licensed tools to develop hardware, as well as using
> GPLed symbols/footprints, am I obligated to open-source the hardware
> design (the schematic, the PCB layout)?

Just my two cents:

I once asked the author of the Lout typesetting system about whether the
output PostScript files wouldn't be covered by GPL since they obviously
contained the GPLed PostScript prologue of Lout.  IIRC I was told I
could run the files through "ps2ps" which would remove any literal
PostSript code.  Since the output of a program won't fall under the
program's copyright the result wouldn't be covered by GPL.

For PCB that might be the same: if you distribute gerber files, you
distribute the *output* of PCB, which obviously doesn't contain literal
code from the footprints.  If you distribute a .pcb-file, that is
different though.  For M4-generated elements, you are in some way
distributing "output" but in some way a literal copy.

GCC has clarifications for their runtime support library.  Which seems
to be called a license's "runtime exception".  Symols/footprints seem to
need something like that.  And if I understand DJs mail correctly that't
excactly what a "usage license" would be.  Maybe just make it a "usage
exception" addendum?  Also see this link about g++ run-time :

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html

regards,

David
-- 
GnuPG public key: http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~dvdkhlng/dk.gpg
Fingerprint: B17A DC95 D293 657B 4205  D016 7DEF 5323 C174 7D40



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