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

[Karel Kulhavy <clock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:23:13PM -0800, Steve Meier wrote:
> My position on this is...
> 
> 1) I use mostly my own symbols for the schematics and only my own land
> patterns. It is questionable if the release of a hard copy "printed"
> schematic or even a pdf would trigger a violation of the GPL. Essentialy
> in that format they are non-functional you can't do anything with them
> but view them. 
> 
> 2) The fonts as computer code can be copyrighted but not the output. So

Everything can be viewed as a  computer code. Imagine a RLE encoded picture -
that's a programming language with limited capabilities. There are instructions
like "Repeat 100x the following instruction" and "emit a green pixel".

ASCII file is also a programming language - it has 1-byte bytecodes
like "print A", "print !", "feed a new line", "print a space", etc.

There is actually no boundary between "data" and "code".

CL<
> the use of the fonts includded with both PCB and gschem can be used to
> produce hardcopy and pdf's or ps files, without triggering a violation
> of the GPL or any other license.
> 
> 3) I think the owners of the copyrights to gschem and pcb should state
> clearly if they desire that designs created using these tools be forced
> to be also released under the GPL. If not then the verbage of the
> licenses needs to state clearly how the symbols/land patterns may be
> used.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve Meier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 14:48 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > > 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)?
> > >
> > > Common sense says no, but the degrees of freedom (hah hah) in open-
> > > source licenses vary greatly, and if I cannot keep my designs
> > > proprietary, then I can't use the tools.
> > 
> > In general, the *use* of a *tool* to produce something, doesn't assert
> > license over that something.  The exception is when the tool inserts -
> > verbatim - some copyrighted content into the output.  Thus, the
> > concern over "use license" of geda's libraries, which would cover this
> > insertion.
> > 
> > If you create your own symbol/footprint libraries, there's nothing
> > gEDA's license can do to stop you from producing proprietary boards
> > with it.
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > geda-user mailing list
> > geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user


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