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

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Under US Copyright law (which are the laws that apply to me). Copyright
law of 1988. The use of Typefaces (fonts) in the ordinary course of
typing, composing text, typesetting or printing is not an infringment of
the copyright.

No license can exceed the authority of the law under which it is based.


Steve Meier



                               Typefaces

Use of typeface in ordinary course of printing. 

        54.â(1) It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic
work consisting of the design of a typefaceâ
         (a) to use the typeface in the ordinary course of typing,
        composing text, typesetting or printing,
         (b) to possess an article for the purpose of such use, or
         (c) to do anything in relation to material produced by such
        use;
and this is so notwithstanding that an article is used which is an
infringing copy of the work.

    (2) However, the following provisions of this Part apply in relation
to persons making, importing or dealing with articles specifically
designed or adapted for producing material in a particular typeface, or
possessing such articles for the purpose of dealing with them, as if the
production of material as mentioned in subsection (1) did infringe
copyright in the artistic work consisting of the design of the typefaceâ
        section 24 (secondary infringement: making, importing,
        possessing or dealing with article for making infringing copy),
        sections 99 and 100 (order for delivery up and right of
        seizure),
        section 107(2) (offence of making or possessing such an
        article), and
        section 108 (order for delivery up in criminal proceedings).
    (3) The references in subsection (2) to "dealing with" an article
are to selling, letting for hire, or offering or exposing for sale or
hire, exhibiting in public, or distributing. 
Articles for producing material in particular typeface. 

        55.â(1) This section applies to the copyright in an artistic
work consisting of the design of a typeface where articles specifically
designed or adapted for producing material in that typeface have been
marketed by or with the licence of the copyright owner.

    (2) After the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year
in which the first such articles are marketed, the work may be copied by
making further such articles, or doing anything for the purpose of
making such articles, and anything may be done in relation to articles
so made, without infringing copyright in the work.

    (3) In subsection (1) "marketed" means sold, let for hire or offered
or exposed for sale or hire, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.   



On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 19:36 +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
> 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



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