RE: gEDA-user: Clarifying the License issues for gaf and PCB

["Ostheller, Joel A. " <JOEL.A.OSTHELLER@xxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geda-user-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Harry Eaton
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:11 PM
> To: gEDA user mailing list
> Subject: Re: gEDA-user: Clarifying the License issues for gaf and PCB
> 
> 
> The real trouble is that the symbol libraries have been contributed by
> many different people. It will be very hard to figure out a complete
> list of who contributed what.  I think that there are very few if any
> footprint/symbol contributors who would object to such a license
> clarification, but locating them all for verification will probably be
> quite troublesome. I believe I discussed the issue with Thomas many
> years ago and he didn't think of the libraries as code either. One
> solution would be to gut the libraries and start over. That could have
> the advantage of raising the quality and reliability of the library too
> (but greatly reducing the count too).
> 
> For me personally it's never mattered because I've considered the
> libraries to be so error prone that I've always made my own footprints
> anyway.

I am currently doing my first gEDA PCB board and I have to say that I am
worried that footprints will be error prone. It is disheartening to hear
that someone with more gEDA experience then me, also shares that opinion. If
only there was a flag which footprints were verified on an already created
gEDA PCB....  





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