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

[Karel Kulhavy <clock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:45:18AM -0800, ldoolitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Andy -
> 
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 11:15:12AM -0700, Andy Peters 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)?
> 
> If you never distribute a design, no license will ever coerce
> you to open-source it.
> 
> Using or incorporating BSD-licensed anything will never force
> you to open-source a design.
> 
> If you merely use GPL code to produce a design, that does not
> force your to open-source the design, even if you distribute it.
> 
> The only time the GPL will apply to your design is if your design
> can be considered a "derived work" (in the copyright law sense)
> of the GPLed material.  For an example of that process that
> has some relation to the concern you raise, look at the parsers
> generated by flex and bison.  The output of these programs include
> both material you design, and GPLed stuff.  The two are intertwined,
> necessarily covered by the GPL, so if you distribute the result
> you are obligated to provide the source (at least to your customers,
> see the GPL for full details), and that includes the stuff you wrote.

And if you don't comply to GPL, a court order will follow and you'll pay
the lawyers (= a lot):
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html

CL<
> 
> I would certainly argue that if you distribute a schematic or layout
> that incorporates a GPLed symbol or footprint, that distribution would
> have be in a GPL-compatible form.  I would not assert that
> manufacturing and distributing the resulting circuit board would
> trigger any GPL terms.  In a real sense, the opinions of open-source
> zealots like me, and the terms of the GPL itself, don't matter.
> The opinions that matter are those of your customers, who are the
> only ones who have standing to ask for the "source" mandated by the
> GPL, and the judge, who will be called on to decide if the work
> your customers received is a "derived work" of the GPLed material.
> 
> This is a good argument for not using the GPL for footprints.
> BSD, or even LGPL, makes a lot more sense, IMHO.
> 
> IANAL, so these opinions are theoretically worthless.
> 
>     - Larry
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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