Re: gEDA-user: Usage vs. distribution of symbols

[Karel Kulhavy <clock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:18:30AM -0500, John Luciani wrote:
> > So that the footprints are unusable for Ronja?
> 
> You are distributing the packages for free. This meets the intent and
> terms of the license. A developer is free to use the symbol in
> any system, other than a distribution system, without restriction.
> 
> > Or could someone whitewash the symbols' licence by putting them on a
> > huge board (which is a design, or at least add some piece of working
> > electronic circuitry to it so it can be considered a design) and then
> > licencing the design formally under GFDL/GPL and then extracting the
> > symbols using the buffer and finally putting all the symbols into PCB
> > distro tarball?
> 
> The distro tarball is a distribution no matter how many times you
> "launder" the symbols.
> 
> > If John changes his licence to fix this it shouldn't have an effect
> > because he already released the symbols under the old licence.
> 
> You would still fail to meet the intent of the license.
> 
> > Or John could you licence your collection under GFDL?
> 
> No.

And GPL? BSD?

CL<
> 
> (* jcl *)
> 
> On 2/20/06, Karel Kulhavy <clock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 09:47:13PM -0500, John Luciani wrote:
> > > Karel,
> > >
> > > Distribution is a usage that is restricted. The restriction is
> > > that the distribution be performed without fee.
> > > To meet the intent of the version 0.1 license the distribution would have
> > > to be released using a license with the same restriction.
> > >
> > > You are correct that this should be stated clearly in the license.
> > > I will be making updates within the next few weeks and will update
> > > the license wording.
> > >
> > > Here is a draft of the new wording ---
> > >
> > > Permission is granted to distribute these symbols verbatim,
> > > individually or in a collection, provided that (1) no fee is charged
> > > and (2) the individual symbol or symbol collection is licensed under
> > > terms identical to this one.
> > >
> > > Permission is granted to make and distribute modified versions of
> > > these symbols individually or in a collection under the conditions for
> > > verbatim distribution, provided that the entire resulting distribution
> > > is released with license terms identical to this one.
> >
> > So that the footprints are unusable for Ronja? I need to have copy of the
> > footprint in the packages/ directory of gEDA. Because someone may delete
> > the footprint during changes and replace it with a different one
> > from your collection (for example smaller electrolytic capacitor) and
> > then regenerate the schematic. Wanting the developer to download the
> > symbol from Internet every time is not appropriate.
> >
> > Or could someone whitewash the symbols' licence by putting them on a
> > huge board (which is a design, or at least add some piece of working
> > electronic circuitry to it so it can be considered a design) and then
> > licencing the design formally under GFDL/GPL and then extracting the
> > symbols using the buffer and finally putting all the symbols into PCB
> > distro tarball?
> >
> > If John changes his licence to fix this it shouldn't have an effect
> > because he already released the symbols under the old licence.
> >
> > Or John could you licence your collection under GFDL?
> >
> > CL<
> > >
> > > (* jcl *)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/19/06, Karel Kulhavy <clock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Hello John
> > > >
> > > > My Ronja project is under GFDL licence. If I take all your symbols and
> > > > place them here:
> > > > http://ronja-svn.wservices.ch/cvs/browser/trunk/schematics/packages/
> > > > is it considered usage or distribution? The directory is used by
> > > > gsch2pcb to generate PCBs from schematics in Ronja, but only at design
> > > > or modifications time, not at compile time.
> > > >
> > > > Your "No-Fee Symbol License Version 0.1" says that the symbols can be
> > > > distributed if it's done noncommercially (the distribution of Ronja
> > > > sources is noncommercial - everyone can download it for free), but
> > > > doesn't require the distribution to be done under the same licence, so
> > > > can it be GFDL?
> > > >
> > > > CL<
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.luciani.org
> >
> 
> 
> --
> http://www.luciani.org