Re: gEDA-user: More footprint stuff

[sdb@xxxxxxxxxx (Stuart Brorson)]

FWIW, a giant licence discussion took place on the opencores list last
month.   The general consensus was that the GPL really didn't fit the
situation presented by hardware that well.  Some people there posted
some proposed licenses which were more appropriate for IP cores.  The
same (or a similar) license might be used for PCB footprints IMO,
because the issues are very similar.

Browse over to http://www.opencores.org/ for more info.

Personally, I don't see any reason why the footprints couldn't be BSD
v.2 licensed.  It's an FSF approved license so it makes GPL'ed
programs happy, and is general enough to cover hardware also.  (It
has no requirements about "derived works".)    

Stuart

> 
> DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> >>I think the question is the other way around, what happens if you
> >>use GPL/ed footprints/components in an commerical design, Will
> >>somebody come along and say that you'll have to give the
> >>schematics/pcb files to the public becuase you used GPL'ed
> >>Symbols/Footprints to produce the board.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Well, they *can*.  So far, it's been a question of *will* they.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Maybe it would be possible to get the footprints/symbols under a
> >>license similar to the one of the libc, which allows you to use it
> >>in commercial projects without having to release the source of your
> >>project.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Bad example.  Linux's libc is GPL'd also.
> >  
> >
> As much as I understand there are two slightly different versions of the 
> GPL, the "normal" GPL and the LGPL (Lesser GPL) which is used for some 
> libraries, so commercial programs who use this library (or link against 
> it) are allowed to stay proprietary. Now I am not sure how much 
> footprints and Libraries are alike, in the sense that you could say that 
> linking against a library is the same as using a footprint in a design.
> 
> ciao
> 
>        Florian
>