How about having two repositories? One for gpl'ed parts and the other for an open license that is friendly regarding commerical use? In essence, a user could, in theory, have a footprint that they could change one thing on. You would end up with two footprints of the same part: One for gpl and the other for a license friendly to commerical usage. If the author only changes one thing, the work load is light and the part gets submitted into both libraries. This scheme should keep everybody happy. Any thoughts? Best Marvin > On Wednesday 26 January 2005 12:59 pm, 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.
Attachment:
pgpPWGhw7A04h.pgp
Description: PGP signature