Re: gEDA-user: More footprint stuff

[Mario Klebsch <mario@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi!

Am 26.01.2005 um 18:46 schrieb Florian Steiper:

> Hello Stuart
>
> > > I do, however, have one question: Exactly how does the gpl play into 
> > > the
> > > use of elements/footprints in commerical designs? Would someone on 
> > > this
> > > list who is who has been there/done that, chime in?! =20
> >
> > IIRC, we've talked about this previously, and the consensus is that
> > the gEDA Suite is GPL'ed, but there is no reason that non-GPL symbols
> > can't be used with it.  Moreover, if you have proprietary symbols, I
> > can't imagine that they would be "contaminated" by using them in a
> > GPL'ed program.  I imagine the situation is similar to editing
> > proprietary documents using OpenOffice, or creating proprietary
> > designs using gEDA, or compiling proprietary programs using gcc.
> >
> > Of course, IANAL.
> >
> > Stuart
> 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.

The GPL does not force you to open anything, as long as you don't give 
away your work.

Whe question to discuss here could be, wehter the artwork produced by 
PCB (Gerber-Files) or the board itself is subject to GPL. The artwork 
does indeed includes the symbols, which might be GPL'ed and when you 
make this artwork available to someone else, you would have to make 
your pcb files available, too. The artwork is a kind of compiler 
output.

I am not sure, wether this rule can be applied to the boards, too.

> Kind of like with a few manufacturers of Routers who used a linux 
> based Firewall and were forced to release the source of their 
> firmware,

If the GPL would touch the boards, too, it would be like requiering the 
operator of such a linux based firewall to offer the source code to 
everybody routing packets through this router.

> but I don't know if this would apply to using some footprints too.

IANAL, but I thing, the cases do not really compare.

> 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.

Th LGPL requires you to supply your product in a relinkable way. If it 
would apply to boards, which use LGPL'ed footprints, you would be 
required to deliver your product in a way, the user can change the 
footprints later. This would reqzire you to ship a kit and the designs 
files as well, as the files are needed to change the footprints.

I do not thing, the requirements of LGPL can be satisfied by most 
comercial designs.

BTW, there are other examples in the free software world, which are 
facing this problems. For example, a package including a GPL'ed font 
must somehow rule, wether the printouts using this font are GPL'ed or 
not. I quess, the TeX-licence could be worth reading. It also might be 
worth looking into the ghostscript license, too.

73, Mario
- -- 
Mario Klebsch                                           mario@xxxxxxxxxx
PGP-Key available at http://www.klebsch.de/public.key
Fingerprint DSS: EE7C DBCC D9C8 5DC1 D4DB  1483 30CE 9FB2 A047 9CE0
 Diffie-Hellman: D447 4ED6 8A10 2C65 C5E5  8B98 9464 53FF 9382 F518
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFB9/7XMM6fsqBHnOARAml3AKDvhIDIStmSmZlnX0NaIcsPyqnovgCfcWj2
BbCAoEydc8G28IitytgDlkw=
=64Va
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----