Re: gEDA-user: LGPL symbols vs. GPL symbols?

[DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Your explanation makes absolutely no sense to me.  What does
> replacing a symbol have to do with anything?  Can you please explain
> this more clearly?

The whole point of the LGPL is to allow free software to be used in a
mostly-proprietary program.  The way it allows that is by requiring
that the free portions of the software be replacable by the person
using the software, allowing them to correct mistakes in the free
software and benefit from their corrections.  That's one of the
freedoms that "free software" protects.

The equivalent in EDA is to be able to correct a mistake in a symbol,
and integrate that symbol back into the project, even when the
remainder of the project is proprietary.  Since with the gEDA tools,
anyone who posesses a design file already has the ability to correct
symbols, and since proprietary design files really can't be
distributed (they become non-proprietary when that happens anyway),
the LGPL doesn't really offer you any advantage over the GPL.

> While it may reflect the goals of what it perceives as "free
> software," it absolutely doesn't reflect the goals of "pure freedom"
> nearly as well.

Old argument.  You want the BSD license.  Don't complain when someone
makes a lot of money using your designs, and gives nothing back.

> Moreover, I don't see why/how a license can apply to a *symbol*
> anyway.

It doesn't.  It applies to the file that describes that symbol, and
it's a copyright.  It applies to any written work, like software or
books.  Anyone else can reverse engineer the concept back to their own
file describing it, but they can't use your description as-is without
your permission.

> You know what?  Forget it.  From this point forward, my 65816, 6522,
> and 7805 designs are hereby placed in the *public domain*.

You can't do that in the USA any more; it's automatically copyright
you, with all rights restricted.  Use a modern BSD license, you'll get
what you want - unlimited use without anyone being able to claim
ownership over it.

If you PD it, what you're actually doing is disclaiming all rights to
it, and someone else can then claim ownership of it and GPL it, and
then *you* can't use it your way any more either.

> BTW, note that FSF doesn't recommend the use of GNU license for
> hardware designs either, equally claiming that GPL is intended more
> for real software, and not so much for hardware.  Stallman objects
> to the use of GPL for hardware.  In this regard, perhaps my use of
> Creative Commons license is the correct choice for the Kestrel as a
> whole.

Yeah, using the GPL for hardware is weird.  However, we're not talking
about hardware - we're talking about data files that describe
hardware.  It's a little different.  But, given that we're talking
about that at all, I noted that the GPL is strongly preferred over the
LGPL, once you've decided to use one of them.  In other words, avoid
the LGPL if you can.

> > Also, if you mix GPL and LGPL symbols in a project, the LGPL ones
> > effectively become GPL anyway.
> 
> No, they remain LGPL. That's the beauty of LGPL -- though its name
> indicates it is the "lesser" of the two licenses, the reality is,
> "less is more."

If you mix GPL and LGPL, the GPL applies to the whole project - the
only way to take advantage of the LGPL is to go back to the original
symbol file, and then you're not "in the project" any more.