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

["Samuel A. Falvo II" <sam.falvo@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/5/05, DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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,

But with a fully GPL symbol, the use of the symbol in any kind of net
in the circuit is equivalent to linking, and therefore, by the linkage
restrictions in GPL, the entire project file you use that symbol in
must become GPL.

This is my hang-up with the whole "GPL symbol" thing.

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

I'm aware of the BSD license.  And why would I complain?  These are
symbols, not entire projects.  I could care less if someone else uses
my 65816 symbol in their otherwise proprietary or more successful
design.  I think it's important to remember to restrict the scope of
this discussion to symbols.

> 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.

Interesting -- has this been proven in court, where the existance of
prior art in a field, known to be public domain, has ever had that
public domain status rescinded by another?

> 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.

Err...I thought that we were talking about the symbol files though?  I
mean, that's the whole point -- if I GPL the 65816 symbol, but not the
6522 symbol, and I use them in the same project, then I'm in violation
of the GPL, since the 6522 must be "linked" (via circuit nets) to the
65816 to get any kind of I/O done.

--
Samuel A. Falvo II