Re: gEDA-user: gEDA vs commercial product

[kmk <kmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Clifton wrote:

> All in all, it seems like a pretty pointless standard if we can't make a
> free symbol library from it. 

Ack.
Methinks, an enforced copyright or any other interlectual property on a
standard defeats its purpose. A standard is the collective attempt of
those who conform to it, to make communication easier. The more
participants conform, the better the scheme works. Any barrier to
universal access to the standard compromises the interests of those who
 conform. It is an accomplishment by the participants that makes a
standard valuable, not an achievement by the issuer.

Imagine a copyrighted alphabet ;-)

Bottom line: Non-open standards should be avoided if possible.

---<(kaimartin)>---
-- 
Lilalaser 			   	   tel: +49.511.4850615
Kai-Martin Knaak	                   fax: +49.511.4818399
Harenberger Meile 3                         http://lilalaser.de		
30926 Seelze/Hannover                          kmk@xxxxxxxxxxxx



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user