Re: gEDA-user: gEDA vs commercial product

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 13:19 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > The Licensing would want to be as free as possible, so "Open"
> > standard doesn't mean "non-commercial".
> 
> Since I work for Red Hat, I'm sensitive to the difference between
> "commercial" and "proprietary".  You can be commercial and fully open,
> but you can't be proprietary and fully open.

I believe my use of the word was appropriate. We might want the standard
to be non-proprietary, and I'm glad you pointed out the distinction.

_IF_ such an Open symbol standard were produced (and I'm not
volunteering here), I believe it would be in our interests if it could
be used commercially.

I don't believe we want to stop Autocad, OpenOffice, Eagle users from
using the symbols in their drawings. The problem currently _exists_
because so called "standard" symbols can't be used freely.

As we want users of other packages to use our standard symbols,
presumably we must allow vendors of these tools to make libraries based
on our standard. If not, this would make us as bad as the IEC.
Admittedly, the IEC allow this - but only on commercial terms.

Are there any other restrictions we could conceive of placing on a
database of standard symbols? Attribution? Not mixing our standard
symbols with commercial ones?


Would "the industry" co-operate with a free symbol standard? It is they
who will likely define its acceptance.


(In all cases above, I refer to "free" as in speech, not "beer".)

Regards,


-- 
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)



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