Re: gEDA-user: firmware and the GPL license

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

On Nov 15, 2007 11:21 AM, DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > So, to go on a tangent here, what about 'code' in the form of Gerbers
> > and etc produced by PCB?  Would you consider the resultant board
> > produced by PCB to fall under a GPL license?  Would I have to offer
> > 'source' if I sold boards produced with the software?
>
> The gerbers are derived works of the *.pcb file, not of pcb itself.

Gerber files are a description -- a blueprint -- that just happens to
be in machine-readable form.  They obviously don't need to be derived
from PCB -- you could use a normal text editor if you want.  PCB just
automates the process of their production.

Therefore, it should be covered under something like the OHL, because
it serves a purpose precisely identical to that of a schematic
diagram.  In order for a board to be GPL'd, you'd need to have
something on your board which "links to" (e.g., has physical
interconnects with) another part on your board which ITSELF is GPL'd.
As long as that requirement isn't met, there is no need to GPL your
board.

> There is some confusion about the use of copyrighted *footprints* in
> your board, but all the ones we offer are licensed in such a way as to
> avoid this problem.

I never understood the issue of footprints.  All one has to do is bust
out a micrometer and hand-enter the data yourself to make a footprint
right inside PCB.  Surely a company cannot enforce footprint
protection, since they cannot tell the difference, from looking at a
board, between a hand-made footprint and a re-used footprint.

-- 
Samuel A. Falvo II


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