>>>>> "Andy" == Andy Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To continue on the "GPL and BSD" topic ... Just to clarify: if I use > GPLed or BSD-licensed tools to develop hardware, as well as using > GPLed symbols/footprints, am I obligated to open-source the hardware > design (the schematic, the PCB layout)? Just my two cents: I once asked the author of the Lout typesetting system about whether the output PostScript files wouldn't be covered by GPL since they obviously contained the GPLed PostScript prologue of Lout. IIRC I was told I could run the files through "ps2ps" which would remove any literal PostSript code. Since the output of a program won't fall under the program's copyright the result wouldn't be covered by GPL. For PCB that might be the same: if you distribute gerber files, you distribute the *output* of PCB, which obviously doesn't contain literal code from the footprints. If you distribute a .pcb-file, that is different though. For M4-generated elements, you are in some way distributing "output" but in some way a literal copy. GCC has clarifications for their runtime support library. Which seems to be called a license's "runtime exception". Symols/footprints seem to need something like that. And if I understand DJs mail correctly that't excactly what a "usage license" would be. Maybe just make it a "usage exception" addendum? Also see this link about g++ run-time : http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html regards, David -- GnuPG public key: http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~dvdkhlng/dk.gpg Fingerprint: B17A DC95 D293 657B 4205 D016 7DEF 5323 C174 7D40 _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user