Steve Meier wrote:
I think at this point, in order to avoid confussion.
1) That gaf and pcb need to state if they consider the distributed
symbols and land patterns to be code.
I have never considered land patterns to be code. I'd be perfectly happy
for a font-like exception being clearly stated for the outputs of pcb
(gerber, ps, screen capture etc.) for those (few) symbols/footprints
that I've created.
The real trouble is that the symbol libraries have been contributed by
many different people. It will be very hard to figure out a complete
list of who contributed what. I think that there are very few if any
footprint/symbol contributors who would object to such a license
clarification, but locating them all for verification will probably be
quite troublesome. I believe I discussed the issue with Thomas many
years ago and he didn't think of the libraries as code either. One
solution would be to gut the libraries and start over. That could have
the advantage of raising the quality and reliability of the library too
(but greatly reducing the count too).
For me personally it's never mattered because I've considered the
libraries to be so error prone that I've always made my own footprints
anyway.
harry
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user