> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:geda-user- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harry Eaton > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:11 PM > To: gEDA user mailing list > Subject: Re: gEDA-user: Clarifying the License issues for gaf and PCB > > > 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.
I am currently doing my first gEDA PCB board and I have to say that I am worried that footprints will be error prone. It is disheartening to hear that someone with more gEDA experience then me, also shares that opinion. If only there was a flag which footprints were verified on an already created gEDA PCB.... _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user