On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:45:18AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Andy - > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 11:15:12AM -0700, Andy Peters wrote: > > 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)? > > If you never distribute a design, no license will ever coerce > you to open-source it. > > Using or incorporating BSD-licensed anything will never force > you to open-source a design. > > If you merely use GPL code to produce a design, that does not > force your to open-source the design, even if you distribute it. > > The only time the GPL will apply to your design is if your design > can be considered a "derived work" (in the copyright law sense) > of the GPLed material. For an example of that process that > has some relation to the concern you raise, look at the parsers > generated by flex and bison. The output of these programs include > both material you design, and GPLed stuff. The two are intertwined, > necessarily covered by the GPL, so if you distribute the result > you are obligated to provide the source (at least to your customers, > see the GPL for full details), and that includes the stuff you wrote.
And if you don't comply to GPL, a court order will follow and you'll pay the lawyers (= a lot): http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html CL< > > I would certainly argue that if you distribute a schematic or layout > that incorporates a GPLed symbol or footprint, that distribution would > have be in a GPL-compatible form. I would not assert that > manufacturing and distributing the resulting circuit board would > trigger any GPL terms. In a real sense, the opinions of open-source > zealots like me, and the terms of the GPL itself, don't matter. > The opinions that matter are those of your customers, who are the > only ones who have standing to ask for the "source" mandated by the > GPL, and the judge, who will be called on to decide if the work > your customers received is a "derived work" of the GPLed material. > > This is a good argument for not using the GPL for footprints. > BSD, or even LGPL, makes a lot more sense, IMHO. > > IANAL, so these opinions are theoretically worthless. > > - Larry > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-user mailing list > geda-user@moria.seul.org > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user