On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:54 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On 7/14/10 10:51 PM, timecop wrote: >>> I think that the proper place to resolve this issue is in the actual >>> *licenses,* which as with OSS may vary from permissive to restrictive. I'd >>> like to see the evolution of at least one OSHW license where a requirement >>> is that the design files for the project-- and its derivative works --need >>> to be in open, documented formats. >> >> Keep dreaming, bro. >> Maybe when gEDA reaches 1/10th the functionality/usability of say Protel.
While it's nice to know that your full-of-yourselfness extends to gEDA, it's not the only game in town, and it's not even the only open source EDA with open file formats. This will happen whether or not gEDA evolves, and whether or not gEDA is involved. > Damn, and here I was hoping he had unsubscribed. +1 _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
