gEDA-user: Re: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
Michael Sokolov wrote: > On some rare occasions a paid client will have me develop some piece of > software or firmware that would actually have value to humanity. On > those rare occasions I always ensure that the work gets open-sourced, > if necessary without the client's knowledge. Other times I use my > clients' ignorance of the precise terms of the GPL and other free > software licenses and make them believe that they have to open-source > the kernel module I wrote for example, even if they really don't have > to. Remind me, if the opportunity ever arises, that I should not hire you for anything. We are about open source here, and *not* *theft*. For that matter, I'm not so sure I want you use any of my software, open source or not. If you don't feel bound to a contract you might sign with a client, what is there to convince me you'll feel yourself bound to the GPL or any other license I grant you without a signature. You're really willing to knowingly lie to a paying customer? GPL is not disrespect for intellectual property rights. Indeed it relies on intellectual property rights to protect the author(s) from misrepresentation, and, frankly, from theft. -- Steve Williams"The woods are lovely, dark and deep. steve at icarus.com But I have promises to keep, http://www.icarus.com and lines to code before I sleep, http://www.picturel.com And lines to code before I sleep." ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: GPL and BSD (was: strange build failure)
> you must be sending p o r n like when I sent a patch to DJ that said > something like Actually, in this case the key text was "bank account". ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: GPL and BSD (was: strange build failure)
Igor2 wrote: P.S. DJ, I tried to send you a mail in private about the challenge boards but your mail server seems to drop my mail considering it a spam. I use the same email address and host as for this mail. you must be sending p o r n like when I sent a patch to DJ that said something like /* * XXX - we really should do this differently */ :) -Dan ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. actually... this is not a good example. And I quote: /* As a special exception, when this file is copied by Bison into a Bison output file, you may use that output file without restriction. This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in version 1.24 of Bison. */ endquote or perhaps it is the perfect example in that it reflects what I think we should be doing. -Dan ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
My position on this is... 1) I use mostly my own symbols for the schematics and only my own land patterns. It is questionable if the release of a hard copy "printed" schematic or even a pdf would trigger a violation of the GPL. Essentialy in that format they are non-functional you can't do anything with them but view them. 2) The fonts as computer code can be copyrighted but not the output. So the use of the fonts includded with both PCB and gschem can be used to produce hardcopy and pdf's or ps files, without triggering a violation of the GPL or any other license. 3) I think the owners of the copyrights to gschem and pcb should state clearly if they desire that designs created using these tools be forced to be also released under the GPL. If not then the verbage of the licenses needs to state clearly how the symbols/land patterns may be used. Thanks, Steve Meier On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 14:48 -0500, DJ Delorie 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)? > > > > Common sense says no, but the degrees of freedom (hah hah) in open- > > source licenses vary greatly, and if I cannot keep my designs > > proprietary, then I can't use the tools. > > In general, the *use* of a *tool* to produce something, doesn't assert > license over that something. The exception is when the tool inserts - > verbatim - some copyrighted content into the output. Thus, the > concern over "use license" of geda's libraries, which would cover this > insertion. > > If you create your own symbol/footprint libraries, there's nothing > gEDA's license can do to stop you from producing proprietary boards > with it. > > > ___ > 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
Re: gEDA-user: New version of gEDA Suite availabl
Hi, I just installed (upgraded from 20050830) the latest version on SuSE Linux 10.1 x86_64 with one minor problem: I failed some prerequites and the installer tried to install them, but it failed with a timeout: --- Starting expect session --- Sending su Timeout waiting for password prompt Spew received up to now: Passwort: This was because my environment variable $LANG was set to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. An 'unset $LANG' did the trick and installer finished without problems. Next is to check whether gschem and pcb still read my old designs. Best regards Dietmar ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: GPL and BSD (was: strange build failure)
> Interpreting a license is always a problem. It's a problem for > programmers since they are not lawyers to understand all the legal > parts to infinite Right, but consider that the courts tend to side with the author's intentions when they choose a license, assuming the intentions don't directly conflict. Hence, we - as symbol/footprint authors - publically state our intentions as to how we interpret the licenses, so that if there's doubt, there's a record of our intentions. > P.S. DJ, I tried to send you a mail in private about the challenge > boards but your mail server seems to drop my mail considering it a > spam. I use the same email address and host as for this mail. Try again. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: GPL and BSD (was: strange build failure)
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, DJ Delorie wrote: >Also, consider a cell phone with GPL'd software in it. Does copyright >cover the cell phone? It's hardware, but it includes copyrighted >works within it. Can we say the same about the layout of a circuit >board? I don't know. Fair use might come into play, the "works" >might not be sufficiently unique, etc. This is, IMHO, similar to the >issue of copyrighting fonts used for print. Interpreting a license is always a problem. It's a problem for programmers since they are not lawyers to understand all the legal parts to infinite depths and it's a problem for lawyers because they don't understand every little thecnical part. There are always gray zones depending on common sense and intentions. A good rule of thumb about GPL may be to check what GNU or FSF says, recommends or suggests or even how they interpret their own licenses. For this case, they have a point in thier faq (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput): "Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free? In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program." This clearly applies to PCB but still it's a question how a schematic symbol is related to the final hardware product. Maybe it is worth to ask FSF (in case the symbol and/or footprint is under the GPL). Igor2 P.S. DJ, I tried to send you a mail in private about the challenge boards but your mail server seems to drop my mail considering it a spam. I use the same email address and host as for this mail. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
Andy Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I realize that open source is a religious matter for some, but guess > what: I work for a living. Guess what, I do too, albeit doing firmware, board bring-up, drivers, BSD and Linux ports, etc. rather than hardware design. In the vast majority of cases the software/firmware work I get paid to do is totally worthless crap that no one in the free world in his right mind would want to use even if it was free -- simply because the kind of requirements that management likes to impose in the paid world are the antithesis of what is considered technical quality in the free world. In other words, the value to humanity of most of my paid work is zero. Seen in this light, the time I waste doing paid work is time stolen from Humanity. And when I manage to steal back company time by working on personal stuff while on paid time at a client's site (like I'm doing right now), I'm actually doing a valiant deed for humanity. On some rare occasions a paid client will have me develop some piece of software or firmware that would actually have value to humanity. On those rare occasions I always ensure that the work gets open-sourced, if necessary without the client's knowledge. Other times I use my clients' ignorance of the precise terms of the GPL and other free software licenses and make them believe that they have to open-source the kernel module I wrote for example, even if they really don't have to. > And when you're doing hardware design, > where the capital costs of a project can be quite high (gotta buy > parts, make and stuff PCBs, build enclosures, meet applicable safety > specs, etc), as opposed to software development where the costs are > in time alone, the notion of giving away a completed, ready-to-build > design is silly. On the service-to-humanity side of my life, I'm currently working on a hardware design (the Open source SDSL Debug and Connectivity Unit) which is a fairly complex microprocessor system and in which I fully expect to incur and am prepared to expend all of the costs that you have listed (with the exception of EMC/safety compliance because I'm a law-breaking anarchist), and even an additional cost of hiring someone else to do the layout step because I'm not good at it myself, yet the project is completely and totally open source. You can check my current state of schematic drawing out of my public CVS repository if you want. It isn't even GPL'ed or BSD-licensed, it's public domain and uncopyrighted. I don't copyright my work because as an anarchist I find it hypocritical to seek copyright or any other legal protection from the same governments that I seek to overthrow. In the case of this design its open source nature is a critical feature of the gadget itself and its application. The gadget is a tool for a project whose goal is to open-source the SDSL Internet connection technology. It would be hypocritical for a gadget whose only purpose in life is to help open-source something else not to be open source itself. Bright Blessings of Yuletide, Space Falcon ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
> This is a good argument for not using the GPL for footprints. > BSD, or even LGPL, makes a lot more sense, IMHO. Actually, it's a good argument for the split license - one for distributing the libraries, one for using them. Mine are all set to "GPL" for distribution, and "unlimited" for use. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
> 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)? > > Common sense says no, but the degrees of freedom (hah hah) in open- > source licenses vary greatly, and if I cannot keep my designs > proprietary, then I can't use the tools. In general, the *use* of a *tool* to produce something, doesn't assert license over that something. The exception is when the tool inserts - verbatim - some copyrighted content into the output. Thus, the concern over "use license" of geda's libraries, which would cover this insertion. If you create your own symbol/footprint libraries, there's nothing gEDA's license can do to stop you from producing proprietary boards with it. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
On Dec 13, 2006, at 7:12 PM, Michael Sokolov wrote: Andy Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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)? The tools do not impose this obligation, but your morality should. Common sense says no, but the degrees of freedom (hah hah) in open- source licenses vary greatly, and if I cannot keep my designs proprietary, then I can't use the tools. Regardless of what tools you use, if you keep your designs proprietary you are a bad guy and will burn in hell after you die (which may be accelerated if you get tried and rightfully executed by a lynch mob for your crime of withholding software source code and/or hardware designs from The People). Except my employer, and any freelance clients for whom I work, would object, in the strongest possible (read: legal) terms, if I were to simply give away, to anyone who asks, the work for which they pay me. I realize that open source is a religious matter for some, but guess what: I work for a living. And when you're doing hardware design, where the capital costs of a project can be quite high (gotta buy parts, make and stuff PCBs, build enclosures, meet applicable safety specs, etc), as opposed to software development where the costs are in time alone, the notion of giving away a completed, ready-to-build design is silly. It's hard to tell if you're yankin' my chain (thus earning Larry's Score: +5, Funny) or not. -a ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Re: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:28:34 +, Peter TB Brett wrote: > - IMHO footprints or symbols should be distributed under the GPL license > > - If they are, the copyright owner should provide an exception applying to > schematics and layouts using them. > Ack. Fonts are to text, what a footprint library is to a layout. The FSF recommends to add an exception to the GPL that applies to the font (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException) As a special exception, if you create a document which uses this font, and embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into the document, this font does not by itself cause the resulting document to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the document might be covered by the GNU General Public License. If you modify this font, you may extend this exception to your version of the font, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. If "font" is replaced by "footprint library" and "document" by "layout" the exception will fit the geda case. Technically, this is not two licenses like it was proposed in this thread, but one. Might be easier to handle. ---<(kaimartin)>--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak http://lilalaser.de/blog ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 07:12:05PM +, Michael Sokolov wrote: > Regardless of what tools you use, if you keep your designs proprietary > you are a bad guy and will burn in hell after you die (which may be > accelerated if you get tried and rightfully executed by a lynch mob for > your crime of withholding software source code and/or hardware designs > from The People). Mod +5 (funny) - Larry (who just finished listening to Eben Moglen's talk: http://ia331325.us.archive.org/1/items/eben-moglen-oct-2006/eben-moglen-keynote-oct-2006.mp3 ) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
Andy Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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)? The tools do not impose this obligation, but your morality should. > Common sense says no, but the degrees of freedom (hah hah) in open- > source licenses vary greatly, and if I cannot keep my designs > proprietary, then I can't use the tools. Regardless of what tools you use, if you keep your designs proprietary you are a bad guy and will burn in hell after you die (which may be accelerated if you get tried and rightfully executed by a lynch mob for your crime of withholding software source code and/or hardware designs from The People). -Space Falcon, who has open sourced every single piece of software he has written in his entire life (including forcible open-sourcing in valiant breach of employment agreements etc) and will do the same with hardware designs. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 06:28:34PM +, Peter TB Brett wrote: > [a bunch of stuff pretty much aligned with what I wrote] > This is why either: > - IMHO footprints or symbols should be distributed under the GPL license I take it you mean "should _not_ be". - Larry ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
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. 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
Re: gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 18:15, Andy Peters wrote: > 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)? > > Common sense says no, but the degrees of freedom (hah hah) in open- > source licenses vary greatly, and if I cannot keep my designs > proprietary, then I can't use the tools. The issue is the GPL license on the __footprints_and_symbols__, not on the tools. The problem is thus: the footprints are automatically under copyright. The layout is clearly a derivative work of the footprints, and thus requires a license from the person who owns the copyrights on the footprints in order to distribute. If this license happens to be the GPL, then you must make available source files (i.e. PCB layouts and schematics) "in the preferred form for modification" (i.e. actual EDA tool files) to anyone who receives from you either the layouts, the schematics or the boards themselves. This is why either: - IMHO footprints or symbols should be distributed under the GPL license - If they are, the copyright owner should provide an exception applying to schematics and layouts using them. If there's any doubt, or if you want to be absolutely certain you're safe, you should produce your own symbol and footprint library for use in your designs. But there is no issue at all with the license on the __tools__. Cheers, Peter -- Fisher Society committeehttp://tinyurl.com/o39w2 CUSBC novices, match and league secretary http://tinyurl.com/mwrc9 CU Spaceflight http://tinyurl.com/ognu2 v3sw6YChw7$ln3pr6$ck3ma8u7+Lw3+2m0l7Ci6e4+8t4Gb8en6g6Pa2Xs5Mr4p4 hackerkey.com peter-b.co.uk pgpItreoyuUSA.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: New version of gEDA Suite availabl
Stuart Brorson wrote:
I would be interested in
hearing experiences of other distro users.
I tried the install on a SuSe 9.3. A previous installation has been done
on this system so many of the "system" packages were already present.
Here's what I found --
12/14/06
- Having the install forced to run as a user other than root seems to be a
constraint. Not everyone wants to put the install files and
executables in
${HOME}/geda-install. This approach makes it very difficult to put it
in a
more universally accessible location like /usr/local/bin. (Think of a
system
with more than one user.)
- gtkwave install breaks with this error:
Failure executing command "tar -zxvf gtkwave-3.0.7.tar.gz", ReturnCode = 2
In ErrorQuitWindow_10.
which in the verbose log seems to be caused by:
tar: gtkwave-3.0.7/man: Cannot utime: Operation not permitted
tar: gtkwave-3.0.7/man: Cannot change mode to rwxr-xrwx: Operation not
permitted
tar: gtkwave-3.0.7: Cannot utime: Operation not permitted
tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors
(repeated several times)
Having the gtkwave installation fail in this manner probably shouldn't
kill the
whole installer.
- gnucap would not build. Since I don't need it at the moment I skipped
over
it.
- pcb doesn't install. The logic for checking for libjpeg and libgif still
appears to be broken. It appears that if you have support already in
place
for png *and* gif *and* jpeg the install will finish. Otherwise it will
fail. I haven't found a way to pass in a flag to the installer from the
beginning to tell it to disable lesstif, gif, png, or jpeg so that it can
succeed in some form.
Joe T
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: licensing (GPL or otherwise) for hardware?
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)? Common sense says no, but the degrees of freedom (hah hah) in open- source licenses vary greatly, and if I cannot keep my designs proprietary, then I can't use the tools. -a ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: pcb crash
I'm not a Dev, so please forgive the vagueness. I was working with polys and lines in quick succession when I crashed. AMD64 Gentoo Linux PCB version 20060822 If you need anything else let me know. - Lares ===Begin=== *** glibc detected *** /usr/bin/pcb-bin: free(): invalid next size (fast): 0x00773de0 *** === Backtrace: = /lib/libc.so.6[0x2b53fa4aa7ec] /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_free+0x76)[0x2b53fa4ab356] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x434058] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x439fab] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x40a26d] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x40af29] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x40d6c1] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x460063] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x460205] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x46a5cc] /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0[0x2b53f8a65738] /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0(g_closure_invoke+0x109)[0x2b53f94e6d89] /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0[0x2b53f94fa934] /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0(g_signal_emit_valist+0x5aa)[0x2b53f94fb94a] /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0(g_signal_emit+0x83)[0x2b53f94fbf63] /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0[0x2b53f8b48c20] /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0(gtk_propagate_event+0xb1)[0x2b53f8a63af1] /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0(gtk_main_do_event+0x22c)[0x2b53f8a63e3c] /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0[0x2b53f8daa770] /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0(g_main_context_dispatch+0x1c7)[0x2b53f9850067] /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0[0x2b53f9851a98] /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0(g_main_loop_run+0x26a)[0x2b53f9851dfa] /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0(gtk_main+0xa1)[0x2b53f8a63311] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x472098] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x43fbb4] /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf6)[0x2b53fa45e136] /usr/bin/pcb-bin[0x409b6a] === Memory map: 0040-004ab000 r-xp 08:03 1229796 /usr/bin/pcb-bin 005ab000-005b7000 rw-p 000ab000 08:03 1229796 /usr/bin/pcb-bin 005b7000-00eec000 rw-p 005b7000 00:00 0 [heap] 2b53f86ca000-2b53f86e5000 r-xp 08:03 1794316 /lib64/ld-2.4.so 2b53f86e5000-2b53f86e6000 rw-p 2b53f86e5000 00:00 0 2b53f86e6000-2b53f86ed000 r--s 08:03 1643985 /usr/lib64/gconv/gconv-modules.cache 2b53f870b000-2b53f870c000 rw-p 2b53f870b000 00:00 0 2b53f87e4000-2b53f87e5000 r--p 0001a000 08:03 1794316 /lib64/ld-2.4.so 2b53f87e5000-2b53f87e6000 rw-p 0001b000 08:03 1794316 /lib64/ld-2.4.so 2b53f87e6000-2b53f883d000 r-xp 08:03 1794152 /lib64/libm-2.4.so 2b53f883d000-2b53f893c000 ---p 00057000 08:03 1794152 /lib64/libm-2.4.so 2b53f893c000-2b53f893e000 rw-p 00056000 08:03 1794152 /lib64/libm-2.4.so 2b53f893e000-2b53f8c54000 r-xp 08:03 1015184 /usr/lib64/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0.800.19 2b53f8c54000-2b53f8d54000 ---p 00316000 08:03 1015184 /usr/lib64/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0.800.19 2b53f8d54000-2b53f8d61000 rw-p 00316000 08:03 1015184 /usr/lib64/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0.800.19 2b53f8d61000-2b53f8d65000 rw-p 2b53f8d61000 00:00 0 2b53f8d65000-2b53f8df1000 r-xp 08:03 1016704 /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0.800.19 2b53f8df1000-2b53f8ef ---p 0008c000 08:03 1016704 /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0.800.19 2b53f8ef-2b53f8ef6000 rw-p 0008b000 08:03 1016704 /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0.800.19 2b53f8ef6000-2b53f8ef7000 rw-p 2b53f8ef6000 00:00 0 2b53f8ef7000-2b53f8f15000 r-xp 08:03 1191678 /usr/lib64/libatk-1.0.so.0.1211.0 2b53f8f15000-2b53f9014000 ---p 0001e000 08:03 1191678 /usr/lib64/libatk-1.0.so.0.1211.0 2b53f9014000-2b53f9017000 rw-p 0001d000 08:03 1191678 /usr/lib64/libatk-1.0.so.0.1211.0 2b53f9017000-2b53f902d000 r-xp 08:03 1017083 /usr/lib64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0.800.19 2b53f902d000-2b53f912d000 ---p 00016000 08:03 1017083 /usr/lib64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0.800.19 2b53f912d000-2b53f912e000 rw-p 00016000 08:03 1017083 /usr/lib64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0.800.19 2b53f912e000-2b53f9136000 r-xp 08:03 984629 /usr/lib64/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0.1201.2 2b53f9136000-2b53f9236000 ---p 8000 08:03 984629 /usr/lib64/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0.1201.2 2b53f9236000-2b53f9237000 rw-p 8000 08:03 984629 /usr/lib64/libpangocaizsh: abort pcb ./5v0_3v3_v2_Board.pcb ===END=== pgplndn1CS5BO.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Attributes - docs with more complete/recent info?
I'm trying to understand symbol attributes. The most current version of the "master attribute document" that I've found (2004) seems to be missing some things - such definitions for "pins" (seems to be the pin count) and "class" (what are the allowed values?). Is a more up-to-date doc available somewhere? I haven't found any docs which describe the field elements in the x-y positioning lines which apparently have to precede each attribute, nor the other non-attribute elements. Would appreciate any pointers. Any pointers on getting gsymcheck to emit messages more revealing than "Found a pin which did not have the whichone field set." would be appreciated. Purpose - updating sarlacc_sym so that it emits more usable symbols. Of course, if someone else knows of a more current/functional script, I'd be delighted to learn of it. (Oh yes...running Debian/etch geda packages...) TIA! -f ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: GPL and BSD (was: strange build failure)
> I don't understand it. The symbols don't get into the hardware in any way. Footprints do. I think we intended the "use license" to be for embedding in schematics and .pcb files, though. Also, consider a cell phone with GPL'd software in it. Does copyright cover the cell phone? It's hardware, but it includes copyrighted works within it. Can we say the same about the layout of a circuit board? I don't know. Fair use might come into play, the "works" might not be sufficiently unique, etc. This is, IMHO, similar to the issue of copyrighting fonts used for print. > I don't believe hardware is covered by copyright law. Do you believe > that? Sheets of wood pulp with graphite patterns on them are covered. Why wouldn't sheets of fiberglass with copper patterns on them? But I agree it would be a stretch to expect that. I'd rather thing of the "use license" as being "if you use these in your projects, this is the license". The dist-license covers, for example, transcribing the geda libraries into eagle libraries. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: GPL and BSD (was: strange build failure)
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:11:42AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > What's the difference between dist-license and use-license? > > dist-license affects symbol/footprint libraries and other > distributions of the symbol/footprint as symbol/footprint "software". > > use-license affects symbols/footprints within your schematics and > boards, when "distributed" as hardware. I don't understand it. The symbols don't get into the hardware in any way. > > > Just please make sure the components I already uploaded under GPL > > are spread in compliance with GPL. > > Set dist-license to GPL. > > However, if you set use-license to GPL, then it *may* mean that any > physical hardware must be shipped with full schematics and .pcb files > so that the user may change the GPL'd symbols and recreate the board > "from sources". Why do you think? > > > The advantage of GPL is that it promotes free software. > > Yes, but it doesn't work so well with *hardware* which is why we split > the licensing into two parts: distribution and use. I don't believe hardware is covered by copyright law. Do you believe that? CL< > > > ___ > 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
gEDA-user: gEDA/gaf CVS imported into git
Hi everyone, If you're wondering why the SEUL CVS server is being hammered, it's because I'm currently in the process of importing the entire gaf CVS history into git. This is likely to take some hours (it's currently got as far as August 2000), so it'll be a while before the mirror is online. Once the initial import is done, updates will be incremental. It will be hosted by the repo.or.cz public Git hosting site, and the gitweb interface will be at http://repo.or.cz/w/geda-gaf.git I'll follow up with more information on using the repository once it is actually up and running. Regards, Peter -- Fisher Society committeehttp://tinyurl.com/o39w2 CUSBC novices, match and league secretary http://tinyurl.com/mwrc9 CU Spaceflight http://tinyurl.com/ognu2 v3sw6YChw7$ln3pr6$ck3ma8u7+Lw3+2m0l7Ci6e4+8t4Gb8en6g6Pa2Xs5Mr4p4 hackerkey.com peter-b.co.uk pgpbmmbcfklmT.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Re: New version of gEDA Suite availabl
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:05:57 -0500, Stuart Brorson wrote: > I would be interested in hearing experiences of other distro users. Just tried the iso image on a Debian box (mostly testing/etch with some packages from unstable/sid). This box already experienced the previous iso image. So all necessary libs were already present and the configure script did not complain about any missing component. In fact, the installer happily compiled all components without the need to tweak anything. I did not note any changes in the GUI of the installer. Thus, I still see the same issues as last summer: * Please include an option to install to the standard set of paths for software not in the distro (/usr/local/bin, /usr/local/lib, /usr/local/src, /usr/local/man, /usr/local/etc ...) * I gave the installer the paths /usr/locla/geda-src and /usr/local/geda. With these paths the binary of gspiceui is placed in /usr/local/bin/bin/. Its documentation in /usr/local/bin/share/gspiceui. Some man pages are in /usr/local/geda/man, others are in /usr/locla/geda/share/man * Please include an option to compile and install only some of the components. In particular, I have no need for ngspice, gnucap, gspieceui, verilog, gtkwave and wcalc. Yet, these tools take considerable time to compile. * There is no uninstall. * The installer suggests to install necessary libraries from the iso image. IMHO this should only be a fallback if everything else fails. On an average linux box some kind of package manager is supposed to deal with dependencies. Installing important libraries below the radar of the local package manager can lead to funny problems in the long run and interfere with an upgrade of the system. Therefore I'd strongly advise to look for the needed libs in the distro rather than install is from the iso image. * The installer produces a strange message on the command line: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/$ /media/cdrom1/installer print: About to call gtk.main /media/cdrom1/installer.exe:489: GtkWarning: gtk_text_buffer_emit_insert: assertion `g_utf8_validate (text, len, NULL)' failed ��xMØEØéÆùÿÿ÷Øëî÷ÚëÁì ZRÿSÄë¦EØ À├MØK Û� �U���t �:O���:tm�U���t � * Good to see a title page automatically placed in a new gschem sheet. I usually attach some attributes like date, author and file name to the title sym. If only the boxes are locked, the attributes can be edited conveniently on the fly. See my local A4 title sym below: ---8<-- v 20060123 1 B 0 0 11600 8200 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 T 7400 1800 5 10 0 0 0 0 1 graphical=1 L 8800 700 8800 0 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 B 4100 0 7500 1800 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 L 4100 700 10300 700 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 L 10300 1800 10300 700 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 L 10300 700 10300 0 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 L 11250 350 11150 100 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 L 10300 450 11600 450 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 L 10300 1100 11600 1100 15 0 0 0 -1 -1 T 4200 800 15 8 1 0 0 0 1 TITLE T 7400 1300 5 30 1 1 0 4 1 Title=Titel T 4200 100 15 8 1 0 0 0 1 FILE: T 6500 300 5 16 1 1 0 4 1 filename=filename.sch T 10400 1200 15 8 1 0 0 0 1 REV.: T 10950 1500 5 16 1 1 0 4 1 revision=revision T 10400 100 15 8 1 0 0 0 1 PAGE: T 11150 100 5 16 1 1 0 6 1 page=n T 11300 100 5 16 1 1 0 0 1 number_of_pages=m T 10400 550 15 8 1 0 0 0 1 DATE: T 10950 850 5 12 1 1 0 4 1 date=DD.MM.YY T 9000 100 15 8 1 0 0 0 1 DRAWN BY: T 9550 450 5 16 1 1 0 4 1 author=author --->8 -- Kai-Martin Knaak http://lilalaser.de/blog ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
