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
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
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,
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):
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, DJ Delorie wrote:
snip
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
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
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
[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,
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
