On 12/15/2015 5:13 PM, "Torsten Hüter" wrote:
>
> Hi Wayne,
>
> thank you very much for your efforts. I'm guessing that this is not an easy
> topic and takes thus more time.
> Hopefully a good solution can be found this way.
As soon as I hear back from the FSF, I will forward the license to th
Hi Wayne,
thank you very much for your efforts. I'm guessing that this is not an easy
topic and takes thus more time.
Hopefully a good solution can be found this way.
Maybe it makes then sense to announce this change on the KiCad homepage, I
could also imagine to add a definition of the "audi
Thanks for wrangling this, Wayne!
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Wayne Stambaugh
wrote:
> I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that I did not forget about
> our library license issue. I sent a modified version of the gEDA symbol
> library (GPL font exception) to the FSF for comment on Nov
I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that I did not forget about
our library license issue. I sent a modified version of the gEDA symbol
library (GPL font exception) to the FSF for comment on November 20. I
received a reply that they are looking at and will get back to me. I'm
not sure what
On 03/24/2012 04:13 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Dick,
>
> The point is that you cannot restrict A, B, C or D with copyright.
>
> --brian
Much becomes possible when there is a contract in place.
That entails agreement, consideration, and terms and conditions.
[oops, and usually lawyers.]
D
Opendous,
Really open person Opendous Support wrote:(Sun, 25 Mar 2012
00:24:10)
> >[components] --A--> [KiCad board file] --B--> [pcb hardware]
> >The point is that you cannot restrict A, B, C or D with copyright.
>
> Ah, thank you! You have now clearly defined the core con
>[components] --A--> [KiCad board file] --B--> [pcb hardware]
>The point is that you cannot restrict A, B, C or D with copyright.
Ah, thank you! You have now clearly defined the core concern: A.
Altium is a well lawyered-up EDA company and if you read their EULA
they seem to believe they
Dick,
The point is that you cannot restrict A, B, C or D with copyright.
--brian
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> [components] --A--> [KiCad board file] --B--> [pcb hardware]
>
> [components] --C--> [Commercial software board file]
>
>
> Seems we have universal agreement tha
Fabrizio,
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012, Fabrizio Tappero wrote:
> Brian,
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock
> wrote:
> > Karl,
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Karl Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> There is a very easy solution to all this - use the LGPL for anything
> >> that gets distribute
I think that while C would be a concern if KiCAD were a commercial
effort, it is in fact desirable for an open source project to be thus
pillaged. Either true value added is provided by a good company and
KiCAD get's some credit; or you sic the EFF on them and get some publicity.
Anyway, here's my
[components] --A--> [KiCad board file] --B--> [pcb hardware]
[components] --C--> [Commercial software board file]
Seems we have universal agreement that we are not trying to restrict A or B.
[pcb hardware] --D--> [pcb hardware]
There is some question as to whether anyone can restrict cop
Brian,
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock
wrote:
> Karl,
>
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Karl Schmidt wrote:
>
>> There is a very easy solution to all this - use the LGPL for anything
>> that gets distributed with kicad and don't think or talk about it any
>> more. - Ever.
>
> An LGP
Thank you all for contribute to this discussion.
Yesterday, I searched a local law (Japan) for a board design,
and finally I know that board designs are not protected by copyright
(as brian says).
Then, what's the meaning of library license?
How we use the licensed library in our own project? (li
Karl,
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Karl Schmidt wrote:
> There is a very easy solution to all this - use the LGPL for anything
> that gets distributed with kicad and don't think or talk about it any
> more. - Ever.
An LGPL work distributed and intended only to work with a GPL work is
derivative of the
> Let me make a more general comment: I think this may be different in
> different countries. Plus, depending on the country, the authorities
> may or may not accept "there is no international copyright protection
> on PCBs" when someone sues someone else about violating some license
> with the he
How about a cheating girlfriend who you decide to forgive because she
is too gorgeous for you to let her go ?
just kidding mate
fabrizio
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
> There is a very easy solution to all this - use the LGPL for anything that
> gets distributed with kicad
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Fabrizio Tappero <
fabrizio.tapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> Element, I actually would like to add a commend on this second last
> point (a component database). If we talk about kicad-only component
> database, the contribution in making this component database
There is a very easy solution to all this - use the LGPL for anything that gets distributed with
kicad and don't think or talk about it any more. - Ever.
Here is why - no single symbol or footprint design would be protected in court in the real world
other than if the whole body of work (the co
Hello Dick,
I think lib components should be licensed LGPL and (just to make
everybody sleep well) it could be stated somewhere that ANY derivative
schematics and PCB will be licensed independently and according to
what the kicad user (the schematic/pcb creator) wants.
for lib component CC0 is al
Hello,
Element, I actually would like to add a commend on this second last
point (a component database). If we talk about kicad-only component
database, the contribution in making this component database grow will
only come from Kicad people. Instead if such a database had magic
conversion tools th
> So if what we have is communism, this explains why there are no significant
> parts in our
> libraries. My earlier remarks are NOT a knock on those who signed up to
> improve our
> libraries. It is just a recognition that communism does not work.
> Dick
Well, I think they (communists) tried
>My point of view is not firm yet, other than that I know I am not a communist.
>I don't ever see communism working, no where, no how.
>So if what we have is communism, this explains why there
>are no significant parts in our libraries.
Having attempted to contribute I think it is mostly due to
Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents, from someone who is all *too* familiar
with these types of discussions.
* Libraries and modules distributed with Kicad should be public domain for
maximum flexibility. I would assume Kicad is meant to be used in a
commercial environment and I'd hate to have to
After watching Charlie Rose last night with two segments on Steve Jobs, one gem
in there
was a statement he once made when somebody asked if they should create focus
groups to
find out what customers want. His response was:
"How are they going to know what they want until we show it to them?"
Totally agree with your point:
> 2) 9 times out of 10, when I have to use a symbol, I have to make my own.
Even if I use a module from the library, I have to check it. It's
better to find out in pcbnew if a footprint doesn't match rather than
after etching and drilling a hundred holes. Just the o
As an example of how lawyered-up EDA companies treat libraries,
refer to section 3.1 and 3.2 of the Altium EULA:
http://www.altium.com/products/eula.cfm
Their EULA restricts use of libraries to their products. You cannot
restrict the use of something you do not own so I assume Altium's
lawyer
On 03/22/2012 10:06 AM, Fabrizio Tappero wrote:
> Hello,
> if we look at what the GEDA guys do/did, I seem to understand that
> they licensed everything (software and libraries) under GNU GPL:
> https://github.com/bert/gschem-symbols
>
> Word-processor templates for open-source word processors are
This discussion about the library license is a really interesting
topic, made me think all day.
I just want to put this out there first, so you know where I'm coming
from: when I contribute code or content to an open source project, I
mostly just want to share something I made, that I find useful,
On 03/22/2012 10:06 AM, Fabrizio Tappero wrote:
> Hello,
> if we look at what the GEDA guys do/did, I seem to understand that
> they licensed everything (software and libraries) under GNU GPL:
> https://github.com/bert/gschem-symbols
>
> Word-processor templates for open-source word processors are
2012/3/22 Dick Hollenbeck :
> Market share seems to be what we are after?
>
> "Market share" makes us what again? Proud? Great in the eyes of our
> children?
>
> I cannot remember, maybe I never knew.
More people using KiCad, means more free people, since they won't be
tied to proprietary clo
> Martin
>
> P.S. I am leaving the list. I don't need to be called a fool.
Martin,
Coming into our "board room" and telling the owners that they should not talk
about
something, a concern raised by a user, obviously did not sit well with me.
I am willing to apologize for my (over) reaction if
On Mar 22, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 03/22/2012 06:38 AM, Opendous Support wrote:
> Footprints are not subject to copyright either.
> They are not creative: ... they are simple data
> gathered from JEDEC, IPC and manufacturer sources.
>> Copyright is designed to p
On 03/22/2012 09:20 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo wrote:
> In fact, I think that GPL is a bad license for the libraries kicad libraries,
> (authorship details appart...),
>
> In my opinion:
>
> * GPL is perfect for all the *sourcecode of KiCad*, and that must be keept
> like that.
>
> * GPL license
There is no universal "copyright law" accepted worldwide. So what
"copyright law"? American, japanese, lesothean? Of course, we know the
origin of GPL, everybody can read. The "copyright law" is in many
countries a set of very stupid rubbish apparently created by
non-computer people. So, before
Hello,
if we look at what the GEDA guys do/did, I seem to understand that
they licensed everything (software and libraries) under GNU GPL:
https://github.com/bert/gschem-symbols
Word-processor templates for open-source word processors are
open-source tools like LibreOffice could be distributed und
On 03/22/2012 06:38 AM, Opendous Support wrote:
Footprints are not subject to copyright either.
They are not creative: ... they are simple data
gathered from JEDEC, IPC and manufacturer sources.
> Copyright is designed to protect the "original expression of ideas,
> and not the ide
In fact, I think that GPL is a bad license for the libraries kicad
libraries, (authorship details appart...),
In my opinion:
* GPL is perfect for all the *sourcecode of KiCad*, and that must be keept
like that.
* GPL license is bad for the* library parts or footprints* (at least LGPL
or some ki
On 03/22/2012 07:32 AM, Martin wrote:
> I would highly recommend to avoid any copyright notices at all. Kicad is
> OpenSource and all contributors working in the best meaning of the
> OpenSource ideas. Introduction of copyright in any form may have fatal
> impact to the future of this wonderful
Of course I meant licenses other than GPL or Creative Commons. Many of
us are badly affected by the nasty things about ACTA
Martin
Dne 22.3.2012 13:49, Martijn Kuipers napsal(a):
On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Martin wrote:
I would highly recommend to avoid any copyright notices at all. K
On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Martin wrote:
> I would highly recommend to avoid any copyright notices at all. Kicad is
> OpenSource and all contributors working in the best meaning of the OpenSource
> ideas. Introduction of copyright in any form may have fatal impact to the
> future of this won
I would highly recommend to avoid any copyright notices at all. Kicad is
OpenSource and all contributors working in the best meaning of the
OpenSource ideas. Introduction of copyright in any form may have fatal
impact to the future of this wonderful software.
Stop this thread, please!
Martin
>>>Footprints are not subject to copyright either.
>>>They are not creative: ... they are simple data
>>>gathered from JEDEC, IPC and manufacturer sources.
Copyright is designed to protect the "original expression of ideas,
and not the ideas themselves". For example, if you take a photograph
of
Miguel,
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo wrote:
> I can be wrong, but, anything that's been designed by an author, has
> authorship, and it makes it have copyright.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock� The reasonable man adapts himself to the �
bid
I can be wrong, but, anything that's been designed by an author, has
authorship, and it makes it have copyright.
I understand that for the footprints, and for the schematic symbols,
they will mostly come from IPC/JEDEC or
the datasheet. But even in the work of creating symbol libraries it's
always
Heiko,
Footprints are not subject to copyright either. They are not
creative: (if they are any good) they are simple data gathered
from JEDEC, IPC and manufacturer sources. The same applies to
standard symbols used in a schematic library.
It's not worth worrying about: really.
--brian
On Wed,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Everyone,
On 03/21/2012 10:44 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Dick,
>
> Because only artistic works, software and chip masks are protected
> by copyright (internationally). Functional items such a PCB
> boards are not protected. Using library da
Dick,
See, for example:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLHardware
--brian
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Dick,
>
> Because only artistic works, software and chip masks are
> protected by copyright (internationally). Functional items
> such a PCB boards are not
Dick,
Because only artistic works, software and chip masks are
protected by copyright (internationally). Functional items
such a PCB boards are not protected. Using library data to
make a board is "using" your copy of the data anyhoo: not
copying it and distributing it... So you can make whatev
On 03/21/2012 01:47 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo wrote:
> For wider adoption, may be a LGPL / MIT or BSD license would make more sense.
>
> In my opinion the libraries may be license neutral, or public domain.
>
> It would be great if companies started using Kicad for normal
> development without
>
On 03/21/2012 07:21 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Miguel,
>
> Printed circuit board designs are not protected under copyright.
>
> --brian
Why not?
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launc
Miguel,
Printed circuit board designs are not protected under copyright.
--brian
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo wrote:
> For wider adoption, may be a LGPL / MIT or BSD license would make more sense.
>
> In my opinion the libraries may be license neutral, or public domain.
>
> It
Kenta,
Printed circuit boards and their fabrication inputs and even their
designs are neither subject to nor protected by copyright. The same
applies for schematics. GPL2 only addresses copyright, so for board
designs and fabrication outputs you can ignore it.
Ask youself whether you want to us
For wider adoption, may be a LGPL / MIT or BSD license would make more sense.
In my opinion the libraries may be license neutral, or public domain.
It would be great if companies started using Kicad for normal
development without
any legal problems.
2012/3/21 Kenta Yonekura :
> Dear All,
>
> I
Dear All,
I have a question for KiCad default library.
Now, it's released under GPLv2.
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~kicad-lib-committers/kicad/library/revision/113/COPYRIGHT.txt
If I make a '.sch', '.brd' or any gerber data using it, my data will
become GPLed?
When I checked some files that I m
54 matches
Mail list logo
