kicad-developers team mailing list archive

["Frank Bennett" <bennett78@...>]

--- In kicad-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dick Hollenbeck <dick@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a mail i received:
> >   
> >
> > /Hello Jean-Pierre,
> > We are quite impressed with Kicad software. Congratulations
and many
> > thanks for creating this tool.
> > We are a PCB design and manufacuting company: please see our
website:
> > www.protoexpress.com <http://www.protoexpress.com/> .
> > We would like to use Kicad engine ( sourcecode) in a PCB design
> > workbench that we plan to customize for our manufacturing
facility and
> > available on our website for general PCB designers.

My $0.02. I started looking at KiCad because I am a customer
of PCB123.com because they offer "free" schematic, PCB layout with 
a fair auto-router software, DRC...do a design, the PCB board cost 
is computed on screen as the design progresses, then push a button,
give them a credit card, your design is downloaded and in a few 
days you get your PCBs. What I don't like is although you can
print the layout to scale (to see if the footprints are correct if
you have parts in hand) but no Gerber outs, so one is stuck with a
single source PCB supplier...these guys may have the same business
model in mind! The big advantage for both designer and PCB shop is
the common database and DRC checker!
-Frank

> >
> > We would like to know that it is OK with you.
> > Let us know your views.
> >
> > Thanks and best regards
> > Atar Mittal
> > Sierra Proto Express
> > PCB Design Express Division
> > 1098 West Evelyn Avenue
> > Sunnyvale, CA 94086
> > Tel: 408-731-2550
> > /
> >
> > This is not the first request.
> > Until now my answer was:
> > Kicad is under GPL license. You can use the code source as long as
you 
> > comply with the GPL license.
> > But now some (many ?) pieces of codes are written by active
contributors.
> > So i need yours thoughts about this.
> > Of course this message is for active contributors.
> >
> > -- 
> >
> > Jean-Pierre CHARRAS
> >   
> 
> Jean-Pierre,
> 
> SoftPLC Corp has contributed over 7,000 lines of code just *in the last 
> month alone*. Previous to that, it has contributed many many hundreds 
> of lines of code, concepts, and project direction. So SoftPLC
Corp. is 
> clearly a significant owner in this code. We normally bill customers 
> at $75 to $200 per hour. So by any measure the company has invested 
> many many tens of thousands of dollars into the project.
> 
> 
> Maybe in return, one of the things that Sierra could do for SoftPLC 
> Corporation is to make prototype boards at no cost?
> 
> 
> In any case, the moment Sierra were to *distribute* any code, it trips 
> the provision in the GPL which says they MUST make the [modified]
source 
> code available. Therefore, the next decision is how do they plan to do 
> that? And why should that differ from them simply sharing our 
> repository and making those changes available there? This last 
> question is not rhetorical, it is a serious question.
> 
> 
> They can also fund changes they want and let us do them on contract.  
> If a programmer gets paid somewhere, it might as well be one that is 
> familiar with the code.
> 
> 
> I am *really getting raw* about working for free on this thing, and
I do 
> not want somebody to walk off into the sunset with the fruit of our
labor.
> 
> So to summarize, they can:
> 
> 1) honor the GPL, and contribute their new code to our repository, 
> either in trunk or a branch.
> 
> 2) honor the GPL, and do a fork, creating their own online repository 
> where all the new code can be available at any moment.
> 
> 3) honor the GPL, and hire us to do the work.
> 
> 4) honor the GPL, and pay us in free boards for support and future 
> enhancements.
> 
> 
> Once a piece of software is GPL'ed, I suppose it can be forked by its 
> owners (only), to a non-GPL-ed status. But as that ownership is 
> fragmented, this becomes increasingly difficult to pull off legally 
> without offending a dissenting owner. Therefore you would need 
> unanimous agreement among all owners. So I don't list any options 
> beyond 1) to 4) above. That does not mean I have thought of
everything 
> however.
> 
> 
> Dick Hollenbeck
> SoftPLC Corporation
> http://softplc.com
>