kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@...>]

daystar1013 wrote:
> --- In kicad-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dick Hollenbeck <dick@...> wrote:
>
> > bifferos wrote:
> >
> > > --- In kicad-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dick Hollenbeck <dick@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > Sorry for the intrusion - I am not a developer, however I do feel it
> > > necessary to point out that there is no requirement to create any
> > > online repository, and certainly no requirement to make it available
> > > 'at any moment'. One of the options (from GPL v2) is:
> > >
> > > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> > > years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> > > cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> > > machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> > > distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> > > customarily used for software interchange; or,
> > >
> > > I do hope you sort something out though. I'm sure it will benefit the
> > > Kicad community.
> > >
> > > best regards,
> > > -biff.
> > Good point. A lawyer would make that distinction. 
> >
> > But as a practical matter, if the licensee were to receive weekly 
> > requests for the source code (from developers here for example), there 
> > would probably be no distinction. Why would someone here want to spend 
> > time writing code that he/she was legally entitled to for free 
> > elsewhere? Time is money.
> >
> >
> > Dick Hollenbeck
> > SoftPLC Corporation
> > http://softplc.com


> It's covered under the GPL and if its not you need to remove the GPL
> license from the distribution...

It is licensed under the GPL version 2. What is your confusion?

> He didn't even have to ask,

The licensee does not have to ask. That is true. But he agrees to the 
terms of the license by using the code.

> , I mean really
> Its either GPL or its not
> Jean Pierre's initial response is the only correct one...


No, this is very incorrect. 


Copyrights are owned by "owners". SoftPLC Corp. is a partial owner 
among other developers who are owners in Kicad.


Owners have rights under the GPL:


http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=broadband&articleId=9051799&taxonomyId=171&intsrc=kc_top


As owners, we were having a discussion about what the obligations of 
licensees are. It started out as a discussion among owners, but now 
seems to be involving licensees.


> What did you expect from your efforts when you started contributing, I
> thought it was about making a great program even better.


Yes, but to be frank, we had no idea the program required so much work 
to get it to where it could do high end boards. Now it is looking very 
inequitable. We make the big investment, and then folks like you get 
antsy when we point out the investment.

Seems quite unfair to me.


Dick



> Perhaps I was
> wrong?