kicad-developers team mailing list archive

["daystar1013" <daystar@...>]

Well Dick, all I got to say about that is...

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

--- In kicad-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dick Hollenbeck <dick@...> wrote:
>
> 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?
> >
> >
>