kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Jonas Diemer <diemer@...>]

Hi all,

find attached my correspondance with Toby Howard, licensing manager of the GPC 
library.

Executive Summary:

- GPC will not be released under a GPL or compatible license.

- If we keep GPC in KiCad, we have to note in the software (not just in the 
source code) that a separate license applies for part of KiCad.

- KiCad users must obtain a commercial license of GPC if they choose to use 
KiCad with included GPC for commercial purposes, e.g. create a commercial 
PCB.

Hence, keeping GPC would imply _serious_ licensing problems, far beyond just 
being marked as "non-free".

I say we drop GPC as soon as possible or create a free and a non-free branch 
of KiCad.

Jean-Pierre, could you please comment on this - I haven't heard anything from 
you regarding this yet...

Best regards
Jonas Diemer
 --Boundary-00=_2tbIIq/v5XX2D3w Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="forwarded message"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Toby Howard <tobyhoward@...>: Re: GPC licensing
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <SRS0=z6zW=VW=gmail.com=tobyhoward@...>
X-Original-To: jonas@...
Delivered-To: s1u19p1@...
Received: from mx0.gmx.net (mx0.gmx.de [213.165.64.100])
by dev1.smtec-1.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C14B8388C7
for <jonas@...>; Wed, 7 May 2008 15:05:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (qmail 22988 invoked by alias); 7 May 2008 13:05:00 -0000
Delivered-To: GMX delivery to diemer@...
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 May 2008 13:05:00 -0000
Received: from tranquility.mcc.ac.uk (EHLO tranquility.mcc.ac.uk) [130.88.200.145]
by mx0.gmx.net (mx048) with SMTP; 07 May 2008 15:05:00 +0200
Received: from gomwe.mcc.ac.uk ([10.2.18.2])
by tranquility.mcc.ac.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <tobyhoward@...>)
id 1JtjKN-0009No-I5; Wed, 07 May 2008 14:04:59 +0100
Received: from 81-86-141-103.dsl.pipex.com ([81.86.141.103]:3388 helo=[192.168.2.9])
by gomwe.mcc.ac.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <tobyhoward@...>)
id 1JtjKN-000IQv-6b; Wed, 07 May 2008 14:04:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4821A976.9050808@...>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 14:07:02 +0100
From: Toby Howard <tobyhoward@...>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonas Diemer <diemer@...>
Cc: gpc <gpc@...>
Subject: Re: GPC licensing
References: <200805050941.36949.diemer@...> <200805071336.02046.diemer@...> <4821A3E0.8010107@...> <200805071452.03162.diemer@...>
In-Reply-To: <200805071452.03162.diemer@...>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-Sender: Toby Howard from 81-86-141-103.dsl.pipex.com ([192.168.2.9]) [81.86.141.103]:3388
X-Authenticated-From: toby.howard@...
X-UoM: Scanned by the University Mail System. See http://www.itservices.manchester.ac.uk/email/filtering/information/ for details.
X-GMX-Htest: 0.54
X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam)
X-Resent-By: Forwarder <forwarder@...>
X-Resent-For: diemer@...
X-Resent-To: jonas@...
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on dev1.smtec-1.de
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FORGED_RCVD_HELO 
autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
X-Length: 7871
X-UID: 5342
X-KMail-Filtered: 167589

> Or did you mean something like this:
> 
> " * development of free software which is given away free _for non-commercial 
> use_"

Yes I meant that. Sorry that I was not clear.

> Or to ask specifically for KiCad's use case: KiCad is given away for free 
> (GPL). If we include GPC, we can can do so using the non-commercial license.

Yes, that's right.

> But would _users_ of the free KiCad software have to buy a commercial GPC 
> license if they wanted to use KiCad for a commercial purpose?

Yes they would, and your software (and any advertising etc for it) would 
need to include a note to explain that a GPC Licence would be needed if 
they were to use KiCad for a commercial purposes.

Best wishes
Toby

> 
> Best regards
> Jonas
> 
> 
> Am Mittwoch 07 Mai 2008 14:43:12 schrieb Toby Howard:
>> Hi Jonas
>>
>> by "non-commercial" use we mean any use of GPC (either standalone or as
>> part of another software system, regardless of that system's particular
>> Licence) which does not lead to the generation of profit. For example:
>>
>> * free software for home hobbyist use
>>
>> * products for teaching or academic research that does not lead to a
>> commercial product
>>
>> * development of free software which is given away free
>>
>> So, for example: if GPC were used as part of software that was then
>> sold, or used to generate income in some other way, then we would view
>> that usage as "commercial".
>>
>> Another example: if company X uses GPC as part of its ultimately
>> for-profit research & development process, then then we would view that
>> usage as "commercial".
>>
>> Does that clarify?
>>
>> with best wishes
>> Toby
>>
>> Jonas Diemer wrote:
>>> Hello Toby,
>>>
>>> thanks a lot for you reply. To bad to hear that there won't be a GPL
>>> version of GPC (although I do understand your reasons).
>>>
>>> I am aware of the solution you propose. However, including GPC and noting
>>> the separate license still makes the complete software package "non-free"
>>> (because it contains non-free code). So this is not really an option for
>>> us.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, could you please clarify what the GPC license means by
>>> "non-commercial use"? I.e., is it
>>>
>>> a) Non-commercial use of the GPC lib, so that using the GPC lib in a
>>> GPL-software would be legal, even if the GPL-software would be used for
>>> commercial purposes
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> b) Non-commercial use of any derived work of GPC, meaning that software
>>> which uses the GPC lib is only allowed to be used for non-commercial
>>> purposes (e.g. hobbyist schematic designs in our case)
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Jonas
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch 07 Mai 2008 12:53:03 schrieb Toby Howard:
>>>> Dear Jonas, I have discussed this with GPC author Alan Murta.
>>>>
>>>> We have no plans to release GPC under the GPL.
>>>>
>>>> However, other open source projects such as FlightGear
>>>> (www.flightgear.org) get around this by including GPC in their
>>>> distribution along with a note to state that this particular part of the
>>>> software has its own licensing arrangements.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this approach will work in your case.
>>>>
>>>> With best wishes
>>>> Toby
>>>>
>>>> Jonas Diemer wrote:
>>>>> Dear Mr. Howard,
>>>>>
>>>>> I write you as a developer of KiCad (http://kicad.sourceforge.net/), a
>>>>> free GPL tool for schematic and printed circuit board (PCB) design. We
>>>>> are currently working on improving polygon handling in our PCB tool and
>>>>> are considering the GPC library for this purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, we have some problems with your licensing. First, we are
>>>>> unsure how to interpret "non-commercial use". We consider our
>>>>> application as non-commercial (as it is being licensed under the GPL),
>>>>> but users may decide to use our software for commercial purpose, e. g.
>>>>> to design commercial circuits. Would these users have to obtain a
>>>>> commercial license of the GPC library?
>>>>>
>>>>> In either case, the current GPC license makes the license of our
>>>>> application more complicated: Since the GPC license is considered
>>>>> "non-free" by most linux distributions, our software will be considered
>>>>> non-free as well once we include GPC, which results in the software
>>>>> being moved out of the main repositories of these distributions.
>>>>> Furthermore, relying on non-free libraries will likely scare off some
>>>>> volunteer developers from our team, who do not want to contribute their
>>>>> spare time to a non-free project.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, we consider GPC very capable and would prefer to use
>>>>> it over other (free) alternatives available (Clippoly, CGAL).
>>>>>
>>>>> So, is there any possibility that the GPC library could be released
>>>>> under a GPL-compatible license, e. g. in a dual-license scheme? This
>>>>> way, GPL-projects such as KiCad could use the GPC lib without
>>>>> restrictions. Developers of commercial, non-GPL software would still
>>>>> have to buy your commercial license (unless they want to release their
>>>>> code under GPL as well), so you would not loose profit.
>>>>>
>>>>> We, the KiCad community, and probably the whole GPL community, would be
>>>>> very happy if this could be achieved. So I am looking forward to your
>>>>> reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonas Diemer
> 
> 

-- 

Toby Howard
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/

 --Boundary-00=_2tbIIq/v5XX2D3w--