kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Oliver Walters <oliver.henry.walters@xxxxxxxxx>]

Would it be sufficient to drop the "Copyright (C) 2017 KiCad" header?

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Javier Serrano <
javier.serrano.pareja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Oliver Walters <
> oliver.henry.walters@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Wayne, others,
>>
>> A lot of input here, thanks everyone.
>>
>> Based on the suggestions above, my proposal is as follows:
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> symbols licence file:
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------------------
>> Copyright (C) 2017 KiCad
>>
>>
>  I agree with Simon that "KiCad" cannot be the copyright holder. Imagine
> for the sake of argument I need to contact the copyright holder. Say I
> would like to negotiate with him/her a change of licence. I want to use the
> material without being subject to the CC-BY-SA licence, and I am willing to
> pay for it. So I'd like to benefit from some kind of dual-licensing scheme,
> whereby I receive e.g. a copy of a 3D model file with a special licence
> just for me. Only the copyright holder can do that. Now I go to the file
> and I read "Copyright KiCad." Who should I speak to? Who has the right to
> do what I need? That's just an example. For any action where you would need
> the copyright holder to do something, you'd bump against the same issue.
> One could conceivably define KiCad as a valid legal entity, and then you
> could have KiCad be the copyright holder, as the FSF is the copyright
> holder of lots of code, but that's a strategic change to be discussed, I
> guess, with the project leader and the project initiator. Right now, KiCad
> cannot be the holder of any copyright. The same applies, IMHO, to "KiCad
> developers."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Javier
>