kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Javier Serrano <javier.serrano.pareja@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 29.06.2017 12:18, Javier Serrano wrote:
>
> > I agree the creative side is stronger for symbols than for footprints.
> > Copyrightability is, as you well point out, a subject of debate in
> > various areas. However, I think the real debate we should have is
> > whether we want to make the official libraries permissive or weak
> > copyleft.
>
> I'd be completely fine with PD/CC0 for symbols and footprints, because
> they need to be available to users without having to check license
> compatibility first.
>
> If people are using 3D models for more than nice renderings (e.g. to
> determine the cutout from the case), then a permissive license would be
> required here as well in order to avoid complications for the
> manufacturing files.
>

Please see my comment below on the paragraphs we proposed.



>
> > I am not sure I understand the argument. There are clearly more risks of
> > proprietarization whenever you use a permissive license, because you are
> > explicitly giving permission to improve and not share back.
>
> Designing a license that would require people to share library
> improvements but not their PCB designs would be difficult.
>
>
Wait, what you describe as "difficult" is what the paragraphs we submitted
do. They are written by a lawyer, and I don't see how they could be
misinterpreted. Incidentally, geda does the same, except taking GPL as a
basis instead of CC-BY-SA:

http://wiki.geda-project.org/geda:license

Again, for me the question is: do we want to *explicitly* allow people to
take components of a library, improve them and not share the improvements
back? If yes, CC0. If not, CC-BY-SA with the proposed paragraphs to clarify
that the license provisions do not extend to the whole schematics, layout
or circuit model.

Cheers,

Javier