kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[easyw <easyw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Javier,

atm our 3d script generated library has already a license similar to geda

https://github.com/KiCad/packages3D/wiki/Model-Licencing

Particularly what has been stated there is the freedom to share the 3D 
models embedded in the design (i.e. a full board and step models for 
data interchange but not a single model to build a standalone library)

Please have a look at the License.

We have generated atm n.1295 3D STEP parametric models script generated 
plus n.500 new connectors and it is growing!
I think is the biggest open source 3D electronic-mechanical library 
available all around!
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=20892&hilit=kicad+collaboration


Best Regards
Maurice

On 06/29/2017 4:21 PM, Javier Serrano wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp