kicad-developers team mailing list archive

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

Cirilo,

Can we stipulate as part of the license file that any contributors agree
implicitly that their generated models are released as public domain? i.e.
don't require explicit release from every contributor, as it is inherent to
the library LICENSE?

a) If you contribute model / footprint / symbol to KiCad libraries, they
can be distributed in accordance with [whatever license we choose here]

b) KiCad assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the model data

c) Library data may be shared freely*

* Here "freely" is the current source of contention. I am all for having as
permissive a license as possible - I don't see any benefit from locking the
library down.

Oliver

On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Cirilo Bernardo <cirilo.bernardo@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Oliver Walters
> <oliver.henry.walters@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Would it be sufficient to drop the "Copyright (C) 2017 KiCad" header?
> >
>
> No, because we have no idea who holds copyright. KiCad cannot be a
> copyright holder
> because it is not a legal entity (person or corporation). We would
> need to maintain a text
> file which is a register of the copyright holders of each file.  To
> complicate things, many
> models are generated from parametric scripts.  The scripts themselves
> are copyright
> material but the models produced is a different matter. If you can get
> all script contributors
> to agree, then I think it would be best to release the generated
> models as Public Domain.
> Even this is not so simple because we would need to maintain a
> directory with declarations
> from script contributors to state that the output of the scripts are
> Public Domain. Even
> that is not so simple because some jurisdictions may not accept that
> mechanism.
>
> - Cirilo
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>