gEDA-dev: Rant on GPL confussion in regards to geda symbols

[Stuart Brorson]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Steve Meier wrote:

> The geda faq states
>
>
> All of the tools and associated files in gEDA will be released under the
> GNU General Public License version 2 (GPL), from Free Software Foundation
>
> I asked once before, does this include the symbol files. There was no
> response from the gaf developers.

Well, we're usually busy with other professional activities.  I can,
however, take the time to update the webpage to clarify licence
conditions, at the latest during the next code sprint on April 21st.
I'll try to do it sooner, however.  If you have some preferred text,
please e-mail it.

> I did understand that some of the
> symbols were contributed under the assuption that they would be
> considered GPL. This implies at the minimum that there is a comingling
> of GPL symbols umong symbols atht as files are at least loosly declared
> GPL by the above statement.
>
> By the way from the asspect of the FSF, if you intend to use the GPL for
> non-code files you should explicitly state taht that type of file is
> considered to be code. Agin from my perspective this is too ambiguious.

Yeah, perhaps somebody can take the time to look at how OO Writer
fonts are licensed?  I can do that during lunch, I guess.....

> At least one of the PCB developers clearly stated that his PCB
> landpatterns were not covered by the GPL.

Hmmm, I know one PCB footprint developer who has his own licence.  He
distributes his footprints separately from the main PCB footprints, so
that's OK.

DJ, Dan, Harry, what licence covers PCB's footprints (if any).  If
there is none, can we choose one which facilitates use of the tools
for commercial purposes?

Stuart