Re: Hardware license
Rich Walker <email@example.com> wrote:
> Walter Landry <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Umm; the .sch and .pcb files are not really source code; they are more
> > > like .pdf files. Also, I'm using a GPL rather than BSD license for the
> > > traditional philosophical reasons: this is an addition to the commons,
> > > rather than a gift to the public domain.
> > If the .sch and .pcb files are not the preferred form for making
> > modifications, then what is?
> The .sch file is only the preferred form for making modifications when
> loaded into an application, which presents a rendering of it. You would
> *not* edit the .sch file; you would use gschem to work on it. So it's
> equivalent to, say, a gimp save-file. The .pcb file is similar.
Well, whatever it is that you use to make modifications is what you
should distribute. That is what most people will want anyway.
It sounds like you need additional programs in order to make the final
device. If you like, you can add a special exemption that says that
distributing those programs is not required in order to distribute the
final device (non-source derived work). This is analogous to the
operating system exception already in the GPL. You would need it
because most systems don't come with all of the tools needed to make