Re: Hardware license

[Rich Walker <rw@shadow.org.uk>]

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:

[snip]

> > 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.

> Could you distribute that?  In that
> case, you could use a slightly modified GPL, where you replace "object
> code" with "non-source derivative works".
> 
> Regards,
> Walter Landry
> wlandry@ucsd.edu
> 
> 

-- 
rich walker | technical person | Shadow Robot Company | rw@shadow.org.uk
front-of-tshirt space to let     251 Liverpool Road   |
                                 London  N1 1LX       | +UK 20 7700 2487