Is CircutMaker LGPL ?  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Bloch
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 21, 2015, 03:52:19 pm
content: Is CircutMaker LGPL ?

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2015, 03:53:08 pm
content: No, just use LGPL components. You can do that with theLGPL, but you have to include the license terms.

author: Bloch
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 21, 2015, 03:56:31 pm
content: Ok that make sense.But why not mention thecomponents name in the file ?

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2015, 03:59:31 pm
content: Because that's above and beyond the bare minimum they're legally required to do.

author: Bloch
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 21, 2015, 05:19:21 pm
content: Thankyou

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 11:39:43 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on June 22, 2015, 10:46:10 amBut what's really the difference between pointing to some (Altium, Eagle, Diptrace etc) projects files on a Github server and Altium's project files on their server,if both solutions require you to have the program in order to open the file?QuoteBut those files are useless to you without having Circuit Maker. Just like Eagle files are useless to you without installing Eagle etc.Unless you want to starting about conversion, which IMO is another conversation.

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 11:47:06 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 22, 2015, 11:39:43 amYou can download the projects files form Github now and use it in the future even if Altium don't exist anymore.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 11:54:01 am
content: Quote from: sync on June 22, 2015, 11:47:06 amOk, but playing devil's advocate - what if Github doesn't exist in the future?What if you store the files on your own server (surely meeting GPL requirements) and it doesn't exist in the future?What if you store the files on *insert any service here* and it doesn't exist in the future?What is the compelling reason that makes having the files on Altium's server any different?If any argument is based on "risk", "history", "number of users" etc, then I suspect that argument is not a valid one.

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 12:07:27 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 22, 2015, 11:54:01 amDoesn't matter if you have downloaded the files before.QuoteIt's the same with all of your files/data. Yes, you can lose them. It's in your responsibility to prevent that.QuoteOf cause it's about risk. And that is a very valid argument. Does Altium guaranteed that it's service (under the same conditions) is still available in 5, 10, 15, 20 years?That is one difference between Altium files on Github and the CM cloud.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 12:11:21 pm
content: Quote from: sync on June 22, 2015, 12:07:27 pmThen to be fair, the same can be said for files on the Altium server, right?Remember, these filesare on your local drivewhen you download the project. If you chose not the make a copy copy of those files yourself, then that'syourproblem, right?QuoteErr, does Github, or any other service?If the only argument is about guarantees, then IMO that's not a valid argument.I don't really know the GPL requirements, but show me were it says the files have to be stored in a place with guaranteed access in 5, 10, 15, 20 years.QuoteHow exactly?Forgive me for being dumb, but I don't really see it unless you want to talk semantics.

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 12:44:33 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 22, 2015, 12:11:21 pmIn the CM case. Can you load these files into the application? If not they are useless.QuoteIt's not about the online server availability. With Github you can make your own copy of the files. THAT's the difference. And you can keep the files (and a copy of the application) for many years.Regarding the GPL. When you distribute work containing GPL stuff you have to provide the source files (on request). With CM you can't that.But I can't understand why hardware is GPL licensed. It's a software license and really not suitable for other stuff.

author: Tabs
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 12:57:26 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 22, 2015, 12:11:21 pmI think you're missing the point:Any online storage service will allow you to download the files and make a local copy of them on your own computer.CM gives you local copies of the files from the their cloud service because they (Altium) want to conserve bandwidth stress on their servers.You can't choose to save locally offline. You get it as a by product of the protocol/use case CM implements.This can change at any time.Secondly, all cad tools (bar CM) will work locally in offline mode on your local files. CM requires you to have a connection to the internet and logged in to the CM ecosystem.If eagle as a company disappeared over night, you could still access and work on your files and you can still produce new designs if you wished.If CM stopped working you'd be stuffed.You proved as much in your review of CM when you pulled the ethernet cable from the computer. CM wouldn't let you do anything.In this case the dependence on the ethernet cable goes all the way through the internet to Altiums servers. It would be no different if Altium pulled the cable on their end.The other tools (KiCAD, Eagle, CS, AD, DipTrace etc) are not locked down so aggressively and the communities that use those tools can survive without the company behind the tool.Open source tools like KiCAD go one step further in that if all the KiCAD developers decided to stop for what ever reason, anyone can take their place (if they had the ability).The likelihood of being stuffed by the likes of KiCAD in 10, 15, 20 years is very much minimised compared to CM which is driven by a company with commercial interests.If CM wasn't contributing to Altium in the way they wanted it to, I wouldn't blame them for killing it off.Of course, I would expect them to set it free (as in let people download their stuff & let CM work offline) rather then kill it. Killing it would be a publicity problem and the open sourcecommunity would never trust them again.

author: ehughes
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 01:36:51 pm
content: Applying (L)GPL to hardware is like applying divorce law to your traffic citation. It simply doesn't work as it applies to work outside the scope of the law. No PCB design can be compliant with the (L)GPL. Even with KiCAD. The artifact of the design is not a piece of software.Once you move into the physical world you can't apply the GPL. Why? Because it is not possible to traverse the entire chain of the development tools and require them to all be open. You have to place a boundary somewhere. For hardware, the only practical solution is to put the boundary at a copy of the artifacts of the design process. I.E. BOMs, PDF schematics, gerbers, etc. That gives you enough for someone else to work on the design.The real question is if CM can be used to build OSHW hardware. The answer would that be certainly yes. All you have to do is provide the schematics, Gerbers, BOMs, etc in pdf along with the proprietary design files.. That is enough to inspect, build or modify the design. There is no requirement that modify has to be easy. It would be nice, but not requisite to be open hardware.

author: timofonic
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 01:47:00 pm
content: Quote from: Tabs on June 22, 2015, 12:57:26 pmThey don't care a shit. Vendor lock-in and market traction does the job. Just do like Microsoft, free dose in universities...They just want to expand their market and if not, GTFO. Just like any corporation, ethics are just short term PR.EDA moguls are very dangerous, software giants do lots damage to industries. Mentor, Cadence, Altium, Keysight, Zuken... this oligopoly is causing poisoning to the art of electronics.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 01:53:28 pm
content: Quote from: Tabs on June 22, 2015, 12:57:26 pmI understand that, but technically peopledoget the files. So, i ask, ultimately as far as a license is concerned, that's the difference?QuoteCorrect, but what's that got to do with the validity of a meeting the license requirements?QuoteCorrect. But once again, but what's that got to do with the validity of a meeting the license requirements?

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 01:59:18 pm
content: Quote from: ehughes on June 22, 2015, 01:36:51 pmThat's not a GPL requirement. You can perfectly create GPL stuff with proprietary tools. But GPL is a software license. Not suitable for other stuff.

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 02:18:05 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 22, 2015, 01:53:28 pmThe GPL (2.0) contains the following:QuoteSo the question is if the locally cached files are distributable in a way that others can use, make modifications to and distribute with their own changes. (The clause is there to prevent companies from distributing the source engraved on stone tablets, translated to cuneiform and similar dickery.)But as several people have pointed out, the GPL or LGPL are not good licenses for hardware.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 05:05:22 pm
content: you can't apply GPL or LGPL to hardware.simple case : it would require the schematics, masksets and the chemistry / fab technology of any integrated circuit you use to be available... good luck on that one ... you would have to open the production processes for resistors. the chemistry of the electrolyte used in the capacitors...

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 05:10:06 pm
content: Not sure if anyone already linked this,From their FAQ:http://documentation.circuitmaker.com/display/CMAK/CircuitMaker+-+((FAQs))Quote

author: Tabs
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 05:23:05 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 22, 2015, 01:53:28 pmI think Altiums control of CM and its use has absolutely everything to do with it (meeting the terms of the licence)So, just a few points to lay the groundI'm not an expert on law or open source licenses so if anything I say is incorrect, please correct me.I've skimmed the licence documents to help me write this answer (not want to look like an idiot for talking about licences that I've not looked at).I haven't read every line, I just picked the passages that help me support my argument. I therefore, may be guilty of cherry picking text.It's not my intention to mislead anyone or to mis-represent the licence. If this does happens, please accept my apologies and correct me.I will argue CMs business model is a new concept in as far as the way it locks down the CM ecosystem. In some cases, this may have leapfroggedsome open source licences because the authors of those licenses didn't consider a model where the cad tool itself could disappear. In such a case,where the wording of the licence does notspecificallystate its incompatibility with the model, I will attempt to argue theintentbehind the licenceis violated by the CM model. This will bemyinterpretation of intent. I do this because where a legal framework is grey, the intent behind the frameworkhas been used to determine guild/innocence.I wish to make clear that what we are arguing about is the designdocumentationof the hardware, not the physical hardware.I will refer to open source documentation to explain this point.An authors intention to place their work under an open licence, implies that they agree with the terms, definitions & responsibilities asserted by that licence.I would also like to address the point that some licences are not meant for open source hardware. Examples are (L)GPL.I think it depends on your definition of open source hardware and what you think you're protecting by placing such things under a licence.The open source hardware association states in this sitehttp://www.oshwa.org/faq/any emphasis or bold text is my own addition for clarity.Quote from: OSHWA& for the GPL itself I pulled the following fromhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.htmlQuote from: GNU/FSFSo (L)GPL and others like it are copyleft licences -> CopyLeft licences are perfect for anything copyrightable -> design files for open source hardware are copyrightable -> the design files are what is referred to as open source hardrware.There you go, ipso-facto (L)GPL and others like it can be applied to open source hardware. Remember it applies to the design files andnot the manufacturing process, the chemistry, masksets, the fab etc.Some people, therefore, feel justified in interpreting the words "source code" or "program" in the GPL as references to design documentation.If you don't like that definition then I refer you to ground rule (5) above and suggest you choose a different license with different view.I would much rather use a copyleft license specifically worded for hardware.Here are some key quotes:Quote from: GNU/FSFQuote from: OSHWA& from CERN OHLhttp://www.ohwr.org/attachments/2388/cern_ohl_v_1_2.txt(CERN uses the OSHA definitions)Quote from: CERN OHLI could look at other licenses but my eyes are glazing over.I'd bet they all have something similar.I and others have argued CM is not compatible with open source licences and I have tried to make my position clear in another thread, but in hindsight,I would say CM is a great tool, but its business model and restrictions make it impossible for the author of open sourced licensed works to guarantee theavailability or editability of his/her work in for any period (small or large) of time. In this way the restrictions and lockdown of the tool work to limit theauthor and stop him/her meeting their obligations under their chosen license.Granted, the licences do not specify a time limit on availability (I would therefore assume they want availability forever). All except the CERN license, which states 3 years.Even OSHA implies that things cant be open source until the files are available. I would argue that this implies available & editable. With CM, your files may be availablebut without CM being able to phone home they may as well be non-existent.

author: Tabs
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 05:37:16 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on June 22, 2015, 05:10:06 pmThat's a bit misleading.I could make an embedded computer board (like the iMX6 Rex) in CM. Of course it will run Linux which is a third party party open source software.There's no new information in the first statement.The second statement is even more confusing.What are they saying. If I choose to share a project on CM, the project will be subjected to an open source software or hardware licence. Their wordingsuggests they choose the licence. Do I at least get a say?Thirdly, just pointing out that even Altium think the hardware CM projects can be subject to (L)GPL. They wouldn't be throwing those acronyms aroundjust to spread some (f)ud among less informed users?

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 06:12:33 pm
content: Quote from: Tabs on June 22, 2015, 05:23:05 pmThat is not specified in the license, which is one of the problematic parts. For example, how is this supposed to be interpreted when the thing covered by the license is the user product itself?QuoteSimilarly, if you're given a finished product covered by the LGPL, how is the "combined works" clause meant to be interpreted?QuoteThat is lifted from the GPL:Quote

author: Tabs
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2015, 06:36:04 pm
content: Quote from: andersm on June 22, 2015, 06:12:33 pmI guess thats where my expertise on the matter fall short.If these are legitimate points of confusion then they need be discussed and resolved.I restricted my reply to design documents and not the end physical product & advised the selection of a more appropriate licence for physical h/w.Does any of what you said change the position CM is in with regards to allowing the user to meet their obligations to ensure availability of any design files they publish under these open source licenses?

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2015, 08:53:55 am
content: Quote from: Tabs on June 22, 2015, 05:23:05 pmUnfortunately that FAQ is simplified and misleading, by "other works" they mean "othercopyrightableworks".The other FAQ specific to hardware is unfortunately just as confusing and unhelpful:QuoteIOW, "no".Generally, "utility works" are not covered by copyright. This would certainly cover Gerber files. Copyright might cover a schematic drawing, but copyright does not cover the circuit topology (only a patent can do that).It is only due to lobbying by the very lucrative software industry seeking protection that software is even covered by copyright, with other special grants like IC masks, and yacht designs.The tldr is that legally speaking, GPL, Creative Commons or any copyright derived license is effectively unable to protect a hardware design. This is a problem all OSHW organisations are struggling with, the law is insufficient to create legal binding open or "copyleft" licenses for hardware.The only way GPL is useful for hardware is to consider it as a "social contract", or a guideline for best practice. An Open Source Hardware design should meet the four freedoms: freedom of use, study, manufacture and distribution, modification and sharing.