Licencing exception similar to KiCad?

[fruchti]

KiCad has an addition/exception to CC-BY-SA for its library licence:

To the extent that the creation of electronic designs that use 'Licensed Material' can be considered to be 'Adapted Material', then the copyright holder waives article 3 of the license with respect to these designs and any generated files which use data provided as part of the 'Licensed Material'.

I'm no expert in this field and cannot judge if/when such an exception is needed, but it makes sense to be able to use a Horizon-generated 3D model of a board (or even just a schematic printout) without the need for attribution of every single part author. While the number of contributors is still pretty small, it should be relatively easy to settle for something.

Personally, I'd tailor the wording of the KiCad licence to Horizon (given the KiCad licence author's permission), but keep the paragraph quoted above the same.

[carrotIndustries]

Definitely makes sense and lines up with my intention for the pool.

[fruchti]

I dropped @SchrodingersGat an email and will open a PR if I get a positive reply. Then, we'll have a concrete wording to discuss upon.

For reference, my email:

Hey!

I'm contributing a bit to another EDA package called Horizon, especially to its library. I came across the exception KiCad's library has to its CC-BY-SA licence: https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-packages3D/blob/master/LICENSE.md.

Because I am no expert in this field, I wanted to asked you (as the author of this exception):

• Have there been any problems licencing-wise? Is there anything that later turned out to be a problem, but couldn't be fixed anymore?
• If there weren't any issues, could Horizon use your text (adopted for Horizon) for its library?

I'd like to open a PR with a document like this now for Horizon because the number of contributors is still pretty small and it should be comparatively easy to agree on a licence change. Our discussion can be found here: #80.

Kind Regards
fruchti

[fruchti]

Got a reply:

Hi,

It was at the advice of some of the legal people at CERN that this exception was added - they felt it was necessary to convey the idea that people were free to use KiCad library files without infecting their own designs (e.g. you don't have to share your design just because you use the official KiCad libraries).

We have not had (to my knowledge) any issues with the current license text. It was previously a version of the GPL and so we had to obtain permission from each contributor to re-license their contributions - which was a big effort!

Another thing to consider is that we have a CLA (https://github.com/cla-assistant/cla-assistant) for the libraries to make license approval much easier.

I don't think there would be any issue with using the same license text, however I am by no means a legal expert so take that with a grain of salt!

Hope this helps,

Cheers

Which sounds good to me. The existence of the CLA implies that the presence of a licence for the pool alone would not be enough that all later contributions are under that licence as well. I don't know if we really need a fixed process at the current scale, though.

[atoav]

Regarding my own contributions please just assume that mindset for this is public domain or CC0. So everybody should be able to use my stuff without shedding too much thought about it.

I – however – would agree to the exception that the pool as a whole should not just be redistributable (i.e. selling it etc.)

I like to get as much high quality contribution for the pool as possible.

This means everything should be low friction, except those parts where a little of friction makes sense (e.g. quality control, making sure that we don't take stuff that is infringing on other intellectual properties etc). The license stuff should be clearly communicated and as frictionless as is practical. I like it, when projects have clear lists. For example with a headline like "I am a electrical engineer and I like to use parts of the pool in my project, what do I need to know?" and then you have a list of points.

So in essence:

• Do what you wish with my contributions, as long as you don't make it proprietary
• Avoid friction (and cognitive load) for contributers in all necessary places, and where there is friction communicate the reasons clearly. If the reason is bogus, get rid of the friction
• We need a dead simple licensing FAQ. License should not be an issue.

[fruchti]

For example with a headline like "I am a electrical engineer and I like to use parts of the pool in my project, what do I need to know?" and then you have a list of points.

• We need a dead simple licensing FAQ. License should not be an issue.

I think that the (now) current LICENSE.md is pretty clear in that regard and that it elaborates these points well. The licence is not all that complex after all. What, in your opinion, is missing there, that should be put in a licencing FAQ?

[atoav]

I think that the (now) current LICENSE.md is pretty clear in that regard and that it elaborates these points well.

No doubt about that. But I am somebody who is very aware of licenses not only in software. I think there might be people, who wouldn't necessarily draw this connection that easily. What I could imagine is to have some sort of "Wanna contribute? section, that just tells people:

1. That contributions are welcome
2. Which guidelines they can have a look at
3. What they need to consider in terms of licensing (e.g. foreign 3D models etc.) and that they agree to the mentioned license

I can remember times where I didn't really understand all that stuff and something like this clearly helps to clarify and set a nice tone.

[fruchti]

A contribution guide would indeed be very helpful. It could also take the form of a checklist (which could also be used for reviewing a PR).