Default libraries: GPL licencing vs proprietary designs

We have been discussing this very issue over on the developers forum and also on the github pages for the libraries. Currently the provided information is unclear or unavailable.

The general concensus is that designs made using the KiCad libraries are not the property of KiCad, however users redistributing the library set must do so under the license terms set for the libraries.

It becomes a little more complicated as users can contribute back to the libraries, and it becomes then an issue of how to capture their contributions inside the same license.

There is currently work underway to include in-depth library information on the official KiCad website. This will include explicit information on the nature of the licensing of the libraries. In general (non binding) terms, the libraries should be thought of similar to fonts distributed with an office application. This will be done by the v5 release. The libraries themselves are also in for a large overhaul.

We want users to be able to make use of the default libraries without fear of copyright. This makes them more useful and increases the likelihood that people will contribute back to the libraries.

Hopefully this is helpful. I’m not an expert on licensing to please forgive me if any of the information above is incorrect or misleading, that’s not my intent.

2 Likes

To add to what oliver wrote.
Yes we are aware about the problem. For the 3d model libs we decided to go along and make the symbol exception clear:

Sadly for the symbol and footprint libs we did not yet do this. (In part because non of us are legal experts and we are still waiting for a definite answer from the experts at cern.)

More details also over at the issue on github:

1 Like

Thanks.

Any files leaving my department would be either PDFs or Gerber/other manufacturing files, so, I hope, would not include the libraries (or parts of the libraries).

The company’s main concern is the designs. Though, a statement that generated PDF/Gerber/other exported files don’t contain items subject to GPL or other “third party licenses” (other than the PDF/Gerber/other file format licenses) would be very helpful.

We are working on it. As i said the 3d models already include a clear statement similar to the font exception. We (librarians) would like a similar clear exception for all libs.

It also seems the lib is under the predecessor of the lesser GPL. (It is under Library GPL) not under GPL.

A discussion about this was on the mailing list.
https://www.mail-archive.com/kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net/msg16268.html

1 Like

I think that is a valid concern, it is explained a little further here why it might apply in general https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL. There are several parts of KiCad where it might apply, and when you throw in the libraries it’s even more confusing.The official libraries appear to the user as part of KiCad, since they are installed at the same time, and there is no indication anywhere during the installation that they might have different licensing.

Unfortunately, it’s one of the areas in KiCad where no one seems to have the knowledge or motivation to sort out. I think the project leaders really need to get involved and give some direction.

I don’t think that is a good analogy, because generally the user of an office app is not likely to modify the fonts and re-distribute them, which is likely in the case of KiCad data. Additionally fonts have specific copyright protection depending on their exact type and legal jurisdiction which do not generally apply to data files https://blog.crowdspring.com/2011/03/font-law-licensing/

Both practically and legally, saying KiCad library data is “like a font” is very misleading.

Sharing the kicad-pcb file is more problematic, as it embeds the actual footprint.
This is similar to the issue of a PDF file with embedded fonts

That also might become an issue with the new schematic file format. I would say that the gerber files also reproduce the footprint, and could be considered to be covered works.

I think the elephant in the room, is that engineering data files are not generally covered by copyright, as noted by @Nathan Trying to craft licenses for KiCad data will tend to have a chilling effect on people we would like to use KiCad (as witnessed above), but have absolutely zero practical or legal deterrent to bad actors who copy library data and refuse to share it.

It’s completely impractical to track individual attributions through KiCad data files, so even requiring attribution makes no sense. People might adjust a footprint for their own production process, I really don’t think we care if people share those changes or not. The biggest impediment to sharing is jumping through the hoops of the KLC, and the long backlog of seemingly ignored PRs.

People seem to think that some really bad things might happen if we don’t have a nailed down license, but really it makes no practical difference. We should just declare KiCad data CC0 and have done with it.

1 Like

So to clarify, As long as I play librarian and create the symbols and footprints from scratch, There is no licensing issues for a project?

There should not even be a problem if you use the stuff from the official lib. It might not be that clear currently but i think we will fix it in the long run.

@bobc the problem with cc0 is that it allows for example autodesk to include our lib in their tools without our contributors getting anything back. I think this is the only thing that should be prohibited.
Or at the least i would not explicitly allow it. (Putting something under pulic domain would mean exactly this.)

Footprint images are very unlikely to be copyrightable in the US and Western Europe

I still wish the libraries were under a Creative Commons licence or similar rather than any form of GPL.
Where this leaves symbol and footprint generator code or scripts is another thing - those are source code

There are ideas about using CC-BY-SA 4.0 but even this would need an exeption for one paragraph such that it does not apply to projects created using the assests under this license.
(Specifically Paragraph 3.b: Share alike)

Maybe CC-BY 4.0 would also be an option but this might be again a step too far.

1 Like

Perhaps KiCad could assert a compilation copyright on the library as a whole, while releasing the individual symbols and footprints to the public domain.

Although personally, I’m not really concerned about Autodesk using the KiCad libraries. I think it’s unlikely that they would, and even if they did, I don’t think it would hurt KiCad any. I don’t think that “better libraries” is the reason why people choose KiCad over Eagle.

My employer’s concerns distill down to 2 major points:

  1. Outsider* claims on our designs.

  2. Unwitting, illegal redistribution of outsider property. (Such as entities in Gerber files copied from libraries for, or templates built in to KiCad.)

The business perspective is that license terms limit what outsiders can legitimately claim in front of a judge.

Thanks

  • By “outsider”, I mean anyone not an employee or officer of the company.

Exactly the same applies to PCBs designed using commercial packages. And you had better never read a manufacturers datasheet and derive a footprint from it.
This is why PCBs are defined as tools and not copyrighted in the West, otherwise nobody could do anything

The KiCad team has reached a consensus regarding the KiCad library licensing saga:

The package dimensions, pin spacing, etc. in those datasheets are factual data, which is not copyright-able. However, the text and images in the datasheet may be.

Similarly, while the actual data in the libraries isn’t copyright-able, the library still is.

Depending on how the EDA application incorporates the data into the exported PDF/Gerber/etc files, at least 2 vectors for “leakage” of copyrighted material are possible:

  1. If the EDA app copies strings of bytes from the libraries into the export files, then the export file could be considered derivatives of the libraries.

  2. If the EDA app extracts the data then generates new byte strings to put in the export files, then the export files could be considered derivatives of the app itself.

Commercial EDA apps deal with these issues by stating, in their terms and conditions, that the designs are the property of the users, and that the files produced by the app may be distributed by the users (subject to any limitations accompanying third party libraries the users might choose to use).

This is one step.

The other step needed is for the KiCad application license to include a statement:

  1. Any designs produced with KiCad are the property of the user.

  2. Design files generated by KiCad may be distributed by the user who produced the design, subject to any limitations accompanying any third party libraries the user may choose to use.

(The above should be vetted by an actual intellectual property lawyer before incorporating in to KiCad’s license. I am only relaying the concerns presented to me by the people reviewing the business issues. (The engineering review ended with acceptance of KiCad.))

These requirements should be fulfilled by the new license. (Drafted by the legal department of CERN)

More details about the new license see:

That is the theory in the USA and maybe Europe. All jurisdictions - who knows?

Simulation models are another story and libraries usually contain something like this
** You may not sell, loan, rent, lease, or license the SPICE Model, in whole, in
** part, or in modified form, to anyone outside Your company. You may modify this
** SPICE Model to suit Your specific applications, and You may make copies of this
** SPICE Model for use within Your company only.