Who can grant permission to repost kicad .exe files?


I copied the Kicad 2.7 version working folder containing pcbnew.exe, gerberview.exe, the demo .kicad_pcb file, and my onePin header module to a thumb drive. Then uninstalled Kicad and gutted any file named Kicad from the hard drive. Kicad worked successfully from the two .exe files on the thumb drive, manually creating a PCB right through to generating a Gerber .zip file. Size of the working folder 20.7MB.


Really, 2.7? -----------


Specifically KZR4017 for Linux and KZR4019 for Win7. I like the ability to append my - one small IC and two or three header - PCBs onto one board before submitting the Gerber .zip to the fabricator. I had not saved the Kicad 3x download files. Now, any search for Kicad is limited to the current version 5 and I was lucky to find a URL to an archived download site in another forum.

If you run pcbnew.exe by itself and create a new PCB, no pads will accept net names including GND. You must open an existing .kicad_pcb that was saved after importing a net containing two grounded pads in order to connect a ground pad to copper fill.


I think, I’m in the same case, I save the kicad installation version I use with me too. Because internet is a moving thing, very hard to ensure if you can open the project 10 year later. So I do cached, and distributed internally. But ask for source code, I have no idea how to!


That should be your signature


I like the Mozilla Public License v2.


I suspect the git tree will be available and easy enough to find practically indefinitely (it’s been forked 249 times and will undoubtedly still be available somewhere if github ever goes down) but binaries for specific older versions may be harder and harder to find.



There was a case that I was involved in and the Judge clearly went 180 degrees from established law. That was an eye-opening moment for me.

So long as there is no profit being stolen, as long as the spirit of the GPL is followed, I consider it rather unlikely that any lawsuits will be filed.


The spirit is the GPL is so that whenever a binary is available (distributed) the corresponding source must be distributed, too. With very old binaries this may not be easy. I think the original poster already knows whether the corresponding source code exists any more.

A different question and problem is that the spirit of the license may be different than the spirit of those who choose and use the license. I guess that most of those who use the GPL for their code don’t actually want to restrict distribution as much as the licence actually does. But in case of multi-author works they can’t just change the licence or give more freedoms without actually consulting all of the copyright owners. There’s at least one case, unfortunately I don’t remember what project it was, where other copyright owners would have changed the licence to allow for easier distributing but one old developer vetoed. So, no binaries at all for one platform. (Apple is the most hostile towards open source development while using the fruits of open source themselves; GPL and their App Store for iPhones are incompatible so that you can’t get GPL’ed apps from App Store.)