Re: [ng-spice] new guy: licensing issues
To |
ng-spice-devel@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it |
From |
Reid van Melle <reid@ada-works.com> |
Date |
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:33:43 -0600 |
Delivered-To |
mailing list ng-spice-devel@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it |
In-Reply-To |
<Pine.LNX.3.96.1000112184121.28521A-100000@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it> |
Mailing-List |
contact ng-spice-devel-help@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it; run by ezmlm |
References |
<Pine.LNX.3.96.1000112184121.28521A-100000@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it> |
Reply-To |
ng-spice-devel@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it |
I redirected this discussion to the devel mailing list since I think this is
where it should eventually reside anywhere: unfortunate for anybody following
the thread on the previous list.
> the not-yet-named circuit simulator will be higly modular in it's
> structure. While is not possible to link GPL covered code with non-GPL
> one, is still possible to link via an .so a part of the code that is not
> necessary to for the GPL code to work.
As the new simulator develops (you guys really have to come up with a name
because the phrase "not-yet-named" it too long and awkward:), we will
definitely
look at this possibility. It may be good exposure for your simulator to have
a
company using it via plug-ins. On the flip side, I think our company would be
setting a good example for the EDA industry by using a GPL simulator and
making
contributions to it, instead of developing our own proprietary hacks as most
of
the EDA industry has done in the past.
It seems that Spice has been improved in the same way by hundreds of
companies. And in every case, the changes are kept proprietary or the company
turns around and sells it as a new simulator. I guess everybody wants to make
money on simulation etc, but the Spice-ripoffs have become somewhat
ridiculous.
I know that we don't want to spend thousands for a license when the software
is almost entirely the free BSD version with a few minor changes and a new
name.
> > It is also somewhat cleaner since a single binary can be shipped to the
> > customer.
> In our design, the simulator behaves like a library, with some internal
> structures, etc. but the front end is a separate program that use the
> "simulator" capabilities. So it may be good for you.
From our perspective, it would be nice if the simulator was developed with the
idea of being used as a library. As EDA applications become more complex and
work at higher levels, simulators are increasingly used as small pieces of
larger software projects/suites.
> > Since the rewritten simulator is still quite a ways off, the current
> > development tree of ng-spice-rework is only of interest at this point.
>If the
> > BSD license stays on this, then there is no issue anyway. We would still
>be
> > wiling to make code contributions if they overlap with your own efforts.
>
> I think that each one of us should express his/her point of view here.
At this point, my plan is to integrate with the ng-spice-rework code if
possible. Whether I become an official part of the development effort is yet
to be determined. Of course, with a small company like ours (approx 12
people), I can only spend significant time on development which meets our
corporate goals. At the least, I will let your team know exactly what
changes/improvement I'm making. If they are of interest to your effort, then
I
will be more than happy to make contributions to the ng-spice-rework CVS
tree.
In the meantime, we will follow development of the new simulator, offering
help
and suggestions whenever possible. When the software matures somewhat,
there's
a good possiblity we will be anxious to try to access the GPL simulator via
plug-ins of some sort.
BTW, our company may also be getting involved in the gEDA project
on some front-end tools.
Reid
Partial thread listing: