[Arm-netbook] Use of 2N3904

[jm]

On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 17:51 +0000, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:35 PM, jm <joem at martindale-electric.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > You have to excuse my ignorance. I know of the GPL and I have
> > heard of the AGPL but not looked at AGPL under microscope.
> > Why is it important to have AGPL instead of GPL?
> 
>  section 13 is the relevant bit (of AGPLv3).   the difference in the
> AGPL is that if you make modifications, you have to make a prominent
> offer to all users that interact with it over "remote networks" which
> will allow them to download the source code at zero charge via
> standard software copying methds.
> 
>  i think that's kinda cheeky and also kinda cool at the same time :)
> 
>  so, let's say that a chinese company modifies AGPLv3-licensed
> hardware, then they would have to put up a notice - probably on-screen
> or on the packaging of the device that they copied - saying "the
> hardware design can be downloaded from http://gitorious.org/blahblah"
> and actually put it up there.
> 
>  which means that, as long as they didn't modify over 15-20% of the
> schematics such that they could legitimately claim it really _was_
> their copyright, they'd be actually advertising your product for free,
> yaay! :)

As far as I know, that is not correct.
Copyright applies to even one copied line if the context was maintained.
If someone originally wrote "Cry wolf and let loose the dogs of war!"
in a war scene, then no one has the right to copy that because it is so
distinctive a passage, until its rights have expired.

That is why the GPL is so much better.
So if something got released in GPL or creative commons, they
must acknowledge the original source, and must also release their
modified works under same GPL/creative commons license without removing
it and other names of rights holders from their derivative works.

So typically all your rights will be in tact if you say released it
as Copyright (C) Luke Leighton 2012, released under GPL license.
Someone can modify your works and add underneath your copyright notice
modifications are protected by Copyright (C) Doug Focus 2012, released
under GPL license.
That way everyone can claim copyright for their derivative works
and each release their copyrighted contributions under GPL making sure
the full rights get acknowledged and gets passed down the line.

If any company now tries to steal the code and remove the licence file,
then every person named in the long list of contributors have the right
to sue. It will be a nightmare for any company wishing to settle.
They will be ordered by the judge to track down EVERYONE and make a
settlement!

Sometimes the contributors don't add their names to the license file.
[Who would if you only submitted a printf? :-)  ]
That reduces the number of licensors - but I don't see it as a problem
for a large project as this with lots of contributors.