Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: Joerg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:31:26 -0800
John Devereux wrote:
Joerg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
John Devereux wrote:Joerg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:We don't know whether it was just a model. Sounds more like part of a
Nico Coesel wrote:[...]Joerg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into
quite some of my designs with which the only option I have now is
to recapture their schemas from scratch!"
When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware IFrom the above it sounds more like they won't accept the fake bill *and
see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who
imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an
illegal copy. But as I said, in the same way if you receive a fake
100-Euro bill the same thing can happen in that the cashier at the
Hema store refuses it and you have no rights other than sue the guy
who gave it to you.
then they confiscate all your genuine money too*.
If it just rejected the part with a warning "part MC68HC11 created with
illegal copy", and allowed you to delete it, that would be more
reasonable. Why deliberatly infect the designs of honest customers?
schematic.
I think this is the original thread:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.embedded/browse_frm/thread/f794e82d26b59e18/d7cf4149edb93ac7?q=*-*-website+reuse+paying.*+*-I-will-switch+cracked-*+*.would.not.help.*+zzz+after-*-*-version-*+copied+*.*.unlock.*.designs+*-*-*-*-exchange-*-*-*-*-third-party+reused+qq+*-*-single-bit-*-*-*-*+useless+*-*-*-projects-could-no-longer-be-opened>
Do we know it was actually a library part alone that caused this?CAD companies must pay their employees, pay into their health plan,I agree it is better, but that does not make it acceptable.
pay rent, heating, taxes and, oh, preferably turn a little
profit. Cadsoft's way of protection is, for me, definitely superior to
other alternatives such as MAC-lock or those dreaded dongles.
IMO one of the great advantages of using a product like Eagle with good
community support would have been the ability to share libraries with
other users. But this is unthinkable given the above.
It was a voltage regulator, apparantly. I am not familiar with Eagle so
don't know whether this would normally be a "library part" or a circuit
fragment.
Quote from the original thread: "I downloaded a little Eagle project somewhere from a website I can't even remember. It happened that back then, I reused a very small part of this schema (with copy and paste) in one of my projects and continued to copy and paste the same part from my project into a couple of other projects of mine later on."
That sounds more like a chunk of schematic, not just one library part. This is exactly how rumors start and can get totally out of hand :-)
I don't know where the poster is from but apparently Europe and folks in France and NL use the word schema for schematic diagram.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
.
- References:
- WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: Ken Rolf
- Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: JeffM
- Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: Baron
- Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: JeffM
- Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: Joerg
- Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: Nico Coesel
- Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: Joerg
- Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: John Devereux
- Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: Joerg
- Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- From: John Devereux
- WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- Prev by Date: Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- Next by Date: Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- Previous by thread: Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- Next by thread: Re: WinQCad vs. EagleCAD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|