Reply by Johann Klammer ●November 30, 20212021-11-30
On 11/30/2021 11:29 AM, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:

> 



> There is no freeware version of NG-Spice. It IS free both as in free
> beer and in free speech. Last time I compiled the Berkeley tape (in a
> previous life) there was no waveform viewer other than line printer
> plots.

they seem 2 have xplot and gnuplot.


> 
> NG-spice is one of the few spices that still have some support and
> integration of new features, such as event-based digital simulation,
> which itself needs a new waveform viewer. Most other Spices are dying
> out; after LTspice there is not much room left. All their local
> improvements will die with them. Making the binaries free when
> climbing into the grave won't help.
> 
> Gerhard


the nghelp gets only buit with --enable-oldapps
and the xplot needs --with-x, I think.. somehow it didn't autodetect.

I found the old build dir on the hd (ngspice-9238c0 2020ish)
../configure --prefix=/usr CFLAGS=-g -Os --enable-oldapps --enable-xspice --enable-cider --enable-pss --enable-predictor --enable-devlib --enable-ndev --with-x --with-readline=yes --enable-help
Reply by Rick C ●November 30, 20212021-11-30
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:43:04 AM UTC-4, Kevin Aylward wrote:

> "Okkim Atnarivik" wrote in message 
> news:KTjpJ.759199$AkN1....@fx14.ams4...
> On 11/29/21 11:44 PM, Jasen Betts wrote: 
> > On 2021-11-29, Okkim Atnarivik <k...@wmail.fi.invalid> wrote: 
> >> Colleagues, 
> >> 
> >> After a long break in the use of LT-SPICE (IV) I attempted 
> >> installing the up-to-date version v17. However its EULA begins 
> >> as: 
> >> 
> >> "The Licensed Software consists of application software designed 
> >> to run on personal computers ("PC Software"). 
> >> 
> > 
> >> 
> >> The item 3 is really strange. I'm granting AD rights to all software 
> >> I have written (or my employer has written?) as long as it's 
> >> designed to run on personal computers? 
> > 
> >>> The introduction explains that "the licenced software" is the bundled 
> >>> software (LT-Spice and any other bundled components) 
> > 
> >>> I can't discuss this more, see section 5! 
> > 
> 
> >>> Oh my, you are correct. If we forget about LT-SPICE for a moment, 
> >>>there exists an EULA by manufacturer XXX whose clause YYY reads: 
> 
> >>"YYY. Publicity. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement, Licensee 
> >>may not use any trademark or trade name of XXX or make any public 
> >>announcement regarding the existence of this Agreement without XXXs&rsquo; 
> >>prior written consent. Licensee may not publish or provide the results 
> >>of any benchmark or comparison tests run on the Licensed Software to any 
> >>third party without the prior written consent of XXX." 
> 
> > I might think that there exists no Agreement and I'm not bound by the 
> >terms, by merely reading and considering the EULA, however the 
> >introduction reads: 
> 
> >"YOU AGREE THAT YOU ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS 
> >AGREEMENT BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, COPYING OR USING THE SOFTWARE. IF 
> >YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE SOFTWARE. 
> >YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU ARE OVER THE AGE OF 18 AND HAVE THE CAPACITY AND 
> >AUTHORITY TO BIND YOURSELF OR YOUR EMPLOYER, AS APPLICABLE, TO THE TERMS 
> >OF THIS AGREEMENT." 
> 
> > I couldn't find the EULA in the web pages of XXX, so it seems to me 
> >the only way to read the terms is by downloading the software.
> Well... here in the UK, and most likely anywhere English Common law forms 
> the basis for their laws, such a clause is invalid. 
> 
> One cannot be bound to terms of a contract that one has had no opportunity 
> to read before the contract has been enacted. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olley_v_Marlborough_Court_Ltd 
> 
> I use this feature to systematically ignore any private firm parking 
> "frauds". That is, an attempt to claim that one has agreed to a parking 
> charge (fine) by pointing one to an unreadable sign somewhere else on the 
> property, after the contract has been made at the land entrance. 


Yeah, you  would think that to be obviously not fair and invalid... however 20 or so years ago the software companies managed  to convince some states that these types of cellophane licenses were essential to a software industry.  Once a few states passed such laws and were rewarded with massive construction projects and business relocation it was game on by the other states.  

At one time you could use this to your advantage and get a refund for the cost of Windows on a new PC by not acknowledging the software license and following the instructions to request a refund.  They don't do that anymore.  

I don't think anything in the MS license requires you to authorize them to use your patents.  

I wonder how licensing works if you were not the person who set up the machine and accepted the license, such as a for-hire IT service or do they rent computers? 

-- 

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by Sylvia Else ●November 30, 20212021-11-30
On 30-Nov-21 2:38 am, Rick C wrote:

>
> They are saying that you will give to ADI rights to any patents that ADI might be infringing!  "Licensed Software" refers to the definition they provided earlier.  This definition is far too broad in my opinion including not just LTspice, but all software ever written for the PC.  So assuming it is intended to me LTspice paragraph 3 is saying you give ADI a license to any Licensee patents, meaning YOUR patents that might apply to THEIR software.


That makes a sort of sense - they're trying to muddy the waters if you 
should install the software and then discover that it violates one of 
your patents, etc.

It's the kind of thing lawyers would come up with. Not sure that it 
actually works, since any such violation would predate the creation of 
the licence.

Sylvia.
Reply by Gerhard Hoffmann ●November 30, 20212021-11-30
Am 30.11.21 um 10:04 schrieb Johann Klammer:

> On 11/30/2021 12:46 PM, Okkim Atnarivik wrote:
>>
>>    I hear also that new versions of Kicad from CERN include a freeware
>> version of NG-Spice. Anyone here has experience?
>>
>>    Regards,
>>             Mikko



> I dunno about that "Freeware" version of theirs, but AFAIK ngspice is pretty much
> just the berkley spice. I don't like that they try to remove the docs and replace the
> waveform viewers and stuff (the usual crap the GNU people always do.
> replace well working stuff with modern garbage).


There is no freeware version of NG-Spice. It IS free both as in free 
beer and in free speech. Last time I compiled the Berkeley tape (in a 
previous life) there was no waveform viewer other than line printer plots.

NG-spice is one of the few spices that still have some support and 
integration of new features, such as event-based digital simulation, 
which itself needs a new waveform viewer. Most other Spices are dying 
out; after LTspice there is not much room left. All their local 
improvements will die with them. Making the binaries free when climbing 
into the grave won't help.

Gerhard
Reply by Kevin Aylward ●November 30, 20212021-11-30
"Okkim Atnarivik"  wrote in message 
news:KTjpJ.759199$AkN1.367514@fx14.ams4...

On 11/29/21 11:44 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

> On 2021-11-29, Okkim Atnarivik <ksm@wmail.fi.invalid> wrote:
>>   Colleagues,
>>
>>   After a long break in the use of LT-SPICE (IV) I attempted
>> installing the up-to-date version v17. However its EULA begins
>> as:
>>
>> "The Licensed Software consists of application software designed
>> to run on personal computers ("PC Software").
>>
>
>>
>> The item 3 is really strange. I'm granting AD rights to all software
>> I have written (or my employer has written?) as long as it's
>> designed to run on personal computers?
>
>>> The introduction explains that "the licenced software" is the bundled
>>> software (LT-Spice and any other bundled components)
>
>>> I can't discuss this more, see section 5!
>



>>>  Oh my, you are correct. If we forget about LT-SPICE for a moment,
>>>there exists an EULA by manufacturer XXX whose clause YYY reads:



>>"YYY. Publicity. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement, Licensee
>>may not use any trademark or trade name of XXX or make any public
>>announcement regarding the existence of this Agreement without XXXs&rsquo;
>>prior written consent.  Licensee may not publish or provide the results
>>of any benchmark or comparison tests run on the Licensed Software to any
>>third party without the prior written consent of XXX."



>  I might think that there exists no Agreement and I'm not bound by the
>terms, by merely reading and considering the EULA, however the
>introduction reads:



>"YOU AGREE THAT YOU ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS
>AGREEMENT BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, COPYING OR USING THE SOFTWARE. IF
>YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE SOFTWARE.
>YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU ARE OVER THE AGE OF 18 AND HAVE THE CAPACITY AND
>AUTHORITY TO BIND YOURSELF OR YOUR EMPLOYER, AS APPLICABLE, TO THE TERMS
>OF THIS AGREEMENT."



>  I couldn't find the EULA in the web pages of XXX, so it seems to me
>the only way to read the terms is by downloading the software.


Well... here in the UK, and most likely anywhere English Common law forms 
the basis for their laws, such a clause is invalid.

One cannot be bound to terms of a contract that one has had no opportunity 
to read before the contract has been enacted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olley_v_Marlborough_Court_Ltd

I use this feature to systematically ignore any private firm parking 
"frauds". That is, an attempt to claim that one has agreed to a parking 
charge (fine) by pointing one to an unreadable sign somewhere else on the 
property,  after the contract has been made at the land entrance.

-- Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
Reply by Johann Klammer ●November 30, 20212021-11-30
On 11/30/2021 12:46 PM, Okkim Atnarivik wrote:

> 
>   I hear also that new versions of Kicad from CERN include a freeware
> version of NG-Spice. Anyone here has experience?
> 
>   Regards,
>            Mikko
> 

I dunno about that "Freeware" version of theirs, but AFAIK ngspice is pretty much 
just the berkley spice. I don't like that they try to remove the docs and replace the
waveform viewers and stuff (the usual crap the GNU people always do. 
replace well working stuff with modern garbage).
Reply by Okkim Atnarivik ●November 30, 20212021-11-30
On 11/29/21 11:44 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

> On 2021-11-29, Okkim Atnarivik <ksm@wmail.fi.invalid> wrote:
>>   Colleagues,
>>
>>   After a long break in the use of LT-SPICE (IV) I attempted
>> installing the up-to-date version v17. However its EULA begins
>> as:
>>
>> "The Licensed Software consists of application software designed
>> to run on personal computers ("PC Software").
>>
> 
>>
>> The item 3 is really strange. I'm granting AD rights to all software
>> I have written (or my employer has written?) as long as it's
>> designed to run on personal computers?
> 
> The introduction explains that "the licenced software" is the bundled
> software (LT-Spice and any other bundled components)
> 
> I can't discuss this more, see section 5!
> 


  Oh my, you are correct. If we forget about LT-SPICE for a moment,
there exists an EULA by manufacturer XXX whose clause YYY reads:

"YYY. Publicity. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement, Licensee
may not use any trademark or trade name of XXX or make any public
announcement regarding the existence of this Agreement without XXXs&rsquo;
prior written consent.  Licensee may not publish or provide the results
of any benchmark or comparison tests run on the Licensed Software to any
third party without the prior written consent of XXX."

  I might think that there exists no Agreement and I'm not bound by the
terms, by merely reading and considering the EULA, however the
introduction reads:

"YOU AGREE THAT YOU ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS
AGREEMENT BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, COPYING OR USING THE SOFTWARE. IF
YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE SOFTWARE.
YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU ARE OVER THE AGE OF 18 AND HAVE THE CAPACITY AND
AUTHORITY TO BIND YOURSELF OR YOUR EMPLOYER, AS APPLICABLE, TO THE TERMS
OF THIS AGREEMENT."

  I couldn't find the EULA in the web pages of XXX, so it seems to me
the only way to read the terms is by downloading the software.

  Switching back to LT-SPICE v17, I hear from elsewhere that the
now-deleted clause 11 used to read:

"Section 11: Analog Devices maintains the right to perform a physical
audit of users records to confirm compliance with the license agreement.
 User is required to maintain these records for three years.  Analog
Devices must provide the user with ten days written notice before
performing an audit."

  I hear also that new versions of Kicad from CERN include a freeware
version of NG-Spice. Anyone here has experience?

  Regards,
           Mikko
Reply by Jasen Betts ●November 30, 20212021-11-30
On 2021-11-29, Okkim Atnarivik <ksm@wmail.fi.invalid> wrote:

>   Colleagues,
>
>   After a long break in the use of LT-SPICE (IV) I attempted
> installing the up-to-date version v17. However its EULA begins
> as:
>
> "The Licensed Software consists of application software designed
> to run on personal computers ("PC Software").
>



>
> The item 3 is really strange. I'm granting AD rights to all software
> I have written (or my employer has written?) as long as it's
> designed to run on personal computers?


The introduction explains that "the licenced software" is the bundled
software (LT-Spice and any other bundled components)

I can't discuss this more, see section 5!

-- 
  Jasen.
Reply by Rick C ●November 29, 20212021-11-29
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 10:19:43 AM UTC-4, erichp...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On 29/11/2021 4:37 pm, Okkim Atnarivik wrote: 
> > Colleagues, 
> > 
> > After a long break in the use of LT-SPICE (IV) I attempted 
> > installing the up-to-date version v17. However its EULA begins 
> > as: 
> > 
> > "The Licensed Software consists of application software designed 
> > to run on personal computers ("PC Software"). 
> > 
> > 1. Licenses. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, 
> > Analog Devices grants to Licensee a non-exclusive, non-transferable, 
> > non-sublicensable license, to internally use and copy the PC Software 
> > to evaluate Analog Devices products and also to perform general 
> > circuit simulation. 
> > 
> > 2. Deleted. 
> > 
> > 3. License to Analog Devices. During the term of this Agreement 
> > Licensee grants to Analog Devices (and its affiliates), under any 
> > and all Licensee patents (and those of its affiliates), 
> > a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty-free license to 
> > make, use, sell, import, export, copy, distribute and otherwise 
> > exploit the Licensed Software in-whole or in-part (including 
> > updated versions of the Licensed Software), and to directly 
> > or indirectly sublicense others to do the same. 
> > 
> > <...snip...>" 
> > 
> > The item 3 is really strange. I'm granting AD rights to all software 
> > I have written (or my employer has written?) as long as it's 
> > designed to run on personal computers? 
> > 
> > To be sure that I haven't been fed a fake installation package 
> > somehow, its a 64-bit version for Win10 whith MD5 checksum 
> > 46 04 f5 6a b3 a0 74 40 08 4a 24 29 38 a0 83 a0. I don't think this 
> > likely, the package was downloaded from the AD website with a 
> > correct https:// address. But the license terms sound odd. 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > Mikko 
> >
> My reading of 3 is that AD are trying to say that you allow them to 
> license other users, or in other words that by granting you a license 
> you are not an exclusive user and they are not restricted in who else 
> they license to use the software? 


I think I cracked the code... 

3. License to Analog Devices. During the term of this Agreement
Licensee grants to Analog Devices (and its affiliates), under any
and all Licensee patents (and those of its affiliates),
a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty-free license to
make, use, sell, import, export, copy, distribute and otherwise
exploit the Licensed Software in-whole or in-part (including
updated versions of the Licensed Software), and to directly
or indirectly sublicense others to do the same. 

They are saying that you will give to ADI rights to any patents that ADI might be infringing!  "Licensed Software" refers to the definition they provided earlier.  This definition is far too broad in my opinion including not just LTspice, but all software ever written for the PC.  So assuming it is intended to me LTspice paragraph 3 is saying you give ADI a license to any Licensee patents, meaning YOUR patents that might apply to THEIR software. 

They use a capital 'L' for "Licensee" which normally flags a defined term.  Since that definition is not shown, I suspect there is more intro at the front of this text.  Or maybe they have a section at the end?  My point is you can't analyze  a section of a contract in isolation, but I think this section is clear once you understand the terms being used.  

I just noticed paragraph 3 is limited to "the term of this Agreement".  I don't see that defined anywhere either.  Normally such infringement issues are stated to survive anything else in the contract, in essence in perpetuity.  I wonder what the term of the contract is. 

-- 

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by piglet ●November 29, 20212021-11-29
On 29/11/2021 4:37 pm, Okkim Atnarivik wrote:

>    Colleagues,
> 
>    After a long break in the use of LT-SPICE (IV) I attempted
> installing the up-to-date version v17. However its EULA begins
> as:
> 
> "The Licensed Software consists of application software designed
> to run on personal computers ("PC Software").
> 
> 1. Licenses.  Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement,
> Analog Devices grants to Licensee a non-exclusive, non-transferable,
> non-sublicensable license, to internally use and copy the PC Software
> to evaluate Analog Devices products and also to perform general
> circuit simulation.
> 
> 2. Deleted.
> 
> 3. License to Analog Devices.  During the term of this Agreement
> Licensee grants to Analog Devices (and its affiliates), under any
> and all Licensee patents (and those of its affiliates),
> a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty-free license to
> make, use, sell, import, export, copy, distribute and otherwise
> exploit the Licensed Software in-whole or in-part (including
> updated versions of the Licensed Software), and to directly
> or indirectly sublicense others to do the same.
> 
> <...snip...>"
> 
> The item 3 is really strange. I'm granting AD rights to all software
> I have written (or my employer has written?) as long as it's
> designed to run on personal computers?
> 
> To be sure that I haven't been fed a fake installation package
> somehow, its a 64-bit version for Win10 whith MD5 checksum
> 46 04 f5 6a b3 a0 74 40  08 4a 24 29 38 a0 83 a0. I don't think this
> likely, the package was downloaded from the AD website with a
> correct https:// address. But the license terms sound odd.
> 
> Regards,
>          Mikko
> 


My reading of 3 is that AD are trying to say that you allow them to 
license other users, or in other words that by granting you a license 
you are not an exclusive user and they are not restricted in who else 
they license to use the software?

piglet