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

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 7:44:55 AM UTC-4, 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.

Yes, that is very odd. It almost sounds like we are misunderstanding it. A lot depends on definitions, but it appears the definitions are what we expect. The definition of "Licensed Software" is a bit vague. If it is literally that wide open it generally includes all software for PCs that was ever written or ever will be written.

I know that contract law has limitations of reasonableness. I would expect this to be limited in some manner on that basis. This is not far from giving up your first born. I wonder if AD plans to use this to take the homes of poor retirees?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 11/29/21 7:06 AM, Rick C wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 7:44:55 AM UTC-4, 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.
>
> Yes, that is very odd. It almost sounds like we are misunderstanding it. A lot depends on definitions, but it appears the definitions are what we expect. The definition of "Licensed Software" is a bit vague. If it is literally that wide open it generally includes all software for PCs that was ever written or ever will be written.
>
> I know that contract law has limitations of reasonableness. I would expect this to be limited in some manner on that basis. This is not far from giving up your first born. I wonder if AD plans to use this to take the homes of poor retirees?
>

Thanks for the opinion, sounds like I haven't completely mis-intepreted
the text as a non-native speker. The models I have in mind (ADA4898
and ADA4708) seem to run OK in the LT-SPICE IV, so perhaps I'll just
go on using it.

I'd be curious whether the same clause is found in the EULAs that the
readers of this NG have accepted? The clause really sounds like it
should be AD granting a license to the end user, rather than the other
way around.

Regards,
Mikko

On 11/29/2021 18:37, 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
>

Can't say I understand it either. I don't think it is because of
my English, must be because it is written by/for lawyers....
(Nothing against lawyers, my dad was one, it is just they seem
to speak a different language professionally).
At first I thought it was about granting ADI rights to whatever
you design using LT-spice. On a second reading (or was it third)
I don't think this is the case. Sounds like they are tightening
their (US)pants against mishaps due to updates, so someone could
not sue them somehow if the new version behaves differently than
the old one (we can all see this could potentially have a cost
to the user under some extreme circumstances). Then again, don't
take my word for it. Just thinking aloud.

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

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

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.

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’
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

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).

"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’
>>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

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

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.

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’
> >>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

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