I am a little confused and concerned. If you send just the PCB file how is your IP in danger. Unless you send the PCB file with a name like "DirtToGoldConverterModule.pcb" How would they know what the board does, let alone undergo the massive task of reverse engineering the PCB to come up with a schematic, and if you have programmable parts...
Alfonso > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Ian Wilson > Sent: Tuesday, 6 September 2005 8:43 AM > To: Protel EDA Discussion List > Subject: RE: [PEDA] Protel2004 into 99SE > > Brad is right. In Oz and NZ and possibly some other places there are many > PCB makers that are happy to receive PCB files. Some of them take it in a > number of formats (not just Protel, but this is the dominant one). > > In some cases the PCB makers prefer it in the native format as they can > then optimise for their process, thought patterns and phase of moon. > > I am always nervous about doing it and usually send gerbers. I have > heard, > though, that many gerbers that PCB makers receive are pretty poorly > generated and this step is a source of confusion and bad boards for those > new to this game. So the PCB makers here feel they can give better boards > to their clients by accepting PCB files. > > Users then have to trust that the PCB maker doesn't make changes that > affect the working of the design (which they can do with gerber anyway) > and > that they are comfortable with releasing all that IP. (This is one of the > reasons I wrote my little IP stripping script.). > > Seems like reasonable service to me - offer something extra to the client > so they don't have to do a step that many find fraught with problems. In > my > case though I don't like releasing all that IP and I am pretty comfortable > with releasing and checking gerbers so I almost always go this path - the > last time I released a native PCB file would have been years ago - > certainly when P99SE was pervasive. > > With the newer file formats, with their non-backwards compatible features, > it is a risk I certainly no longer take. I would hate to try to manage > the > risk of a critical entity being dropped. > > I have been on a bit of a one man crusade to try to get the PCB makers > here > to support some more intelligent formats like ODB++ for some time now. > > The difference between a native file fully supported by a PCB maker and an > intelligent interchange format (ODB++) or even a full set of gerbers, > netlist and drill file is pretty small really in terms of their ability to > be messed up by a poor PCB maker. Or their IP content for that matter. > (Reduced releases like just gerber and drill do provide some masking but > hands up those that have *not* reverse engineered a design from > gerber/actual PCB?) > > I think the issue of PCB file being more dangerous in terms of being > hacked/edited by the PCB maker is a little wide of the mark. Most CAM > systems these days effectively reconstruct the full board and changes can > just as easily be done within them (make traces smaller, move this, add > copper balancing ...). The bigger issue for me is controlling the release > of the IP - which will become an increasing issue with things like ODB++ > where descriptive net names can add quite a bit of intelligence to a > manufacturing pack. I will be continuing to update my IP removal script > (not for P99SE though I am afraid) to try to balance the manufacturing > pack > intelligence at different points of release with the benefits in providing > smarter export files (a PCB maker can use a netlist for electrical check > but the net names can be NET1, NET2, .....). A contract board assembler > doesn't need the netlist but does require (effectively) the parts list > (possibly somewhat masked if you provide the kit) but they have so much IP > at this point that you will have to be operating on a trust basis anyway - > so the release of a native file at this point of the process is something > of a moot point IMO. > > Certainly if you are chasing cheapest PCB pricing by regularly changing > PCB > makers, then some industry standard manufacturing pack is the only way to > go practically. > > Ian > > On 06:09 AM 6/09/2005, Brad Velander said: > >Terry (?), > > From what we have heard over the years, this is an Oz > phenomenon. > > > > Seems in Oz most of the fabricators have Protel in-house and can > > tweak things themselves. Maybe historically they have had too many > > designers that were screwing up the Gerber/Drill fab output so the > > fabricators started doing it themselves. Or was it actual > > design/fabrication issues that they needed to tweak, who knows? > > > > Recently, this seems to be becoming more of an issue. Since by > > the number of posts there seems to be one or more of these fabricators > > that are not upgrading their software to DXP. Thus the slow but steady > > flow of questions about converting back to P99Se for their fabricators. > > Hope the designers aren't using any of the new features that don't > > transfer back to 99SE. That could be a disaster. > > > > I am with you though Tony, all other issues considered, once you > > turn over the database you have no control over what you are actually > > getting. The board may be great one time from one fabricator, turn it > > over to another fabricator and get a different flavour altogether. > > > >Sincerely, > >Brad Velander > >Senior PCB Designer > >Northern Airborne Technology > >#14 - 1925 Kirschner Road, > >Kelowna, BC, V1Y 4N7. > >tel (250) 763-2329 ext. 225 > >fax (250) 762-3374 > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: TDK [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:16 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Protel EDA Discussion List' > >Subject: RE: [PEDA] Protel2004 into 99SE > > > > > >You are right. They don't need the native data base. > > > >Regards > >TDK > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > >Behalf Of Tony Karavidas > >Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 1:05 AM > >To: 'Protel EDA Discussion List' > >Subject: RE: [PEDA] Protel2004 into 99SE > > > >What is with people using fabricators who require the native database? > Why > >do they need anything besides the gerber files and a drill file?? I've > asked > >this question before, but I don't recall anyone giving a reasonable > >explanation. I would never use a fabricator who requires my Altium files. > I > >actually don't even give my assembly house access to the programmable > >devices. If I did, I would probably be selling more stuff in China and > not > >even getting any money for it. > > > >Tony > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum > > To Post messages: > mailto:[email protected] > > Unsubscribe and Other Options: > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com > > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
