Re: gEDA-user: Chortle: A Technology Mapping Program for LookupTable-Based Field Programmable Gate Arrays

[Ronald Mathias]

   Hi,



   Thanks a lot. This is actually what I was looking for.



   Regards,

   Ronald


   On 7/13/10, Andy Fierman <[1]andyfier...@signality.co.uk> wrote:

 I reached much the same place ...
 Is this it?
 "Chortle-Technology Mapping for Lookup Tables (ZIP File)"
 on this page:
 [2]http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jayar/software/software.html
 Otherwise try contacting Jonathan Rose directly.
 Andy
 [3]signality.co.uk
 On 13 July 2010 15:27, John McCaskill
 <[4]jhmccask...@fastertechnology.com> wrote:
 > Here is a web page for one of the papers authors:
 >
 > [5]http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jayar/Welcome.html
 >
 > I saw Chortle mention on his pages, but not the source code for
 it. He
 > did have source code for other projects he is working on, so maybe
 he
 > can get you a copy.
 >
 >
 > Regards,
 >
 > John McCaskill
 > Faster Technology LLC
 > Xilinx Authorized Training Provider and Alliance partner
 > 1812 Avenue D, Suite 202, Katy, TX 77493 USA
 > Tel: (281) 391-5482, Fax: (281) 391-9384
 > Email: [6]jhmccask...@fastertechnology.com
 > Web: [7]http://www.fastertechnology.com
 >
 >
 >> -Original Message-
 >> From: [8]geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org [mailto:[9]geda-user-
 >> [10]boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Ronald Mathias
 >> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:15 PM
 >> To: [11]geda-u...@moria.seul.org
 >> Subject: gEDA-user: Chortle: A Technology Mapping Program for
 > LookupTable-
 >> Based Field Programmable Gate Arrays
 >>
 >> Hi,
 >>
 >> Could any one tell me from where I can download the source code
 for
 >> Chortle:
 >> A Technology Mapping Program for Lookup Table-Based Field
 Programmable
 >> Gate
 >> Arrays program.
 >>
 >> I have tried searching for it on google. I only get the pdf file
 that
 >> describes the program but I am unable to find its source cde.
 >>
 >> Regards,
 >> Ronald
 >
 >
 >
 > ___
 > geda-user mailing list
 > [12]geda-u...@moria.seul.org
 > [13]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
 >
 ___
 geda-user mailing list
 [14]geda-u...@moria.seul.org
 [15]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

References

   1. mailto:andyfier...@signality.co.uk
   2. http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jayar/software/software.html
   3. http://signality.co.uk/
   4. mailto:jhmccask...@fastertechnology.com
   5. http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jayar/Welcome.html
   6. mailto:jhmccask...@fastertechnology.com
   7. http://www.fastertechnology.com/
   8. mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
   9. mailto:geda-user-
  10. mailto:boun...@moria.seul.org
  11. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org
  12. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org
  13. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
  14. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org
  15. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: dxf again

[Bert Timmerman]

Hi Mark,
 

> -Original Message-
> From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org 
> [mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Mark Rages
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 12:21 AM
> To: gEDA user mailing list
> Subject: Re: gEDA-user: dxf again
> 
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Dave N6NZ  wrote:
> >
> >
> > But my application is a little different.  I want to get a 
> DXF file that I can run through a CAM package, in particular 
> the paste layer, which isn't a 'real' layer, unfortunately -- 
> it is synthesized in the output HID as I understand it.  And 
> while preserving dimensions is useful in some situations, I 
> also want to be able to do rule-based adjustments of 
> dimensions.  And I also want to be able to deal with a pcb 
> design from any tool.
> >
> > Anyway, my last thoughts were that pcb is the wrong place 
> to do what I want to do.  The correct place is a gerber2dxf 
> conversion tool.  The new gerbv is librarized, so one could 
> write a front-end to libgerbv that read gerbers via libgerbv 
> and then did the massage and output function.  You might 
> checkout the gerbv library API, and consider if maybe that is 
> a better place to accomplish your job.
> >
> 
> In my Googling, I ran across an application called "pcbtodxf" 
> that purports to do gerber->dxf.  No idea about licensing, 
> platform etc.
> 
> So it turns out there is a bitrotted dxf exporter HID at 
> http://github.com/bert/pcb-dxf-hid/
> 
> I'm working my way through it, trying to get it to compile.
> 
> It's kind of slow going, like a 5400-line C file that has 
> never been compiled before.  By that, I mean there are lots 
> of little mistakes like this:
> 
> void somefunction( char *s ) {
>   if (s == "") {
> ...etc...
> 
> Of course, the compiler complains to the heavens about this, 
> and it's an easy fix, but it makes me less than hopeful that 
> the code's gonna work.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark
> markra...@gmail
> --
> Mark Rages, Engineer
> Midwest Telecine LLC
> markra...@midwesttelecine.com
> 
> 

Indeed, I did a half baked and buggy attempt at:

http://github.com/bert/pcb-dxf-hid.git

Just my EUR 0.02 (as if this first attempt to code something in C is worth
half that much ;-)

IMHO, it might be better to do the pcb2dxf stuff as a plug-in.

At one moment in time it did actually compile (with a lot warnings) but the
resulting files were wrong, that is, they didn't load into AutoCAD.

I never found enough free time for this projects to finish it into a proper
working tool.

Kind regards,

Bert Timmerman.



___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[John Doty]

On Jul 15, 2010, at 6:21 AM, timecop wrote:

> I did purchase the EDA suite that I'm using.

Who says conspicuous consumption is a thing of the past?

John Doty  Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
j...@noqsi.com




___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: dxf again

[Mark Rages]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Dave N6NZ  wrote:
>
>
> But my application is a little different.  I want to get a DXF file that I 
> can run through a CAM package, in particular the paste layer, which isn't a 
> 'real' layer, unfortunately -- it is synthesized in the output HID as I 
> understand it.  And while preserving dimensions is useful in some situations, 
> I also want to be able to do rule-based adjustments of dimensions.  And I 
> also want to be able to deal with a pcb design from any tool.
>
> Anyway, my last thoughts were that pcb is the wrong place to do what I want 
> to do.  The correct place is a gerber2dxf conversion tool.  The new gerbv is 
> librarized, so one could write a front-end to libgerbv that read gerbers via 
> libgerbv and then did the massage and output function.  You might checkout 
> the gerbv library API, and consider if maybe that is a better place to 
> accomplish your job.
>

In my Googling, I ran across an application called "pcbtodxf" that
purports to do gerber->dxf.  No idea about licensing, platform etc.

So it turns out there is a bitrotted dxf exporter HID at
http://github.com/bert/pcb-dxf-hid/

I'm working my way through it, trying to get it to compile.

It's kind of slow going, like a 5400-line C file that has never been
compiled before.  By that, I mean there are lots of little mistakes
like this:

void somefunction( char *s ) {
  if (s == "") {
...etc...

Of course, the compiler complains to the heavens about this, and it's
an easy fix, but it makes me less than hopeful that the code's gonna
work.

Regards,
Mark
markra...@gmail
-- 
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markra...@midwesttelecine.com


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[kai-martin knaak]

timecop wrote:

> I don't actually use Protel

I did for five years at my day job -- protel98SE to be exact. There were 
some very useful features that geda/pcb still misses. However, the match is 
much closer than the suggested 1:10. In fact, there are some critical areas 
where the open source alternative wins hands down. 
* true polygons rather than a shaky hatching procedure
* no data loss due to data base failure.
* works on lin, win and mac rather than confined to windows
* integrates nicely with versioning systems

---<)kaimartin(>---
-- 
Kai-Martin Knaak
Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0B9F53



___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: dxf again

[Dave N6NZ]

On Jul 15, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Mark Rages wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Having reached the limits of pcb's feeble editor, I want to take some
> traces on a pcb through a pcb->???->dxf->qcad->dxf->dxftopcb->pcb
> cycle.
> 
> I had already written the dxftopcb tool.
> (http://vivara.net/software/dxftopcb) when I discovered dxf2pcb
> (http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Sep-2009/msg00134.html).
> 
> So before I start on the pcbtodxf tool, has anybody done this already?

Done, no.  Thought about, yes.

But my application is a little different.  I want to get a DXF file that I can 
run through a CAM package, in particular the paste layer, which isn't a 'real' 
layer, unfortunately -- it is synthesized in the output HID as I understand it. 
 And while preserving dimensions is useful in some situations, I also want to 
be able to do rule-based adjustments of dimensions.  And I also want to be able 
to deal with a pcb design from any tool.

Anyway, my last thoughts were that pcb is the wrong place to do what I want to 
do.  The correct place is a gerber2dxf conversion tool.  The new gerbv is 
librarized, so one could write a front-end to libgerbv that read gerbers via 
libgerbv and then did the massage and output function.  You might checkout the 
gerbv library API, and consider if maybe that is a better place to accomplish 
your job.

-dave

PS. Another application is simply creating a component for a 3D mechanical CAD 
package.  For that, exporting an outline layer and the drills as a .dxf would 
be sufficient for making a component that could be slurped into SolidWorks or 
FreeCAD or such.  Again, probably a nice application of libgerbv.



___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[John Griessen]

Dave N6NZ wrote:
 So (thinking out loud) maybe some kind of license that says
the file format documentation *and* sources (or mirror pointers) for all the development tools 
are a required part of the distribution source.


Yes, that kind of language would help get the work out there, and so help 
enlist collaboration,
which is often the main reason we freepublish.  This may be OT here, but there's
another place it would be welcome disussion.  See below.


asom...@gmail.com wrote:
> I too _want_ a 100% open source tool chain, but it's not going to
> happen anytime soon and I don't think it's appropriate to insist upon
> it in a license.



 I'm not sure how one would require an open-source
> toolchain in a software license.  Remember, we are talking about
> licenses, not contracts.  A license can only grant privileges; it
> cannot restrict a user more than copyright law already restricts.

Really, when talking of hardware, it has to be contract law.
Copyright is not enough, and patents get involved.
A man on the openmanufacturing list had a 40 minute talk with an IP lawyer
the other week and he licenses his transcript CC, so we can all freely look,
at least for now... Not sure if Wolf Greenfield OK'd its publishing,
so don't mirror it anywhere, OK?

legal advice transcript---
http://designfiles.org/~bryan/2010-07-01_open-source-hardware_and_patent-law.html

title: Conversation on open source hardware and patent law with Wolf Greenfield
author: Bryan Bishop 
license: cc-by-sa 3.0 unported
duration: 40min 49sec
date: 2010-07-01
links: openmanufacturing.org, diybio.org, heybryan.org

The gist of Bryan's listening to that lawyer is that the attorney
would probably still use patents to document some things, but anything that
is already being openly shared he would workup a defnse based on contract law
and trade secrets being worthless, (and thus not contractual), once they are 
published.
legal advice transcript---

Ales has asked us not to talk patents, so for further
discussion, I know a place that is not worried about software patent 
discussions,
since they mostly talk of systems of HS and SW.

Here's an example of discussion going on now about this same draft:

-- openmanufactur...@googlegroups.com- Forwarded message --
Subject: Re: Open Hardware Creative Commons Draft
To: "Hard- and Software Development, Kernel, Distribution, Roadmap" <
develo...@lists.qi-hardware.com>


On Thursday 15 July 2010 15:46:21 Carlos Camargo wrote:
> > Another topic is the hardware cost, you can release a hardware project
that
> > use 12 layer PCB, (...) complicated and expensive mounting techniques.

If we take those into account, the whole open hardware thing will be limited
to 1. low-tech stuff and/or 2. using proprietary pre-built modules (the
Arduino is a good example of these two points).

There should be no limit whatsoever on the technical level of open hardware
projects. Otherwise, it'll either remain something 3 nerds do in their
garage

-- openmanufactur...@googlegroups.com- Forwarded message --

John Griessen
--
Ecosensory   Austin TX


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[John Griessen]

timecop wrote:


Keep dreaming, bro.
Maybe when 


OK.  Time for another mail filter.

JG


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[DJ Delorie]

True - just because I can't have it, doesn't mean I can't want it.


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[Mark Rages]

Many commenters on the license, including bunnie, seem to be making a
logic mistake:

"You can't say things *should* be this way, because things *are not* this way."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Is-Ought

So if hardware is not entirely free right now, with binary blobs even
in the most open drivers, does this mean that a license cannot require
fully open firmware?  No.  It may limit adoption of the license, but
that says nothing about if the license is correct to require that.  If
the license is a goal, rather just a codification of existing
practice, that is fine by me.

Regards,
Mark
markra...@gmail
-- 
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markra...@midwesttelecine.com


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

gEDA-user: dxf again

[Mark Rages]

Hi all,

Having reached the limits of pcb's feeble editor, I want to take some
traces on a pcb through a pcb->???->dxf->qcad->dxf->dxftopcb->pcb
cycle.

I had already written the dxftopcb tool.
(http://vivara.net/software/dxftopcb) when I discovered dxf2pcb
(http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Sep-2009/msg00134.html).

So before I start on the pcbtodxf tool, has anybody done this already?
 I'm not interested in the pstoedit workaround, because I'd like to
preserve layers and line widths accurately.

Regards,
Mark
markra...@gmail
-- 
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markra...@midwesttelecine.com


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: pcb pad, soldermask questions

[Steven Michalske]

Place all pins in the schematic symbol this is common industry practice 
especially for standard packages. Because the folks debugging know the parts as 
having 8 pins not just 3 internally ones.

Hardkrash




On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:47 AM, Armin Faltl  wrote:

> 
> kai-martin knaak wrote:
>>> I can think of two possible times: one is where there is more than
>>> one connected pad item for a given device pin,
>>>
>> 
>> Use the same number for every pad that needs to be considered the same with 
>> regard to the netlist.
>>  
> So this would be the ideal solution for a transistor/FET in SO8-package?
> 
> 
> ___
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@moria.seul.org
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[Dave N6NZ]

On Jul 15, 2010, at 7:47 AM, asom...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Dave N6NZ  wrote:
>> 
>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Ales Hvezda wrote:
 
 And my usual questions:
 
 http://lwn.net/Articles/396011/
>>> 
>>> I've had some part in this.   Whether or not proprietary design files can 
>>> be compatible with open source hardware has been an active topic of debate, 
>>> even amongst the people writing that draft definition.   It's a tough, 
>>> tough call, for all the reasons that Bunnie mentions.
>>> 
>>> I think that the proper place to resolve this issue is in the actual 
>>> *licenses,* which as with OSS may vary from permissive to restrictive.  I'd 
>>> like to see the evolution of at least one OSHW license where a requirement 
>>> is that the design files for the project-- and its derivative works --need 
>>> to be in open, documented formats.
>>> 
>> That's the right answer -- let there be a battle of licenses.  Although 
>> hopefully, it is a small set and we avoid the "license salad" issues that 
>> have sprung up in software.  I, too, want to see (and would use) a license 
>> where all source files for all aspects of the design are in open, documented 
>> formats, but that isn't going to be to everyone's liking or practical in all 
>> cases.
>> 
>> But also, I'd like to point out that just having an open & documented source 
>> language isn't really enough.  What I really want in the end is a 100% open 
>> source tool chain, and simply having an open file format isn't sufficient.  
>> Example: FPGA's.  Verilog source isn't going to help if the FPGA fitter tool 
>> proprietary.  So (thinking out loud) maybe some kind of license that says 
>> the file format documentation *and* sources (or mirror pointers) for all the 
>> development tools are a required part of the distribution source.
> 
> I too _want_ a 100% open source tool chain, but it's not going to
> happen anytime soon and I don't think it's appropriate to insist upon
> it in a license.  If a developer wants his work to be maximally free,
> he should ensure that it _can_ be built with an open-source toolchain,

Yes, good point.  And that is what I would like also, that it *can* be built 
with an open source tool chain. Coming up with both practical license language 
and operationally practical design file packaging practices that accomplish 
that is challenging.  My key point is that simply requiring publicly documented 
design file formats is not sufficient.  

There is certainly a place for a license that requires publicly documented 
design file formats, and nothing more.  But I'd also like to see some kind of 
license ensures the design can be built with an open source tool chain.




___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[Dave N6NZ]

On Jul 14, 2010, at 10:50 PM, timecop wrote:

> You said you wanted a "100% open source tool chain" and gave FPGA as example.
> So, please name a vendor who provides such hardware/software (for FPGA
> design) which would satisfy this license requirement of being "100%
> open".

I don't believe there is one.  Yet, a license that says only that you must 
publish design data in publicly documented file format would allow such a 
design.  That is my point.

> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Dave N6NZ  wrote:
>> 
>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:47 PM, timecop wrote:
>> 
 Example: FPGA's.  Verilog source isn't going to help if the FPGA fitter 
 tool proprietary
>>> 
>>> OK.
>>> Please name a vendor for FPGA hardware + toolchain that fits into this
>>> absolutely ridiculous requirement.
>> 
>> I don't understand your question.  Can you clarify?
>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> geda-user mailing list
>>> geda-user@moria.seul.org
>>> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> geda-user mailing list
>> geda-user@moria.seul.org
>> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@moria.seul.org
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
> 



___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[asomers]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Dave N6NZ  wrote:
>
> On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Ales Hvezda wrote:
>>>
>>> And my usual questions:
>>>
>>> http://lwn.net/Articles/396011/
>>
>> I've had some part in this.   Whether or not proprietary design files can be 
>> compatible with open source hardware has been an active topic of debate, 
>> even amongst the people writing that draft definition.   It's a tough, tough 
>> call, for all the reasons that Bunnie mentions.
>>
>> I think that the proper place to resolve this issue is in the actual 
>> *licenses,* which as with OSS may vary from permissive to restrictive.  I'd 
>> like to see the evolution of at least one OSHW license where a requirement 
>> is that the design files for the project-- and its derivative works --need 
>> to be in open, documented formats.
>>
> That's the right answer -- let there be a battle of licenses.  Although 
> hopefully, it is a small set and we avoid the "license salad" issues that 
> have sprung up in software.  I, too, want to see (and would use) a license 
> where all source files for all aspects of the design are in open, documented 
> formats, but that isn't going to be to everyone's liking or practical in all 
> cases.
>
> But also, I'd like to point out that just having an open & documented source 
> language isn't really enough.  What I really want in the end is a 100% open 
> source tool chain, and simply having an open file format isn't sufficient.  
> Example: FPGA's.  Verilog source isn't going to help if the FPGA fitter tool 
> proprietary.  So (thinking out loud) maybe some kind of license that says the 
> file format documentation *and* sources (or mirror pointers) for all the 
> development tools are a required part of the distribution source.

I too _want_ a 100% open source tool chain, but it's not going to
happen anytime soon and I don't think it's appropriate to insist upon
it in a license.  If a developer wants his work to be maximally free,
he should ensure that it _can_ be built with an open-source toolchain,
but not that it _must_.  Example: GCC and various GNU/Linux utilities.
 No software license that I'm aware of requires the use of an
open-source compiler.  Most open-source users choose to use GCC, but a
minority compile with icc, armcc, or some other proprietary compiler.
But the openness of GCC is such a draw that it completely dominates
development of open-source C projects.  GCC does not need license
restrictions to compete with icc or armcc.  Similarly, if there were
an open-source FPGA fitter that worked worth a damn, users would
switchover in droves.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how one would require an open-source
toolchain in a software license.  Remember, we are talking about
licenses, not contracts.  A license can only grant privileges; it
cannot restrict a user more than copyright law already restricts.  Any
restrictions that you want to place in a license must typically be
restrictions on redistribution.  So would your license require a
developer to ship the source code of his FPGA fitter on demand to
anyone who downloads his verilog LED blinker?  I for one am glad that
I don't have to ship the source code of the Python interpreter (and
libraries) just because I distribute an open source program written in
the Python language.

-Alan

>
> -dave
>
>
> ___
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@moria.seul.org
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Hi everybody

[Ali Moreno]

   2010/7/16 Armin Faltl <[1]armin.fa...@aon.at>

   Stefan Salewski wrote:

 Please note: translated documentation is only useful, when it is up
 to
 date. In the net we have a lot of outdated translated documentation.

   Where i can found the last documentation (up to date)?
   �

 Keeping translations up to date is really hard work -- you have all
 the
 time to watch for small changes in the original

 Like everything else our docs should be under revision control. So
 noticing the changes
 is feasible.
 - just the proverbial 2 cents

   ___
   geda-user mailing list
   [2]geda-u...@moria.seul.org
   [3]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

References

   1. mailto:armin.fa...@aon.at
   2. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org
   3. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[Dave McGuire]

  He's a troll.

 -Dave

On 7/15/10 8:18 AM, Armin Faltl wrote:
> Man, what are you doing here?
> Read up and steal ideas to incorporate in proprietary tools?
> Try snatch bits of wisdome to patent denying prior art?
> 
> timecop wrote:
>>> I think that the proper place to resolve this issue is in the actual
>>> *licenses,* which as with OSS may vary from permissive to
>>> restrictive.  I'd like to see the evolution of at least one OSHW
>>> license where a requirement is that the design files for the
>>> project-- and its derivative works --need to be in open, documented
>>> formats.
>>> 
>>
>> Keep dreaming, bro.
>> Maybe when gEDA reaches 1/10th the functionality/usability of say Protel.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> geda-user mailing list
>> geda-user@moria.seul.org
>> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>>
>>   
> 
> 
> ___
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@moria.seul.org
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user


-- 
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[Dave McGuire]

On 7/15/10 8:21 AM, timecop wrote:
> No, I'm just using whatever tool gets the job done while staying out of the 
> way.

  Now if only YOU would stay out of the way.

  -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Hi everybody

[Armin Faltl]

Stefan Salewski wrote:

Please note: translated documentation is only useful, when it is up to
date. In the net we have a lot of outdated translated documentation.
Keeping translations up to date is really hard work -- you have all the
time to watch for small changes in the original
Like everything else our docs should be under revision control. So 
noticing the changes

is feasible.

- just the proverbial 2 cents


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: pcb pad, soldermask questions

[Armin Faltl]

kai-martin knaak wrote:

I can think of two possible times: one is where there is more than
one connected pad item for a given device pin,



Use the same number for every pad that needs to be considered the same with 
regard to the netlist.
  

So this would be the ideal solution for a transistor/FET in SO8-package?


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Hi everybody

[Stefan Salewski]

On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 23:32 +1930, Ali Moreno wrote:
> Hi, i'm from Venezuela, my english is very poor (sorry). I'm new on
>this list, in gEDA and even in electronics.
>I want to learn gEDA and i think, in the way i can translate some
>documentation into spanish.
>I use Debian (stable) and if you could guide me what is the right way
>to begin the translation of the doc, please tell me.
>Thank you.

Please note: translated documentation is only useful, when it is up to
date. In the net we have a lot of outdated translated documentation.
Keeping translations up to date is really hard work -- you have all the
time to watch for small changes in the original.

And I really think that people doing EDA design should be able to read
some English.

And of course, people doing translations should be experts in that area
-- I have seen a lot German documentation for commercial devices done by
fools. Despite of my limited English skills, most of the time I prefer
reading english manuals instead of the ugly german translations. 

If you still want to translate: Maybe a good starting point is DJs fine
tutorial for beginners. Of course you should ask him for permission.

Best regards

Stefan Salewski




___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[timecop]

No, I'm just using whatever tool gets the job done while staying out of the way.
I don't actually use Protel, but I did purchase the EDA suite that I'm using.



On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Armin Faltl  wrote:
> Man, what are you doing here?
> Read up and steal ideas to incorporate in proprietary tools?
> Try snatch bits of wisdome to patent denying prior art?
>
> timecop wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that the proper place to resolve this issue is in the actual
>>> *licenses,* which as with OSS may vary from permissive to restrictive.  I'd
>>> like to see the evolution of at least one OSHW license where a requirement
>>> is that the design files for the project-- and its derivative works --need
>>> to be in open, documented formats.
>>>
>>
>> Keep dreaming, bro.
>> Maybe when gEDA reaches 1/10th the functionality/usability of say Protel.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> geda-user mailing list
>> geda-user@moria.seul.org
>> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@moria.seul.org
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[Armin Faltl]

Man, what are you doing here?
Read up and steal ideas to incorporate in proprietary tools?
Try snatch bits of wisdome to patent denying prior art?

timecop wrote:

I think that the proper place to resolve this issue is in the actual 
*licenses,* which as with OSS may vary from permissive to restrictive.  I'd 
like to see the evolution of at least one OSHW license where a requirement is 
that the design files for the project-- and its derivative works --need to be 
in open, documented formats.



Keep dreaming, bro.
Maybe when gEDA reaches 1/10th the functionality/usability of say Protel.


___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

  



___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user