Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)
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
Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)
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 armin.fa...@aon.at 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)
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: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)
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)
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Dave N6NZ n...@arrl.net 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: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)
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 n...@arrl.net 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)
On Jul 15, 2010, at 7:47 AM, asom...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Dave N6NZ n...@arrl.net 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. snip ___ 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)
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
Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)
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)
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)
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. snip 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.htmlhttp://designfiles.org/%7Ebryan/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 kanz...@gmail.com 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 snip -- 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)
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=getsearch=0x6C0B9F53 ___ 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)
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: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)
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
Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)
On 7/14/10 10:51 PM, 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. Damn, and here I was hoping he had unsubscribed. Go design a circuit or something, if you can. Use Protel, so maybe you'll get something done, huh? -Dave ...most decidedly having a zero asshole tolerance day -- 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)
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. You can have an open documented format for a proprietary EDA tool. I don't see what gEDA has to do with anything in that comment. And you don't have to be a dreamer to write a license that has whatever terms you want in 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)
On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:54 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: On 7/14/10 10:51 PM, 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. While it's nice to know that your full-of-yourselfness extends to gEDA, it's not the only game in town, and it's not even the only open source EDA with open file formats. This will happen whether or not gEDA evolves, and whether or not gEDA is involved. Damn, and here I was hoping he had unsubscribed. +1 ___ 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)
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. -dave ___ 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)
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. ___ 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)
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
Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)
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. On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Dave N6NZ n...@arrl.net 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
