Peter Clifton wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 23:59 +0200, Alessandro Baretta wrote:
[snip] But it has features I need and cannot do without: a full
standards compliant library of IEC components, a notion of modular components
(think of a relay, where the solenoid appears on one page and each o
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 08:25 +0200, L.J.H. Timmerman wrote:
> If yes, and if a following naming scheme like "04-04-01.sym" would be
> used (obfuscated symbol name for a resistor as used in the Dutch
> standard NEN 5152:2004, which is derived from or conforming to the IEC
> 60617 standard) there wou
Hi Al and all on the list,
A question comes to mind: are we going to change the naming scheme of
the symbols, as for now this is like "name-1.sym".
If not, the search order may become an issue for identical named
symbols.
If yes, and if a following naming scheme like "04-04-01.sym" would be
used
Peter Clifton wrote:
All in all, it seems like a pretty pointless standard if we can't make a
free symbol library from it. (Or even one which looks similar, but
doesn't bear the standard's name).
no kidding. Luckily I don't have to use any symbol set that anyone
could come even close to call
On Friday 30 March 2007 18:30, al davis wrote:
> Just do it different. Try to outclass them.
I forgot and explicitly grant permission to implement
our "standard" to everyone, in hopes that they do.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seu
On Friday 30 March 2007 15:42, Steve Meier wrote:
> The following areas are covered in the database:
> 1. Conductors and connecting devices
> 2. Basic passive components
> 3. Semiconductors and electron tubes
> 4. Production and conversion of electrical energy
> 5. Switchgear, controlgear and
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 18:05 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> I've no idea what the scope of the IEC standard is. Standard electronic
> components appear to be covered, as do control system components. We'd
> need people familiar in various fields to submit symbols (or
> descriptions). Assuming the re
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:41 +0200, kmk wrote:
> Imagine a copyrighted alphabet ;-)
>
> Bottom line: Non-open standards should be avoided if possible.
Ha...
I was thinking about drawing the parallel between symbols and fonts
which has been made before!
Keeping the parallel, the "Alphabet" is es
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 13:19 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > The Licensing would want to be as free as possible, so "Open"
> > standard doesn't mean "non-commercial".
>
> Since I work for Red Hat, I'm sensitive to the difference between
> "commercial" and "proprietary". You can be commercial and full
Peter Clifton wrote:
> All in all, it seems like a pretty pointless standard if we can't make a
> free symbol library from it.
Ack.
Methinks, an enforced copyright or any other interlectual property on a
standard defeats its purpose. A standard is the collective attempt of
those who conform to i
> The Licensing would want to be as free as possible, so "Open"
> standard doesn't mean "non-commercial".
Since I work for Red Hat, I'm sensitive to the difference between
"commercial" and "proprietary". You can be commercial and fully open,
but you can't be proprietary and fully open.
___
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 08:56 -0800, Steve Meier wrote:
> IANAL but I did find this web site interesting and relevent
>
>
> http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
>
>
> I believe that the IEC database itself can will not be covered by
> copyright since the materials lack originality. The f
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 08:13 -0700, Harry Eaton wrote:
> --- Peter Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does anyone care to comment / speculate how much a
> > standard can cover by
> > Copyright? Whether symbols looking similar (or the
> > same, even) are in
> > breach of Copyright? If one symbol
IANAL but I did find this web site interesting and relevent
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
I believe that the IEC database itself can will not be covered by
copyright since the materials lack originality. The fact that they have
a symbol for resistor and that symbol might be copy
--- Peter Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone care to comment / speculate how much a
> standard can cover by
> Copyright? Whether symbols looking similar (or the
> same, even) are in
> breach of Copyright? If one symbol on its own isn't,
> is there some
> "literary work" in the databa
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 23:59 +0200, Alessandro Baretta wrote:
> [snip] But it has features I need and cannot do without: a full
> standards compliant library of IEC components, a notion of modular components
> (think of a relay, where the solenoid appears on one page and each of the
> contacts
Alessandro Baretta wrote:
Dan McMahill wrote:
As far as multipage projects Do you mean a flat hierarchy but
with multiple pages?
I'd like to have all my project in a single file.
[jg]This sounds odd to me at first, but I like it. Why not have
a page module defined within a file so one
Dan McMahill wrote:
Alessandro Baretta wrote:
Two above all: a complete IEC symbols
library for automation and distribution systems, and support for
multipage projects.
If you were to draw the symbols, that could solve the first problem!
No, that's not an option. I work 14h a day, and I al
Alessandro Baretta wrote:
I'm very sad to say that after about a year of work with gEDA I have had
to switch to a commercial alternative. Not that I like it better; on the
contrary, I'm much less productive with my new 4500€ CAD than with
gschem, but I simply could no longer do without the addi
> a complete IEC symbols library for automation and distribution
> systems,
Could you elaborate? Or are you just saying that gEDA doesn't have
the symbols and footprints you need?
> and support for multipage projects.
All my big projects are multi-page projects with gEDA. What, exactly,
is st
I'm very sad to say that after about a year of work with gEDA I have had to
switch to a commercial alternative. Not that I like it better; on the contrary,
I'm much less productive with my new 4500€ CAD than with gschem, but I simply
could no longer do without the additional features of the othe
21 matches
Mail list logo
