[Discuss] is intel edison open-source hardware?

Fri Mar 6 15:33:21 UTC 2015

If you're looking to support an open source hardware CAD solution then
check out Mach 30. http://mach30.org/ It's a 501c3 non-profit and one of
the projects we're supporting is called CADQuery. Here's the latest reports
hangout (yesterday) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-g3cqyizp8 in which we
provide an update. The biggest step is probably that CADQuery is now
integrated into FreeCAD. What we're building is a toolchain for
programmatic CAD so that, for example, an expert in rocket nozzle design
can just define the equations, the developer can adjust the parameters,
then a CAD model is produced automatically. This is the developer's github
page for CADQuery https://github.com/dcowden/cadquery

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com> wrote:

> I also "like" this:
> https://wefunder.com/madesolid
> We're not saying MadeSolid is Microsoft in 1976. But the industry feels
> like 1976. Proprietary and vertically integrated systems are being replaced
> with open platforms, with multiple companies specializing in different
> parts of the stack. If MadeSolid* locks up IP around new materials that
> become industry standards, they have a shot at being the dominant player in
> 3D printing.*
>
> Seriously, if this is what investors are looking for, i don't think i
> could ever talk to one. -.-
> but they hold a lot of money. maybe there are hippie investors somewhere
> in the world... like an already-rich version of me >.<
>
> ~~~
> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
> scaling your analyses)
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree, galileo: drop oshw or release altium. edison: fine, never
>> claimed to be open source.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Digressing as well*
>> I am hoping as an MIT alum that my letter (with many people's signatures)
>> will have some clout with solidworks' founderperson and they will fix their
>> pricing model. even better if they figure out that they can compete with
>> autodesk 123D for our attention by making an *open-source* competitor :P
>>
>> crowdfund OSS... I did not reaad closely, but this
>> <http://blog.felixbreuer.net/2013/04/24/crowdfunding-for-open-source.html>
>>  (2013)
>>
>>> Crowdfunding projects need contributions from both rational and
>>> altruistic backers to raise large amounts of money.
>>>
>>
>> , there is this <https://freedomsponsors.org/> site but seems ghosttown.
>> yea, i don't think anything exists really. I think in some sense it's more
>> a one-to-one thing I am hoping for, like poor-mans-philanthropy rather than
>> masses of hopeful end-users and a developer who might have life issues and
>> disappear. (i was going to use openshot as example, but he just
>> reappeared <http://www.openshotvideo.com/?bloglink-header> after a 7
>> months). idk i think the solution rather is for me to sell out, get rich,
>> and fund OSS with less care about my hard-earned 10k going to waste :)
>>
>> IMHO Big sponsors controlling direction for whatever project is fine,
>> there are *many* big company sponsored open source software in use
>> everywhere. Take AngularJS, which was developed on google money and time.
>>
>>
>> ~~~
>> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
>> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
>> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
>> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
>> scaling your analyses)
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Mastro Gippo <gipmad at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, now I see the Solidworks thing, but I think that you will have to
>>> take that matter with MIT, not with SW! :) That is another matter entirely,
>>> and I think that it's one of the main reasons open software usually lags
>>> behind: it's hard to motivate people with anything other than money (and
>>> sex maybe). So you'll get a good open software only if someone pays for
>>> that (but then it hardly remains open), or if a group is completely obsesed
>>> with that and has the right knowledge to make it. That makes me think, if
>>> there are people like you that would give money to develop a project, is
>>> there a crowdfunding website that specializes on free software? The big
>>> problem I see with that, is that big sponsors will want to control the
>>> direction of the development. Well, I'm digressing.
>>>
>>> I think I made some confusion on the names; I was thinking about the
>>> Edison. Oddly enough, they don't make open hardware claims on that:
>>> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it-yourself/edison.html
>>> By the way, are we ok with GPS and GSM black boxes and not with Edison?
>>> I think that if Intel released the design files for the Edison's breakout
>>> board, that would put them on par with the Arduino: after all, we don't
>>> have the internal design files for the ATMEGA328 either.
>>> About the Galilelo, they should just drop the OSHW claim and be done
>>> with that (or release files, but I think that's unlikely).
>>>
>>> 2015-03-06 12:48 GMT+01:00 Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hmm, I never got around to finishing it :D thanks for your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> I would be 100% fine with Intel releasing their Altium files. That
>>>> would meet the agreed definition of OSHW. Altium being hella expensive and
>>>> the non-inter-compatilbility and closed-source world of circuit CAD files
>>>> is a related but separate issue in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, what I didn't get around to writing down in a concise manner was
>>>> basically the thought that, with companies like github and tindie, it is
>>>> more okay (altho not ideal) because at least they depend on us as much as
>>>> we depend on them.
>>>>
>>>> re: explaining the backlash, it is kind of rooted in suspicion of how
>>>> big companies will pour time and effort into "new markets", offer *closed
>>>> source *products, and those projects can get axed on a whim because
>>>> business people decided the "risky new venture" did not end up making money
>>>> for the shareholders/CEO. So I think that it is *very* not ideal for
>>>> Autodesk to spend hella money on a closed-source 123D, it can become better
>>>> than current open-source tools for teachers / education, everyone will
>>>> adopt it, and then 10 years later when they graduate they are in a world of
>>>> pain. Or 2 years later Autodesk can stop hosting 123D and axe the project,
>>>> and everyone will have useless files they can't do anything with, or worse
>>>> their designs are just gone.
>>>>
>>>> That is where solidworks comes in. I graduated from MIT, which gets
>>>> plyed with hella free Solidworks because it was cofounded by some MIT alum,
>>>> and trying to pay for solidworks after graduating made me exceptionally
>>>> unhappy.*
>>>>
>>>> I do admit I probably have an anti-big-corporation streak after doing
>>>> my 1120s for my startup as well. :o I am not sure I could remove that bent
>>>> and still feel inspired to write this piece. It seems more like a factual
>>>> statement of the fact that there is backlash, to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * I would be in fact be willing to donate half my income this year so
>>>> that someone suitably talented could work on an open-source alternative to
>>>> solidworks full-time. parametric CAD and also a more sculpty option
>>>> (perhaps built on wings 3d). that is how important it is. sadly i don't
>>>> have the technical chops nor willpower to work on one thing for that long
>>>> to do it myself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~~~
>>>> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
>>>> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
>>>> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
>>>> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
>>>> scaling your analyses)
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Mastro Gippo <gipmad at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everybody, I'm all in for OSHW and I hate anyone using the image of
>>>>> a community to promote stuff, but I didn't like the tone of the letter. I
>>>>> don't think that threatening people is a good way to get what we want. From
>>>>> what I see here, no one batted an eye when people agreed that GPS, GSM and
>>>>> all sort of modules are ok to use on OSHW designs, even if they are black
>>>>> boxes, but now we're bashing Intel for the same thing.
>>>>> I think that even if Intel released their Altium design files, they
>>>>> would still be borderline compliant because Altium is commercial, so why
>>>>> bother? Sure, they could have designed it with kicad, but IMHO kikad is not
>>>>> complete enough for Intel's (industrial) designs (or else everyone would
>>>>> use it and Altium would go bankrupt).
>>>>> So, given the GPS module "agreement", I think that Intel could just
>>>>> release the docking boards design files to be able to say that they are
>>>>> compliant.
>>>>> I don't understand the point of the footnote either; what's the matter
>>>>> with Solidworks in this discussion??? Am I missing something? Aren't they
>>>>> free to make a commercial product and sell it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-03-06 4:42 GMT+01:00 Jeffrey Warren <jeff at publiclab.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 w Nancy and +1 letter!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Hi Seth!)
>>>>>>  On Mar 5, 2015 8:23 PM, "Nancy Ouyang" <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re: Galileo, Why can't they just stay away from the words "open
>>>>>>> source hardware"? I don't understand what's so blinking hard about that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm fine with Edison being closed-source and Intel protecting
>>>>>>> something they spent a lot of resources on. That's because they*
>>>>>>> don't claim it's open source hardware*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, I'm drafting a letter. I'm working on etherpad and will ask
>>>>>>> for help editing soon.
>>>>>>> http://etherpad.mit.edu/p/oshw-may-2015
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~~~
>>>>>>> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
>>>>>>> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal
>>>>>>> blog <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
>>>>>>> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
>>>>>>> scaling your analyses)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Hunter, Seth E <
>>>>>>> seth.e.hunter at intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are the Edison Source files they provide:
>>>>>>>> http://www.intel.com/support/maker/edison.htm   The Edison unit is
>>>>>>>> closed – but everything around it should be well documented. I think the
>>>>>>>> reason is that the SOC and Edison package is a 9 layer board and the
>>>>>>>> Tangier team spent a long time turning a mobile phone SOC and the Broadcom
>>>>>>>> Wifi/Bluetooth into a small unit that could be integrated with products in
>>>>>>>> a modular way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I want to figure out is if you can convert an Allegro and
>>>>>>>> Orcad files into a format that makers can work with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regarding Galileo here is what I could find:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Galileo gen 1:
>>>>>>>> https://communities.intel.com/community/makers/galileo/documentation/galileodocuments
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Galileo gen 1 reference design:
>>>>>>>> http://downloadmirror.intel.com/24514/eng/Galileo%20Reference%20Design.zip
>>>>>>>> (its in a format called brd)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Galileo gen 2:
>>>>>>>> https://communities.intel.com/community/makers/galileo/documentation/intel-galileo-gen-2-development-board-documents
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What’s weird is that at one point I downloaded the board files for
>>>>>>>> Galileo Gen 1 to try and understand if makers/developers could use them to
>>>>>>>> go to product with the Quark SOC – and they were on the web and easy to
>>>>>>>> find.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don’t work directly with the software groups that make these
>>>>>>>> boards but I’ve gotten to know their org fairly well. We are trying to find
>>>>>>>> a way to gently push them towards OSH standards. If folks can send me
>>>>>>>> feedback about this I’ll gather it together to see where these products are
>>>>>>>> with regard to the checklists – I’m not sure if anyone has ever done this…
>>>>>>>> but it would be useful to present that information to the right people and
>>>>>>>> I know the right channels I think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seth Hunter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>> Seth Hunter
>>>>>>>> PhD, MIT Media Lab - Research Scientist at Intel Labs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> website <http://www.perspectum.com/>  |  inspiration
>>>>>>>> <http://arplay.tumblr.com/> |  life
>>>>>>>> <http://flickr.com/photos/sethismyfriend/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From:* discuss-bounces at lists.oshwa.org [mailto:
>>>>>>>> discuss-bounces at lists.oshwa.org] *On Behalf Of *Nancy Ouyang
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2015 4:39 PM
>>>>>>>> *To:* The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Discuss] is intel edison open-source hardware?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sorry, the galileo. i couldn't figure out from the web if Intel
>>>>>>>> claims edison is open-source or not, but a friend told me it wasn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      ~~~
>>>>>>>> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
>>>>>>>> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal
>>>>>>>> blog <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
>>>>>>>> scaling your analyses)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Nancy Ouyang <
>>>>>>>> nancy.ouyang at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it-yourself/galileo-maker-quark-board.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Providing users with a fully open source hardware* and software
>>>>>>>> development environment, the Intel Galileo Gen 2 board complements and
>>>>>>>> extends the Arduino line of product
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 10 clicks in all I found was a PDF of the schematic.
>>>>>>>> http://www.intel.com/support/galileo/sb/CS-035168.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While better than nothing, that certainly doesn't fulfill the
>>>>>>>> definition:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The hardware must be released with documentation including design
>>>>>>>> files, and must allow modification and distribution of the design files. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "These are the original source files that you would use to make
>>>>>>>> modifications to the hardware’s design. *The act of sharing these
>>>>>>>> files is the core practice of open-source hardware*."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.oshwa.org/definition/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just checking if someone knows better than me what's going on here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ~~~
>>>>>>>> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
>>>>>>>> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal
>>>>>>>> blog <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
>>>>>>>> scaling your analyses)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150306/9df56854/attachment-0001.html>