[Discuss] unconference: open-source computer-aided-hardware-design (CAD) tools (OSCAHDcon?)
Ilia Lebedev
ilebedev at mit.edu
Thu Mar 12 23:57:03 UTC 2015
I'll be there and will help in whatever way I can.
Thanks for taking the first steps!
PS those names are terrible. We don't need a name before we do great work!
-i
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:54 PM Pierce Nichols <pierce at logos-electro.com>
wrote:
> Nancy,
>
> That sounds super cool, and I wish I could attend. However, I have no
> free weekends for the next couple of months and I'm on the wrong side
> of the country (Seattle).
>
> -p
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > i'm organizing an in-person meetup / unconference this sometime in the
> next
> > month. it will be at MIT in boston, ma.
> >
> > let me know if you
> >
> > want to help organize productive meeting
> >
> > specify desired outcomes of the meeting
> > specify scope of meeting (for instance, does this design tools include
> EDA,
> > 2D/3D, parametric, sculpture-oriented, performance-oriented,
> > usability-oriented, all of the above?)
> >
> > have opinions about how to include remote contributors
> > want to attend
> > or have a better name than CADcamp or OSCAHDcon, ugh, so terrible
> >
> > i'll email more details out after I actually get some of my paying work
> > done...
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Pierce Nichols <
> pierce at logos-electro.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Free software makes me think of free-as-in-puppy and free hardware
> >> makes me think of free-as-in-boat... I *much* prefer the open source
> >> terminology for both.
> >>
> >> On a slightly more serious note, the existing open design tools are
> >> distinctly user un-friendly. UI design is a critical need if they are
> >> go attain wider adoption.
> >>
> >> -p
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I strongly object to using the term "Free Hardware", as stated
> >> > previously
> >> > [1]. I hope other people agree with me, or care to explain otherwise.
> >> >
> >> > Timofonic:
> >> >
> >> > I like the idea of GSoC, but for hardware, or more accurately, for
> >> > developing open-source computer-aided-hardware-design tools and
> >> > standards /
> >> > standard file formats.
> >> > Wow, what a mouthful. Maybe it's time to poke google.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, I'm pretty distressed by the millions of dollars being poured
> >> > into
> >> > closed-source 123D, Circuitmaker, OnShape and the continued lack of
> >> > interoperability in circuit design land. (also in my opinion we should
> >> > explicitly search for UI/design contributors... I think prioritizing
> >> > usability could even give open-source tools a lead in EDA).
> >> >
> >> > Re: open books, http://en.wikibooks.org/
> >> >
> >> > =====
> >> > [1]
> >> >>
> >> >> I do not know the difference between free software and open source
> >> >> software. I assume "OSS" is more business-friendly. I don't
> >> >> particularly
> >> >> care and certainly hope that OSHW does not split in a similarly
> >> >> confusing
> >> >> manner (distinguishing "free hardware" vs "open-source hardware"
> would
> >> >> just
> >> >> be exasperating).
> >> >
> >> > http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-March/001461.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ~~~
> >> > narwhaledu.com, educational robots [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog,
> >> > orangenarwhals
> >> > arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
> >> > scaling
> >> > your analyses)
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Timofonic <timofonic at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hello.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm new at electronics, but I was thinking about it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have some questions about Free/Open Hardware, maybe even full of
> >> >> radical
> >> >> thinking:
> >> >>
> >> >> - Can IC based designs be considered as Free Hardware if the design
> and
> >> >> manufacture process aren't free too? I have some simple examples:
> >> >> lm237-based adjustable power supply vs one using only discrete
> >> >> components
> >> >> (are those patents expired? Another issue), computer hardware such as
> >> >> Raspberry Pi using free schematics but proprietary components (CPU
> and
> >> >> others).
> >> >>
> >> >> - Can computer systems with open source schematics and PCB not full
> >> >> featured open source hardware drivers be considered as Open Hardware?
> >> >> Raspberry Pi or an hypothetical Open Hardware AMD-based motherboard
> >> >> with
> >> >> ported Coreboot, but opensource hardware drivers a lot behind the
> >> >> proprietary ones, OpenPandora/Dragon using PowerVR GPU without proper
> >> >> Open
> >> >> Source hardware drivers.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Free Hardware designs but using proprietary software such as
> >> >> DipTrace/Eagle/Altium/CircuitMaker/Other.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Are there some kind of planning for priorities of projects to be
> done
> >> >> and some effective way to incentivate it? For example, something
> >> >> similar to
> >> >> GSoC but for hardware.
> >> >>
> >> >> - What about Free/Open Hardware tes tools? High precision power
> >> >> supplies
> >> >> and multimeters, soldering iron stations, oscilloscopes, logic
> >> >> analyzers,
> >> >> CNC, UV PCB exposure boxes...
> >> >>
> >> >> - What about Free/Open Hardware from the ground up? High quality open
> >> >> learning material:
> >> >> --Open Books: different levels from basic for children (no idea about
> >> >> available material, sorry) and adults such as works from Forrest Mims
> >> >> to
> >> >> complete (think of something like Art of Electronics and Practical
> >> >> Electronics for Inventors) and advanced, organize translations ,
> >> >> didactical
> >> >> games even for adults but not dummy ones, practices, volunteering
> >> >> tutors for
> >> >> learning aid to people interested on Free/Open hardware but having
> >> >> issues
> >> >> with the learning process and collaboration with learning centers
> >> >> (schools,
> >> >> colleges, vocational training schools, universities...).
> >> >> -- Software: EDA (KiCad and FreeEDA looks promising) and a solid
> >> >> interoperability file format initiative similar to IDF and
> >> >> OpenDocument,
> >> >> favouring development of new tools and good project management.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kind regards.
> >> >>
> >> >> El 12 de marzo de 2015 12:15:20 CET, "Antoine, as a contact of a free
> >> >> smallwindturbine project" <smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com>
> >> >> escribió:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Excuse me all, but I just would like to write this: the question of
> >> >>> "free" for everything-but-software, is a right question, with or
> >> >>> without
> >> >>> philosophical inputs, with or without pro or cons arguments.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> For instance, the level of requirements of GNU-GPL terms and
> >> >>> conditions,
> >> >>> is not yet completely replicated and reach into the non-software
> >> >>> univers.
> >> >>> That is a fact.
> >> >>> The question is: is it possible to reach such a level of GNU-GPL for
> >> >>> everything-but-software, and how could it be reach ?
> >> >>> The question should not be: reaching such a level, is it good or
> bad ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Works, publications, of FSF or their representatives or members, on
> >> >>> this
> >> >>> question of "free notion for everything-but-software", will be very
> >> >>> useful
> >> >>> for all of us, don't you think ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Freely,
> >> >>> Antoine
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2015 -03-11 21:28 GMT+01:00 Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com
> >:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If you don't have a strong philosophical argument against the
> "sweat
> >> >>>> of
> >> >>>> the brow" provisos, then there is no real case against property.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Regarding these arguments, although it's not specifically 'libre',
> a
> >> >>>> good case for hardware as part of the commons and peer production
> is
> >> >>>> laid
> >> >>>> out by Michel Bauwens in his FLOK research paper about
> transitioning
> >> >>>> to a
> >> >>>> commons-based society:
> >> >>>> https://floksociety.co-ment.com/text/xMHsm6YpVgI/view/. I think
> there
> >> >>>> are
> >> >>>> more on the subject on that project, but there are so many papers
> >> >>>> that I
> >> >>>> lost track of all of them. I think it was George Dafermos who w as
> in
> >> >>>> charge
> >> >>>> of developing the model for commons-based production.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On 11 March 2015 at 14:18, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It's also confusing that in an argument based on pure morality,
> the
> >> >>>>> conclusion is somehow that because something is too hard it is
> not a
> >> >>>>> moral
> >> >>>>> imperative. I never understood that part of Stallman's argument.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> He always said that hardware wasn't relevant to Free Software. It
> >> >>>>> looks
> >> >>>>> like he's changing his mind because proprietary hardware might
> make
> >> >>>>> it
> >> >>>>> impossible to run Free Software.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I've never heard a good argument for why a thing MUST be libre.
> >> >>>>> Taking
> >> >>>>> it to that extreme seems like it just discourages creation. It
> means
> >> >>>>> that
> >> >>>>> the creator has to give up control of their creation or they're
> >> >>>>> inescapably
> >> >>>>> immoral merely because they didn't give up control. I don't think
> >> >>>>> there's
> >> >>>>> much of a precedent in philosophy for the idea that it's
> inherently
> >> >>>>> wrong to
> >> >>>>> control the thing you created. If you add something to the world
> the
> >> >>>>> only
> >> >>>>> reason anybody can have a discussion about whether or not you
> should
> >> >>>>> give it
> >> >>>>> away is because you made it in the first place. Seems like
> creation
> >> >>>>> is a
> >> >>>>> prerequisite to sharing.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Of course, I strongly encourage sharing :)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Mar 11, 2015 1:01 PM, "Emilio Velis" <contacto at emiliovelis.com
> >
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Not to mention the lack of viability in most cases of jumping
> right
> >> >>>>>> into that definition without any context. I think that any 'free'
> >> >>>>>> endeavor
> >> >>>>>> of the sort should not be derived from a philosophical standpoint
> >> >>>>>> on
> >> >>>>>> intangibles, but rather on the study of philosophy behind private
> >> >>>>>> property
> >> >>>>>> (perhaps an anti-Lockean view). Drawing a software-hardware
> >> >>>>>> parallel is
> >> >>>>>> confusing to say the least.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 11 March 2015 at 13:57, Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> hmm, just saw this on Slashdot:
> >> >>>>>>> "Why We Need Free Digital Hardware Designs"
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/15/03/11/1648243/why-we-
> need-free-digital-hardware-designs
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Links to Wired:
> >> >>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/2015/03/need-free-digital-hardware-
> designs/
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> It appears to me that Richard Stallman wrote this article.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Here is a quote:
> >> >>>>>>> "the concept we really need is that of a free hardware design.
> >> >>>>>>> That’s
> >> >>>>>>> simple: it means a design that permits users to use the design
> >> >>>>>>> (i.e.,
> >> >>>>>>> fabricate hardware from it) and to copy and redistribute it,
> with
> >> >>>>>>> or
> >> >>>>>>> without changes. The design must provide the same four freedoms
> >> >>>>>>> that
> >> >>>>>>> define free software."
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> I do like the philosophy behind it, but I am afraid the
> >> >>>>>>> introduction
> >> >>>>>>> of the term "Free Hardware" will increase confusion about
> hardware
> >> >>>>>>> licensing.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> cheers,
> >> >>>>>>> drew
> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>>>> 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pierce Nichols
> >> Principal Engineer
> >> Logos Electromechanical, LLC
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Pierce Nichols
> Principal Engineer
> Logos Electromechanical, LLC
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150312/7fe625f3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list