[Discuss] unconference: open-source computer-aided-hardware-design (CAD) tools (OSCAHDcon?)

Fri Mar 13 00:55:15 UTC 2015

I'd be interested in attending, presenting and/or helping organize, just
let me know.

I think having people present CAD tools they're working on, contributing to
or even just giving talks on the various open alternatives and how to use
them would be pretty interesting.

As for the name, how about something like BOSCAHD (Boston Open Source
Computer Aided Hardware Design)?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Ilia Lebedev <ilebedev at mit.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150312/302b8589/attachment-0001.html>