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

Fri Mar 13 06:18:38 UTC 2015

Is it possible to attend it online?
ᐧ

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:25 AM, abram connelly <abram.connelly at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>

-- 
Alex J V
@alexjv89
www.makeystreet.com/maker/alex
Find modular open source hardware for your project @ makeystreet.com
in.linkedin.com/in/alexjv/
+91- 886 105 3989(India)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150313/04a3ec1e/attachment-0001.html>