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

Fri Mar 13 06:58:25 UTC 2015

re: pierce, ok/yay -- it'll probably be a weekend, so instead we'll "shake
you down" for your thoughts before convening and report back, hopefully you
can attend the next meetup remotely somehow.

re: alex: that's point 2, idk, depends on the shape of the conference, if
it's presentation-style we can get someone to record video, livestream it,
if it's design-focused, maybe we can all collaborate on google docs, a
single laptop set up on the table for remote collaborators to shout ideas /
ask questions / feel like they are part of the conference

re: abram: awesome! maybe both presentation & design-spec should happen, i
hadn't thought about presentations from people, thanks for the idea.
specifically, i*f you want to help spec out what should happen before,
during, and by the end of the conference, *that would be great.

BEFORE: notify ppl in community, like everyone involved in
http://reprap.org/wiki/Useful_Software_Packages &
http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/CAD_tools, identify key missing areas of
expertise

(invite designers from RISD? UI & modelling engine researchers at CSAIL?
Design tool researchers at Media Lab? people who have connections to Google
and can get a GSoC
<https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/homepage/google/gsoc2015> focused on
Hardware to happen or money to otherwise appear? product designers who can
find early-adopter end-users and get them hyped and excited and lining up
to provide detailed feedback? technical writers who can herd everyone into
articulating clear visions to agree on?)

DURING: people present, then split into design spec or issue-oriented groups

BY THE END: ?? what is vision we can all share ?? OSCAHD tools are en-route
to becoming *better* than current industry standards, widely adopted,
stable releases, highly usable, actively developed, have paid developers or
monetary support from several (>2) large and stable commercial companies,
within 5 years??

ugh this sounds like a hackathon. maybe time to cash in and call it a
hackathon and get a local company like Bolt to sponsor food and swag for
us... -.-

~~~
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 13, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Alex J V <alex at makeystreet.com> wrote:

> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150313/c0c45250/attachment-0001.html>