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

Ilia Lebedev ilebedev at mit.edu
Fri Mar 13 14:30:11 UTC 2015 

Good summary!
More from my conversations with Nancy:

In my mind, a successful project must be *modular*, amd let go of a strong
brand identity. We ought to permit someone in the community to expand the
project to suit their needs without becoming an expert in our project. We
could learn a lesson from the LLVM compiler model. Here are some examples:

- an all-ages papercraft CAD tools has absolutely no need for parametric
curves and many other features of a common cad tool, but shares a lot of
concerns with something like solidworks. I would like it to be easy for
someone to come along, hack at the visualizer, and include the analysis,
transformations, modeling tools, and primitives they need to make a
papercraft CAD tool that doesn't suck. They can write a self-contained tool
that "unwraps" geometry, adds glue tabs and wow! Papercraft!

- an esoteric simulation engine for fancy science XYZ should find it easy
to build their screwball primitives into our tool. These primitives,
however, should not become canon. I'm looking at you, Blender. Also
FreeCAD. In my mind, the (ideally human-readable) design file will
enumerate the toolkit it relies on (perhaps just the primitives included).

- A cs graphics / software design class would like to assign diverse
projects to students: a renderer, some new fancy type of parametric
surface, a different constraint solver, or a scene graph that allows fast
queries for, say, meshing for simulation of forces applied. They should be
able to do so by understanding the (simple and extremely well-documented)
design representation, and writing the tools they need. They should not
have to touch the UI, the tool binaries, and they should not have to
recompile the entire project.

Instead of building a cad tool to end all cad tools, we would do well to
agree on a common, powerful, and extensible intermediate representation of
designs. A small, active, and very clever group would moderate this
intermediate representation, and keep it from becoming merely a superset of
everyone's preferences. We could learn from the Golang design team here.

Some ideas for an in-person meetup. What could we hope to accomplish?
-Nailing down the collaboration model: agree on some productive separation
of concerns. While everyone will want to develop in whatever language they
like, we must have a convincing story for easy deployment, cross
platform-ness, and extensibility [1] .
 - Finding holes in our collective expertise, as Nancy was clever to
observe, and appointing specific people to moderate each aspect of the
design.
 - Dream up a utopia of an environment within which we can create the tools
we need, which can all coexist without complex interaction (thereby making
it easy to modify/add new tools).

Regarding the name: cadmium! :D But in all seriousness, I avoid picking a
name for the project

[1] (I am a big fan of using the browser as a platform, as a browser
already implements a lot of annoying things we are likely to get wrong
ourselves. A browser already does a good job of semi-securely implementing
persistent local storage, p2p and p2server communication, and dynamic
loading of resources. Recent specs include a concurrent, multi-threaded
environment for javascript - a big step forward. Onshape demonstrates that
in-browser cad is viable. The supply chain is also simplified if the tool
is served from a web site: I imagine the tool dynamically loading support
for whatever primitives it needs to work with a given design file
transparently. Oh, you're opening a design with a fluid simulation, hang
on, let me go and fetch this solver from the repository. Oh, you're doing
papercraft? Great, I won't bother loading parametric curves, but will load
the paper-related modules.

Thoughts/ideas/feedback are very welcome.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:50 AM Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com> wrote:

> sorry... going to keep spamming, i lean toward over-inclusiveness instead
> of privacy...
>
> clarification... i suspect that this first unconference should be 6 people
> max in room for a day... thrash through a lot of thoughts very quickly and
> efficiently in-person... i'll do my best before-hand to collate input from
> people in different areas of expertise & people working in this space.
>
> ```````````` list ````````````
> 1.1.1 Assimp
> 1.1.2 Art of Illusion
> 1.1.3 Blender
> 1.1.4 BlenderCAD
> 1.1.5 BRL-CAD
> 1.1.6 CadQuery
> 1.1.7 FreeCAD
> 1.1.8 HeeksCAD
> 1.1.9 Inkscape
> 1.1.10 K3D
> 1.1.11 LibreCAD
> 1.1.12 OpenSCAD
> 1.1.13 POVray
> 1.1.14 pyGear
> 1.1.15 PythonOCC
> 1.1.16 QCAD
> 1.1.17 ScorchCAD
> 1.1.18 Shapesmith
> 1.1.19 SolveSpace
> 1.1.20 Wings3D
>
>
> `````````````ppl not on the list who i know are working in the
> space`````````````
>
>    - http://n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/
>
> Rosenberg
>
>    - http://www.mattkeeter.com/projects/antimony/old.html
>
> wait... i swear this person was in mas.863 with me... i might even
> remember his face
>
>    - http://mach30.org/ https://github.com/dcowden/cadquery
>
> o right this is from Matt Maier on this list
>
> nadya: definitely on-board last i talked to her
>
> `````````````pulling out from thread on MITERS / my chat logs`````````````
>
>    - ilia, who has been helping me flesh out ideas
>    -
>
>    "what's out there now is not sufficient to *empower people to do
>    design without access to high end tools through school/work*, and that
>    ought to change"
>     it would make sense to enumerate what exactly the problems with the
>    current cad situation are, whom the current state of affairs fails
>    and where the current, non-free tools, are lacking because they can't
>    innovate freely"
>    "think it would be a tremendous success if there is a general
>    agreement on the overall vision of what kind of person this tool will
>    serve, the problems we won't try to solve"
>
>    - bayley, who started on a newtonian solver and i am slowly coercing
>    out of solo developer corner
>    - " cad sofware that you can put on your MPI cluster and have it say,
>       solve a 747 at 100fps / arbitrarily large system"
>       - "in fact, *Solidworks performance is entirely bound by the
>       performance of a single core*)."
>    - tdelgado, "i have strong thoughts on horrid state of non-FLOSS 3D
>    CAD software"
>    - dgonz,  "Solidworks is so slow for me on an i7 with a workstation
>    GPU"
>       -  "file compatibility is huge. I wish there were some kind of
>       .oasm *open assembly file format* that Solidworks could read and
>       open and save as, to move assemblies between CAD programs."
>       - "mechanism and assembly design, and seeing whether or not my
>       mechanism is fully constrained"
>    - bshaya, "redefine formats to something open and text based that can
>    be independently version controlled"
>    - me: "support a cottage industry of folks making cool and fun things
>    for each other. "
>       - "*middle schoolers can design 747s or design nyancat-shaped tesla
>       coils or CAD a butterfly in their spare time with minimal UI pain*"
>
>
> ~~~
> 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 2:58 AM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.contacto
>>>>>> r 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/s
>>>>>> tory/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
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150313/42700cee/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list