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

Ilia Lebedev ilebedev at mit.edu
Fri Mar 13 15:06:53 UTC 2015 

Also: how's "Cadet" for the name?: CAD extensible toolkit. Space Cadet!
Anything that is easy to pronounce, and is amenable to a cute logo would be
lovely.

Best,
-i

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:30 AM Ilia Lebedev <ilebedev at mit.edu> wrote:

> 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/bced2894/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list