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

Sat Mar 14 07:14:00 UTC 2015

emilio, mario: will try to ensure it is streamed if our conversation seems
worthwhile; not super-sure at this point. appropriate technology /
educational use is an important use case that is not being addressed well
right now

david: awesome! will ping you again in the next few weeks when meetup
details are set

~~~
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 12:09 PM, David A. Mellis <dmellis at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sounds like a great idea! I’ll try to come.
>
> My suggestion for a desired outcome is a list of priorities for future
> development on open CAD tools, along with people interested in helping with
> them. You might break things down by domain (e.g. electrical, mechanical),
> by output (e.g. CAD for 3d-printing, for laser-cutting, etc.), or by
> audience (e.g. novices, existing users of open CAD tools, existing users of
> closed CAD tools). I’d definitely try to coordinate with any existing
> efforts (like the CERN work on KiCAD).
>
> Maybe a name like Opening Computer-Aided Design?
>
> David
>
> On Mar 12, 2015, at 7:48 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
>
>    1. want to help organize productive meeting
>       1. specify desired outcomes of the meeting
>       2. 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?)
>    2. have opinions about how to include remote contributors
>    3. want to attend
>    4. 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150314/90a8d332/attachment-0001.html>