4 ms·

One of the things that free software lacks strength is in EDA tools. There were people who created free software for hardware guys but with the lack of fund and

by e19293001 8y ago

One of the things that free software lacks strength is in EDA tools. There were people who created free software for hardware guys but with the lack of fund and volunteers, the development deteriorates. While hardware development is not easy compared to software development, I hope there will be a strong move in EDA tool development. Free software deserves the praise for saving everyone's ass.

bb88 8y ago
Kicad is great, but suffers from the library system. There really needs to be a standard file format for a part in the electronics industry that has the symbol, pinout diagram, footprint, and 3d model in one file, to make it easy to integrate with existing products. So much time is wasted making your own symbols, pinouts, and footprints.
- zrobotics 8y ago
  Does kicad really suffer though? Even with an altium license, I spent just as much time on footprints, there are too many variations for anything else. For instance, the last board of designed had a msp430 that was almost, bit not quite a standard SOIC-16 (wider pads needed). Personally, I wouldn't trust any library footprints at all. My major gripe is how slow the footprint editor is to pull up on stock formats, considering it has to check the repos each and every time.
  - bb88 8y ago
    Yeah, it really does. It will get better with KiCad 5.0 though which should be released soon.
    - flowless 8y ago
      Care to explain what's new in 5.0 regarding library management? I'm considering rolling out a standalone library (package) management for Kicad re-using infrastructure from Haskell (stripped down Hackage + Stackage servers). This way there would be a versioned repository people could upload their libraries to and from your own project you can depend on these libraries. Stackage would then create a snapshots of these so even stuff built years ago can still find correct version of Kicad and libraries.
      - bb88 8y ago
        The big changes are the foot prints are being downloaded instead of using the github plugin. http://blog.oshpark.com/2018/02/10/whats-coming-in-kicad-version-5/ http://blog.oshpark.com/2018/02/10/whats-coming-in-kicad-ver... I think there's maybe two things added to kicad that could be very awesome. 1. For SMD components, take a part, put it on a flatbed scanner and scan the footprint directly and allow you to edit widths before using it. Then I could just order the parts and use them in my designs without having to spend a lot of time constructing the footprints. Heck even just an overlay of the image onto the grid would be fine. 2. Something like what you're doing, except as a full blown SaaS solution that does pins, symbols, footprints, and 3d models on demand.
      - bb88 8y ago
        I just installed and run the 5.0rc2 release from the KiCAD ppa on ubuntu. The library is speedy, it's really easy to find parts. They are also separating the Kicad Library into it's own github repo, which should make it simple to add and update parts. Footprints can be imported from an image directly (which means you could scan a part and save the raw jpeg.) The only trick is that you need to know the X&Y dpi for the image. This means you could calculate from scanning a ruler, or by editing/cleaning up the the image in a photo editor and then importing it directly into kicad.
userbinator 8y ago
I think there's more people in EDA than average who side with the paid-for model --- after all, many companies sell IP cores and nothing physical.
anjbe 8y ago
The FSF claims to care about EDA, but contributes to the problem by pushing strong copyleft at any cost. Like the time Stallman refused to relicense LibreDWG (GPLv3) so that LibreCAD (GPLv2) could add support for Autodesk DWG files. (http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/whats-up-with-dwg-adoption-in-free-software http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/whats-up-with-dwg-a..., http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-...) He cares about his copyleft philosophy and GPL dogma more than the ability of free software to use free software.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  Well, as somebody put it extremely succinctly in his /. sig: If you don't like the GPL write your own damn software. I agree.
- Digital-Citizen 8y ago
  I'm not convinced that's an example of your point -- "[RMS] cares about his copyleft philosophy and GPL dogma more than the ability of free software to use free software". And some parts of the blog you pointed us to are simply wrong, like saying "[GPLv3] doesn't work for end-user software" is also wrong in that that's not true (there are many GPLv3, GPLv3+ -- GPLv3 or any later version -- and even GPLv2+ programs intended for users to run) and mischaracterizes the underlying issue. The heart of the issue has to do with understanding why GPLv2 licensors won't switch to GPLv3 (which would be fine but risk revisiting this problem again later) or GPLv3+. Furthermore, this is hardly an intractable problem, particularly among copyright holders who want to look out for their users' software freedom. As http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html rightly points out, "both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no way to make them compatible.". So LibreCAD could relicense to be either GPLv2+ or GPLv3 which would allow making a program with code from LibreCAD and code from a GPLv3 program. Asking a GPLv3 or GPLv3+ project to relicense under a lower version GPL would be heading in the wrong direction for preserving user's software freedom. Asking the FSF to do a worse job of defending software freedom is a silly thing to ask. GPLv3 has substantial practical improvements over GPLv2 which all GPL licensors ought to consider. A few examples: nicer termination terms than GPLv2 -- under GPLv2, any infringement causes a infringer to lose their rights under the license unless the copyright holder(s) restore those rights. GPLv3, on the other hand, grants an infringer some time to come into compliance to account for accidental infringement. GPLv3 has anti-TiVOization, anti-DRM, and patent licensing language not explicitly present in GPLv2. GPLv3 has a more modern source distribution requirement than GPLv2 (which was written before Bittorrent). Again, as http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html rightly points out, "Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache license.". http://gplv3.fsf.org/ http://gplv3.fsf.org/ has complete details on GPLv3's advantages and http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html concisely states multiple reasons to switch to GPLv3. There are plenty of good reasons to license under GPLv3 or "GPLv3 or later" to avoid this problem in the future.
mighty_atomic_c 8y ago
Oh my goodness, I love icarus verilog, I wish there was a push to get to icarus systemverilog... ... or a more recent version of the verilog standards ...
krupan 8y ago
And I am very sad about this. Here are my thoughts about why: https://bryan-murdock.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-open-source-has-not-taken-over-eda.html https://bryan-murdock.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-open-source-h...

bb88 8y ago

Kicad is great, but suffers from the library system. There really needs to be a standard file format for a part in the electronics industry that has the symbol, pinout diagram, footprint, and 3d model in one file, to make it easy to integrate with existing products. So much time is wasted making your own symbols, pinouts, and footprints.

zrobotics 8y ago
Does kicad really suffer though? Even with an altium license, I spent just as much time on footprints, there are too many variations for anything else. For instance, the last board of designed had a msp430 that was almost, bit not quite a standard SOIC-16 (wider pads needed). Personally, I wouldn't trust any library footprints at all. My major gripe is how slow the footprint editor is to pull up on stock formats, considering it has to check the repos each and every time.
- bb88 8y ago
  Yeah, it really does. It will get better with KiCad 5.0 though which should be released soon.
  - flowless 8y ago
    Care to explain what's new in 5.0 regarding library management? I'm considering rolling out a standalone library (package) management for Kicad re-using infrastructure from Haskell (stripped down Hackage + Stackage servers). This way there would be a versioned repository people could upload their libraries to and from your own project you can depend on these libraries. Stackage would then create a snapshots of these so even stuff built years ago can still find correct version of Kicad and libraries.
    - bb88 8y ago
      The big changes are the foot prints are being downloaded instead of using the github plugin. http://blog.oshpark.com/2018/02/10/whats-coming-in-kicad-version-5/ http://blog.oshpark.com/2018/02/10/whats-coming-in-kicad-ver... I think there's maybe two things added to kicad that could be very awesome. 1. For SMD components, take a part, put it on a flatbed scanner and scan the footprint directly and allow you to edit widths before using it. Then I could just order the parts and use them in my designs without having to spend a lot of time constructing the footprints. Heck even just an overlay of the image onto the grid would be fine. 2. Something like what you're doing, except as a full blown SaaS solution that does pins, symbols, footprints, and 3d models on demand.
    - bb88 8y ago
      I just installed and run the 5.0rc2 release from the KiCAD ppa on ubuntu. The library is speedy, it's really easy to find parts. They are also separating the Kicad Library into it's own github repo, which should make it simple to add and update parts. Footprints can be imported from an image directly (which means you could scan a part and save the raw jpeg.) The only trick is that you need to know the X&Y dpi for the image. This means you could calculate from scanning a ruler, or by editing/cleaning up the the image in a photo editor and then importing it directly into kicad.

userbinator 8y ago

I think there's more people in EDA than average who side with the paid-for model --- after all, many companies sell IP cores and nothing physical.

anjbe 8y ago

The FSF claims to care about EDA, but contributes to the problem by pushing strong copyleft at any cost. Like the time Stallman refused to relicense LibreDWG (GPLv3) so that LibreCAD (GPLv2) could add support for Autodesk DWG files. (http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/whats-up-with-dwg-adoption-in-free-software http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/whats-up-with-dwg-a..., http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-...) He cares about his copyleft philosophy and GPL dogma more than the ability of free software to use free software.

CaptainZapp 8y ago
Well, as somebody put it extremely succinctly in his /. sig: If you don't like the GPL write your own damn software. I agree.
Digital-Citizen 8y ago
I'm not convinced that's an example of your point -- "[RMS] cares about his copyleft philosophy and GPL dogma more than the ability of free software to use free software". And some parts of the blog you pointed us to are simply wrong, like saying "[GPLv3] doesn't work for end-user software" is also wrong in that that's not true (there are many GPLv3, GPLv3+ -- GPLv3 or any later version -- and even GPLv2+ programs intended for users to run) and mischaracterizes the underlying issue. The heart of the issue has to do with understanding why GPLv2 licensors won't switch to GPLv3 (which would be fine but risk revisiting this problem again later) or GPLv3+. Furthermore, this is hardly an intractable problem, particularly among copyright holders who want to look out for their users' software freedom. As http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html rightly points out, "both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no way to make them compatible.". So LibreCAD could relicense to be either GPLv2+ or GPLv3 which would allow making a program with code from LibreCAD and code from a GPLv3 program. Asking a GPLv3 or GPLv3+ project to relicense under a lower version GPL would be heading in the wrong direction for preserving user's software freedom. Asking the FSF to do a worse job of defending software freedom is a silly thing to ask. GPLv3 has substantial practical improvements over GPLv2 which all GPL licensors ought to consider. A few examples: nicer termination terms than GPLv2 -- under GPLv2, any infringement causes a infringer to lose their rights under the license unless the copyright holder(s) restore those rights. GPLv3, on the other hand, grants an infringer some time to come into compliance to account for accidental infringement. GPLv3 has anti-TiVOization, anti-DRM, and patent licensing language not explicitly present in GPLv2. GPLv3 has a more modern source distribution requirement than GPLv2 (which was written before Bittorrent). Again, as http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html rightly points out, "Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache license.". http://gplv3.fsf.org/ http://gplv3.fsf.org/ has complete details on GPLv3's advantages and http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html concisely states multiple reasons to switch to GPLv3. There are plenty of good reasons to license under GPLv3 or "GPLv3 or later" to avoid this problem in the future.

mighty_atomic_c 8y ago

Oh my goodness, I love icarus verilog, I wish there was a push to get to icarus systemverilog... ... or a more recent version of the verilog standards ...

krupan 8y ago

And I am very sad about this. Here are my thoughts about why: https://bryan-murdock.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-open-source-has-not-taken-over-eda.html https://bryan-murdock.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-open-source-h...