Open Source Hardware Definition

C

Thread Starter

curt wuollet

For those of you following the Open Hardware PLC project (delayed for funding) here is an article that proposes a definition for OSHW, not unlike the definition of OSS. This is important as it defines what an OSHW license must include. This is a direct link which I found through Linux Today and LinuxPro magazine.

http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW

Anything they missed?

Regards
cww
 
They've got a list of licenses they feel meet that criteria. Most of those seem to be fairly generic. Which of those do you think meets your own criteria? It might be more productive to debate the merits of those actual licenses, as that gives something more tangible to discuss.

 
C

curt wuollet

Well, first you have to define "Open" :^) I saw some traces of "consortium disease" already in this definition, but really, it's a start on a really thorny subject. For example, it could be perverted by releasing design files that only work on a particular vendor's product. In fact, at this point, any design files are likely usable only on one tool, closed or Open. For example, many release Eagle files. I've downloaded it, it does nice work, it was free ($), but it is most definitely not Open. At least it runs on Linux. Doesn't this immediately put restrictions on the hardware? If you use their free ($) version, it's for non-profit use only. Does this make these designs invalid for automation work? Are they free? I can solve the problem by using only OSS for my designs, but will the term Open Hardware mean anything?

Regards
cww
 
One side of this argument would say that the Gerber files are open and that since you can distribute them anyone can make the boards or modify the gerbers.

However, Anyone who has done any board that is even remotely complex realizes that a GERBER file is not *really* editable the same way a PCB design file format is.

On the other hand, if Eagle is Free ($) and anyone can use it, isn't the same goal accomplished? Its not as ideal as if Eagle were to release its source code under GPL, but its not far off.

I think the ideal is that if there were a common open file format for schematics, netlists, and board files. Then you really could edit someone elses board design from your favorite board design package, purchased or GPL. Unfortunately I don't think you will see this anytime soon since the commercial vendors don't seem to be interested (yet) in interoperability to open hardware projects. The open source options still seem to be a little clunky compared to the commercial offerings. I am fortunate enough (or should I say unlucky enough??) to have access to a license and support package for Mentor Graphics Pads/DxDesigner suite with 2 layer autorouter. Lets just say that even they are mangling their design formats into increasingly more complicated database systems and scrapping file formats. It makes it very difficult to do basic to intermediate board layout several times a year because the overhead of managing projects and libraries is so much more complicated than your project.

So, I would like something that is simple and powerful and GPL, but I'm not completely satisfied with some of the free offerings I've seen (Disclaimer, I haven't downloaded a lot of these, just looked at the feature lists).

KEJR
 
C

curt wuollet

No, it's not the same simply because it's ($) free. CadSoft's license states that the free version can only be used for non-profit designs. Hardware costs money, and I find it unlikely that only non-profits would want to use the hardware. And they should not be able to restrict Open Hardware. And yes, a single Open format for source files is the answer. But the consortium members want it both ways. Open, but using _their_ format, which is a contradiction. I don't think they get it. Sounds very familiar. That's why I use PCB. As I understand it, it places no restrictions on what I do with the output.

Regards
cww
 
The problem with the open source PCB tools is that they are not even close to competing to the professional offerings from the medium scale offerings of Mentor Graphics (pads) or Altium (used to be protel). The same cannot be said about C compilers because GCC and GNU tools are very powerful and rival the commercial offerings.

My hope is that some key open hardware projects take off financially and some companies start supplying some more for funding projects like PCB. I am not sure, but I don't think this has really happened yet.

One question: if you were running a business based off of using Eagle, why not pay them for it? I don't think they charge ridiculous prices if you were in business. I agree that a mainstream open product is preferred, but they are still in their infancy.

KEJR
 
C

curt wuollet

If I were making money with it, I wouldn't have a philosophical problem with paying for it. The problem would be financial:^). So you can use the free version to make restricted hardware and you have to pay big bucks to make Open Hardware. Hmmmmm.......

The Linux Fund (linuxfund.org) has agreed to fund improvements in PCB. I can simplify it even further, right now, if I want to make Open Hardware, except as a hobby, there simply isn't any choice. If I sell you a board blank for $10 that cost $9.95 to make, it's a license violation with the commercial products. And it would take a lot of illegal nickels to buy their "standard" versions. Now, to be fair, if someone hires me to design and build in house or commercial hardware, and that _could_ happen, Eagle would be at the top of my list because they are competitive and support Linux. I'm pretty sure that's why "Open" designs are appearing done in all the "big name" tools. It's what someones employer uses. And if I were doing something like the BeagleBoard, PCB might be a problem. But, for the boards I just did, or say, a *duino type board, or even the densities needed for automation, PCB works just fine. It's not an extreme view or splitting hairs, it's simply free or not free. As in freedom, not beer.

Regards
cww
 
You could develop with Eagle Free version and when you plan to sell boards buy their $49 "lite" license (Basically the same as the free version, but you can use it for profit). That seems reasonable to me as a business model that they have. I don't know if Eagle is much better than PCB, I just wanted to point this out.

~Ken
 
C

curt wuollet

Hi Ken

That might work in this one case, and it's not at all hard to understand their business model, they want you to buy stuff so they make money. The point is that Open Hardware should not come with anyone's business model attached. Let's pick on someone else. Let's say Open Hardware has a tag attached like AC, water heaters. etc. The tags now would say: Open except for the license conditions of Calma Inc. Free to anyone who can spend thousands on a Calma workstation. And the board you want to use with it might say: Open except for the license conditions of OrCad Inc. Free if you buy their software which only runs on something you don't have. So, now to use "Open" hardware, I'm up to probably $5K and whatever capricious BS they have in their licenses. And I have to buy a third licensed product to use the software. This is beginning to sound like the definition of Open in automation, which basically means you're Free to Open your wallet, but we dictate everything else.

As written, the Open Hardware model is exactly the same as the regular commercial model except that the author and the user give up their rights and choice. To the tools vendor. So the label Open Hardware becomes less than meaningless, it should be Handcuff Hardware because it chains you to a partner you may tire of rather quickly. I hope we can do better than that. Open Hardware should mean that anyone can use it for anything. Or as close as we can get.

Regards
cww
 
W

William Sturm

Eagle's Lite version is limited to 80x100mm board, two layers, and one schematic sheet. This would be way too limiting for me.

I like FreePCB, it is open source and very high quality but it only runs in MS Windows.

Bill Sturm
 
One problem you can have with the proprietary software packages is that a lot of companies have limited distribution. They may sell over the Internet but they often only take credit card orders and their credit card processors often reject orders from anywhere outside of a fairly small list of countries. Even if you can get around that, then if it's a US company they often aren't allowed to sell to countries like Cuba, etc. Some companies have local distributors to deal with this, but then you have to do a lot of digging to see what their distribution network is like.

Even aside from the cost, if you are trying to run an open project sorting out those problems can be a big headache. With the Free/Open Source programs, you don't have those third party problems and you can just concentrate on your own goals.

I'm not planning on doing any hardware design, so my opinion doesn't really count. However, it's something you might want to think about.
 
Right now the problem with open hardware is the tools. As Curt said, doing a simple 2-4 layer board is probably fine with the open source PCB. My opinion is that complex boards using fine pitch SMDs, highly dense boards, and sophisticated auto-routing rules will probably not be covered by simple open source PCB packages in the very near future (I hope I'm wrong, but its looking this way). Does anyone have evidence of any sophisticated projects using PCB? Were the boards autorouted, or painstakingly manually routed?

I don't think the problem with designing with purchased software is with *using* the files in the project. Anyone can use GERBER and drill files to make boards. So in that sense I'm not sure I agree with the argument about people in Cuba e.g. not being able to make boards, etc.

The problem I see in using "purchased" software for development is that you would be limited on who could contribute because of the software licenses issues, and who would be able to pick up the project if the original contributor were to loose interest or die, etc. In my mind this would prevent a lot of people from being interested in it because they loose a sense of "community ownership" in the open source sense of the term.

KEJR
 
C
Hi Ken

We differ only in how "using" the product is defined. The software equivalent to using the Gerbers or a graphical representation is running the program as compiled. By that definition, shrinkwrap software is Open. That's why they put in the clause about supplying the source in the preferred form for editing, etc. To be Open, I should be able to fix bugs, add chips, etc. That would be very difficult to impossible with the Gerbers or in my case, even having the source, if it needs a $2000 package to do so. PCB is not fully up to the commercial packages that have man-years of development in some areas. But, none of the packages below say, $1500, have an autorouter that doesn't need a lot of human help. It does get a little grayer for the really high density boards, because, besides the tools you need a lot of expertise to change things. I've seen a SMD motor driver redesign that looked great and passed Spice and other sims. In the real world it would have large black holes burned in it in seconds. You can get power devices in tiny packages, but they can no longer dissipate 20 watts. What is needed is a common exchange format, but the commercial companies will go out of business fighting that, which makes their participation in Open Hardware rather dubious.

Regards
cww
 
Hi Curt,

I'll buy what you said about changing things. I've been stuck in situations supporting old hardware enough to know the frustration of needing to replace a single obsolete component. Having the design "source" files are the ultimate in this arena. I've actually had old photo negatives of boards scanned and converted to gerbers and done minor edits, but this only goes so far! What we are talking about is somewhat the equivalent but purely in the digital realm.

Just as a side comment I've been really disappointed at how the mid range PCB packages have progressed. My company bought into the Viewlogic/PADS thing years ago through a suggestion from a colleague and it really wasn't a great choice for a small manufacturing company doing a board or three a year. I've watched them be acquired twice and finally Mentor Graphics is taking this simple but powerful board package and is trying to make it a mega monster swiss army knife. Oh yeah, and they refuse to develop parts libraries because somehow everyone that uses their software can afford a full time person to act as a librarian.. That's crap IMO!! Meanwhile all the other companies are doing the same or going out of business. Freeware applications are popping up, but they really aren't *that* capable and seem to be tied into some other business model such as coercing you into their fabrication facility, etc.

KEJR
 
W

William Sturm

KEJR Said: "Freeware applications are popping up, but they really aren't *that* capable and seem to be tied into some other business model such as coercing you into their fabrication facility, etc."

Have you even looked at FreePCB? http://www.freepcb.com/ I have nothing to gain and either do they (I believe). The software and docs for laying out a board are amazingly good. Their libraries lack a bit, but according to many on their forum, this is common with many commercial packages also. It is easy to make new footprints though. They use a "free" online autorouter written in Java. It is very easy to make routing adjustments, which is also commonly needed. Try it, for what it is, it is very high quality IMHO. The person who masterminded it def knows how to develop PCB software.

Bill Sturm
 
Hi Bill,

I definitely want to give FreePCB a try. I don't have anything against it per se. As I understand you have to use a separate schematic software (Tiny CAD??)?? Have you tried this? I am a little leery on it because of the online autorouter and the separate schematic, but if it works, it works. I'm always afraid online services that are free will disappear!

~KEJR
 
W

William Sturm

TinyCAD works pretty well, but I don't like it as much as FreePCB.  It gets the job done for sure, and the price is right though.  I understand your concerns about the online autorouter, who knows what the long range plan is?  Do you really need an autorouter?  I sure spent a lot of time fixing up my design after the autorouting was finished. 

Bill Sturm
 
Hi Bill,

Thanks for the reply. Sorry to hear that TinyCAD isn't the best thing going. I was kind of hoping you'd say it was really slick! I feel that schematic capture is an important part of board design as you can perform design rule checks on the netlist.

As far as the autorouter, I have been spoiled by the PADS router and it basically makes manual routing just about obsolete except for fixing a trace or two in extreme cases. On designs that don't have power planes (e.g. 2 layer) I will route a fat power bus around the board for the autorouter to use, but that's about it. I don't expect a GPL solution to be as good as the PADS autorouter just yet, but I look forward to that day!

I do kind of wish that Eagle had a bit larger board size for the Free and Lite versions of license, because their "non lite" version is still expensive for the small company or hobbyist. I haven't played with their autorouter in years, but I remember I was not overly impressed with it, but that it worked well enough. I do like their integrated package and the fact that they have very good libraries and are not trying to be everything to everyone with > $10K price tags and "mandatory for upgrade" service contracts and hardware dongles. Ugh....

I think the three different opinions just in this discussion is enough to say that there isn't a strong consensus on what packages to use for open hardware. My biggest concern is that these packages discussed won't really handle large designs with dense routing and [almost mandatory] complex autorouting. In the mean time I think you are going to see a little freedom in these open licenses that allows people to use the tool of their choice and rely on the design output (Gerber Artwork) to be the distribution format. Its not the same as GPL software, but it's a start.

KEJR
 
C
I think that is what they are trying to do also. The problem with that is if you call what makes the tools vendors happy Open Hardware, that is as Open as it will ever get. All you have is the good name and the goodwill that goes with it. Once it's spent, there is no incentive to do better. And they get to have it both ways. Open and still locked-in. So, IMHO it's up to the authors to make it Open or not. So, tool choice is important. If you want to further Open Hardware, use Open tools.

Regards
cww
 
I did some poking around last night on the net and found that there is another younger but increasingly popular integrated schematic/board package that is GPL'ed. It is also cross platform, so contribution support could be had from MAC and Windows folks in addition to the Linux guys. It seems to be a fairly active project. Its called KiCAD (I guess its pronounced "Key-CAD".). I was planning on downloading it later on and trying it. I think they have an integrated autorouter, but they also have an output compatible with the free internet autorouter Bill had mentioned.

While I would not say this software is entirely "integrated", it does not seem to suffer the same "problem" as gEDA (the parent project of the software "PCB") in that all of the individual programs are not maintained by separate developers and tied together by loosely affiliated scripts. I admit that some folks would argue that this loose affiliation allows each program to be best in class, but my gut tells me the integrated package is a better approach for future enhancements such as forward and back annotation, pinswap, gateswap and the like.

Just thought I'd mention it.

KEJR
 
Top