Open Hardware => Open Source EDA-Tools ???

[homebrew]

Often you hear people say that you NEED to use open source EDA software when designing open hardware. But why?

1) Electronics is hardly ever entirely free. It is never free in terms of money. Hardware costs money, duplication costs, too ... It is also hardly ever free in terms of IP. Nearly all non-trivial projects use integrated parts that are all essentially black boxes. Hence it is very hard to design and manufacture real open hardware, in a complete sense.

2) To my understanding of open SOMETHING it is all about the licensing model of your design information to allow sharing and modification.

Of course, to be able to make these modifications you need free (in terms of money) access to a software compatible with the design files.

Just to make an example: Why would Eagle (as many people have shouted) not be a prime tool to create open hardware, if you stay in the limits of the freeware version? (NO, this is NOT intended to end in a discussion if one should use eagle at all ...)

All in all, I don't see any argument for an obligation to strictly use open source tools to produce open hardware. For me it is only about providing free access to the design process.

What do you think?

[mian2zi3]

The Open Source HardWare Association (OSHWA) has a definition of open-source hardware and open-source hardware compatible licenses here:

http://www.oshwa.org/definition/

They write, "Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design."

Clearly, using open-source EDA tools and open file formats makes designs more accessible for study, to modify, etc. and thus furthers these goals.  In particularly, the ability to study and learn from other people's designs is significant freedom that is often overlooked when discussion open software and hardware and has nothing to do with cost.

However, reading the definition more closely, it does not require open tools, only that "[t]he documentation must include design files in the preferred format for making changes" and an open-source hardware license (as defined by the OSHWA) "may [optionally] require that the design files are provided in fully-documented, open format(s)."

Note the distinction between open tools and open formats.  The Eagle file format is based on XML and is easily read and modified.  I would personally consider it open.

[Godzil]

You can make your design using Altium and profuse both Altium files AND a PDF of the schematic and the Gerber files, it will still be OpenSource Hardware.

(edit: Correcting a foolish phone "correction", pdf->off, Gerber-> Ferber  )

[awallin]

FWIW the great success of open source software is IMO in no small part based on the fact that anyone can participate in the development - because the tools are free.

If you make hardware with non-free tools this severely restricts who can take your design and build it or modify/improve it. This is IMO a much stronger argument for using free tools rather than pure ideology.

[Karel]

The Eagle file format is based on XML and is easily read and modified.  I would personally consider it open.

The Eagle XML format used for schematic, board and library, is open.

The file "eagle.dtd" that describes the Eagle XML format can be found here: $EAGLEDIR/doc/eagle.dtd

[Godzil]

Open source does not mean community based., what you are speaking is community based project, not necessarily OSS.

I doubt that community based hardware is a viable thing, look at OpenMoko, the Pandora and other "community based" hardware related project: they are all big failures.

There is nearly no way to do collaborative work on hardware design, it's most of the time the work of 1 or 2 people, and there are a lot of reason for that. Collaborative work, apart from review, is really difficult because it's not texte, there is no easyway to design a PCB in a collaborative manner, unless you have clearly disctinctive part on you PCB that can all be routed separately, etc..

The tools is not a problem on the hardware design, it's like if you are discussing that peoples use a non opensource text editor to edit the source of their project. It doesn't matter. Yes it would be handy if you can open directly the schematics or PCB design with the same tool, but, as a Kicad user, there is still a lot of annoying part on it (component creation is a major one, pin/part swap is a major one too) and I can understand that people that have access to Altium or other major CAD tool, prefer to use it, and there a lot of other reasons, like the fact that a CAD tool is not just a text editor, it's generally a really hard to learn tool, and need hours of practice to work correctly with it.

And people that says that to make OSH you HAVE to use OSS are just fool "religious"** people.


** Meaning they have only faith in OSS, even when it's a bad idea, and do a lot of proselytism.

[homebrew]

And people that says that to make OSH you HAVE to use OSS are just fool "religious"** people.

Ok, totally agree on that.

But what about the use of libraries from these closed source systems? What happens if I use/modify EAGLE components from their library? Do they taint my designs license wise?
Further, eagle restricts commercial use of their freeware software. How is that compatible with the open hardware licenses? I mean sure I can design open hardware with that and not make any money out of it. But some other person can use the gerber files for example and start selling the product (even without using EAGLE). How is that handled/covered by the original EDA tool's license?

[nctnico]

And yet CERN is pushing towards open source software for schematics and PCB design through their contributions to Kicad.

[Karel]

And yet CERN is pushing towards open source software for schematics and PCB design through their contributions to Kicad.

At the time Kicad equals the usability and stability level of Eagle, they have spend so many man-hours that they almost could have bought Cadsoft and make Eagle open-source...

[nctnico]

Given the number of people who really don't like Eagle for being counter intuitive to use that would have been a bad move.

[Karel]

Given the number of people who really don't like Eagle for being counter intuitive to use that would have been a bad move.

Given the popularity of Eagle and the fact that it's the defacto industry standard, I don't think so.

[AndyC_772]

it's the defacto industry standard

You're kidding, right?

I'll grant you that it's the de-facto hobbyist standard, and maybe even the de-facto OSHW standard (if that's even a separate thing, which I doubt). Amongst the ultra-low-cost offerings aimed at non-professional users, it's undeniably popular.

I'd guarantee your PC motherboard wasn't designed with Eagle, though, nor your TV, or the ECU in your car, or your set-top box, or pretty much any other mass produced electronic device you may own or use.

[Godzil]

And yet CERN is pushing towards open source software for schematics and PCB design through their contributions to Kicad.

At the time Kicad equals the usability and stability level of Eagle, they have spend so many man-hours that they almost could have bought Cadsoft and make Eagle open-source...

Apart from the library management that have improved a lot, but which is still a terrible mess in Kicad, the schematic capture is not bad on both, but on PCB routing, with the new router Kicad is way better than Eagle

[Mechatrommer]

Often you hear people say that you NEED to use open source EDA software when designing open hardware. But why?

because most of the open source mourners only use free EDA to be able to open your project. their heavy lazy arse prohibiting them to sketch it from scratch in any available EDA at hand. and their brain dead cannot see it beyond any reasonable doubt. they even insist on a complete PCB gerbers to classify it as a proper OSHW project. well, thats just me 2cnts.

[nctnico]

Often you hear people say that you NEED to use open source EDA software when designing open hardware. But why?

lazy arse prohibiting them to sketch it from scratch in any available EDA at hand.

I'd like to see you do a complex board with an ARM SoC and/or many differential lines from scratch. That can take 100 hours or more for a skilled PCB designer. The whole idea of open source is that you share / pool resources to boost productivity and work on interesting stuff instead of doing what 100 others are also doing.

[Mechatrommer]

have you seen china clones that match up exactly gerber from a oshw project? they made money doing nothing. my point is, we should make some appreciation to those who would like to make their project open albeit incomplete gerbers, nonfree eda etc... not discouraging them by saying they are not due to the incompleteness... for me, i'm grateful and thankful enough if someone care to show me their design circuit or source code in bmp/jpg/gif/png format... if they can provide more (original file) ofcourse its better, but i try to train myself not to ask more than i deserve... ymmv..

[timofonic]

And yet CERN is pushing towards open source software for schematics and PCB design through their contributions to Kicad.

At the time Kicad equals the usability and stability level of Eagle, they have spend so many man-hours that they almost could have bought Cadsoft and make Eagle open-source...

Apart from the library management that have improved a lot, but which is still a terrible mess in Kicad, the schematic capture is not bad on both, but on PCB routing, with the new router Kicad is way better than Eagle

They're are still quite stubborn about UX. You can read it on kicad-developers mailing list.

I have hope things will change if some rebel minds contribute to the team. After all, FOSS works when there's meritocracy and strong+smart minds make a project sucessful.

If they still keep stubborn, one can make a fork and see as other prefer it. Maybe that can make change their mind

[nctnico]

In my experience it is better to give up on stubborn developers. I'm planning on moving to a new CAD package in the next couple of years. I'll see where Kicad has moved to. If it is reasonably close to what I want I might even be inclined to spend the money I would have spend on a commercial package on having someone fix it the way I want it (probably database driven part management).

[timofonic]

In my experience it is better to give up on stubborn developers. I'm planning on moving to a new CAD package in the next couple of years. I'll see where Kicad has moved to. If it is reasonably close to what I want I might even be inclined to spend the money I would have spend on a commercial package on having someone fix it the way I want it (probably database driven part management).

Well. I folllowed the conversation at kicad-developers mailing list and Wayne (the project manager) explained better his ideas.

He doesn't want something like Gnome2 -> Gnome3 to happen, but he's open about UI improvements. He just want to be able to use shortcuts for most operations when you're able to master the usage of software progressively, I understand it.

And CERN people are quite reasonable and comfortable to be part of KiCad, so this looks promising!

I just hope more big guys like CERN start collaboring at KiCad, that would give a huge boost to the project.

[nctnico]

Keyboard shortcuts are important to use any CAD package efficiently. I'm using them constantly for schematics entry and PCB layout. In PCB layout I'm often using the cursors keys to move things (lines, components, traces, etc) and place them accurately.