RANT: A pdf circuit diagram is NOT open hardware

[Stonent]

The Tangibot and Arduino clones are interesting examples.

Of course it's not enough for them to just make an Arduino clone, a number of companies want you to think that what they are selling is a real Arduino branded device when it is just been silkscreened with the "Made in Italy" logo.

[EEVblog]

As for the topic at hand, a PDF is more useful for me than an Altiium source file, even if it has a big OSH logo in it (which I cannot see anyway).

Unless you plan to modify it, then the original CAD source files can be handy to import.
If it has the OSH logo then it must come with the source files. But I think everyone agrees that PDF should be supplied to for ease of general viewing.

[uwezi]

But I think everyone agrees that PDF should be supplied to for ease of general viewing.

Hi Dave, I actually wanted to comment just that yesterday evening.

Completely unaware of the OSHW movement until a couple of days ago (I don't know how I could miss this...) I then came across one interesting project, but all that was supplied were KiCAD files. I am willing to try out also KiCAD - some of my students regularly ask me about software - but not now... And all I wanted to see was the schematic...

[Sigmoid]

I fully agree with this, the GPL is the main reason why there's not enough good free software for linux. There are lots of people who would release free software but not code and can't really do it because virtually all the freaking libraries are under the GPL.

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. You have absolutely no obligation to use GPL in a software that runs on Linux. Most of the libraries of the GNU system are released under the less restrictive LGPL licence, which allows you to go non-GPL on derivatives.
Besides, there are ways to get around using a GPL library too. Just box your sensitive, proprietary code in a module, and have a generic GPLed boilerplate load it through a GPLed interface, while also linking to all the GPL libraries. This has been done in the past, and is a pretty nice solution.
This openness / non-openness narrative is generally a cop-out for emotional folks who hate a system and want a plausible-sounding reason for not supporting it.

The funny thing is that 99.99% of the open source advocates can't even code while the programmers, who could make the linux world look a little better, get incommoded by GPL while they don't even care about the crappy code these licenses are protecting (yes, it's usually garbage).

That's a pretty wild generalization there. Yes there's some garbage out there, including the Linux kernel itself in my opinion (it's a living fossil, and not in a good sense), but it has helped create some enermous value over the years.
And before you accuse me of anything, I don't particularly see GPL as something awesome, and like the less preachy licences like BSD or Apache better, and I do make my living writing proprietary code. But open source definitely has its place, and there's no point in demonizing it.

[zapta]

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. You have absolutely no obligation to use GPL in a software that runs on Linux. Most of the libraries of the GNU system are released under the less restrictive LGPL license, which allows you to go non-GPL on derivatives.

Do you say that I can take a GPL library, modify/extend/ derive it and use in my product without having to release the source of my modified library?

I know from personal experience that companies hesitate to use code from GPL'ed software because its restrictions. Other licenses like Apache 2 are more reuse/mix/derivation friendly and are easier to get the necessary legal clearance.

GPL is like a Christmas gift with string attached from some control freak. Yak.

[NiHaoMike]

What if the schematic was drawn on paper and the first prototype breadboarded or built on prefboard? Then there are no "CAD files" apart from the PNG of the scanned schematic.

[Felicitus]

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. You have absolutely no obligation to use GPL in a software that runs on Linux. Most of the libraries of the GNU system are released under the less restrictive LGPL license, which allows you to go non-GPL on derivatives.

Do you say that I can take a GPL library, modify/extend/ derive it and use in my product without having to release the source of my modified library?

He said that most libraries are LGPL. This is a huge difference, because you may link your closed-source software against open source libraries. Linking your product against an LGPL library is not considered a derivative.

If you modify the library itself, you need to publish your changes as required by the license.

[jadew]

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. You have absolutely no obligation to use GPL in a software that runs on Linux. Most of the libraries of the GNU system are released under the less restrictive LGPL license, which allows you to go non-GPL on derivatives.

Do you say that I can take a GPL library, modify/extend/ derive it and use in my product without having to release the source of my modified library?

He said that most libraries are LGPL. This is a huge difference, because you may link your closed-source software against open source libraries. Linking your product against an LGPL library is not considered a derivative.

If you modify the library itself, you need to publish your changes as required by the license.

Except they're not. Most of them are still GPL.

Edit: Things may have changed over the past few years (altho I doubt it), but I remember starting a project and then giving up on it because I quickly realized I can only release it as open source. This was at most 5 years ago.

Now something to consider when you say that X libraries are LGPL is the fact that a program is usually using lots of libraries. It's sufficient for only one of them to be GPL.

[nctnico]

GPL is like a Christmas gift with string attached from some control freak. Yak.

Not true. The only thing you need to do is make your source code available if you modify the library or link software to a piece of GPL software. There are numerous ways around that. A couple of years ago I used a camera in a Linux based product. All the camera stuff is under an NDA so the software controlling the camera could not become part of a piece of open source software. The solution was simple: I wrote a camera driver which allowed to do the camera settings from the user space application. None of the stuff under the NDA ended up in the Linux kernel and in the end it was easier to debug as well.

Actually most of the libraries are LGPL otherwise they would not be useful at all and hence get no commercial parties to pitch in some development effort.

[sync]

Except they're not. Most of them are still GPL.

A quick check. On my Linux are 568 library RPMs installed. Only 22 are marked GPL only.

[Felicitus]

Except they're not. Most of them are still GPL.

I have 991 packages installed which begin with "lib".  468 of those have LGPL as license. 173 of those have GPL as license. Most of the libs which are marked as "GPL" are package-specific libraries (like for LibreOffice), or have multiple licensing, or have combined licensing information (like for libcups, where they obviously copy the same licensing file across packages and then specify which license is for specific files).
 

Edit: Things may have changed over the past few years (altho I doubt it), but I remember starting a project and then giving up on it because I quickly realized I can only release it as open source. This was at most 5 years ago.

The situation was similar 5 and even 10 years ago.

[jadew]

Except they're not. Most of them are still GPL.

A quick check. On my Linux are 568 library RPMs installed. Only 22 are marked GPL only.

I can't verify that, but if that means that the other ones aren't forcing you to open source, great! maybe the linux world is going in the right direction.

However, I always seemed to bump into GPL stuff so it's hard to trust that I won't face difficulty if I plan to write something for linux. In my recollection, lots of big and useful stuff used to be GPL (Ex: Qt).

[free_electron]

What if the schematic was drawn on paper and the first prototype breadboarded or built on prefboard? Then there are no "CAD files" apart from the PNG of the scanned schematic.

PNG ? i want GIF format !

[jadew]

The situation was similar 5 and even 10 years ago.

I highly doubt that. Since I gave Qt as an example earlier, Qt used to be GPL up until recently, now it's LGPL.

And it would have fallen in your "not GPL only" filter as well, because it also had a commercial license, so it was either GPL or "pay for it". None of those versions being particularly useful for closed source free-software.

Edit: I can also remember noticing TONS of libraries I've been using as being GPL and thinking to myself: "well, this program will never be released"

[nctnico]

IMHO you are seeing problems which aren't there. I've written several pieces of software for use on Linux using open source libraries but never had to look hard for a way to be able to keep the source code closed.

[zapta]

...All the camera stuff is under an NDA so the software controlling the camera could not become part of a piece of open source software. ...

That's what I meant by 'strings attached'.   Want to be a good person? Release under a generous license license, for example Apache 2.

[NiHaoMike]

PNG ? i want GIF format !

Historically, there was a protest against GIF for being a patented format, leading to the use of PNG as a replacement. Even though that's no longer a valid reason, is there any reason to go back?
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/png-gif
W3C seems to agree that PNG offers more features and usually a slightly better compression. PDF, GIF, and TIFF are still acceptable substitutes for the purpose of distributing scanned schematics, however.

[uwezi]

W3C seems to agree that PNG offers more features and usually a slightly better compression.

PNG allows full-color images, while GIF is limited to palettes of a maximum of 256 individual colors...

[Rigby]

HP, Agilent and pretty much the ENTIRE industry pre-1980s was "open hardware", because if you bought anything electronic, you got a circuit diagram with it.

Are you saying that when Tek and HP and all the others provided a full schematic on paper with their products, that was open, but when someone today does the same with a PDF, that's not open? 

[Rigby]

W3C seems to agree that PNG offers more features and usually a slightly better compression.

PNG allows full-color images, while GIF is limited to palettes of a maximum of 256 individual colors...

But, but animations... come on, animations. 

[uwezi]

But, but animations... come on, animations. 

Cool 

Sure, that's why GIF is still around - who wants to live without animated smileys  certainly not me 

[EEVblog]

Are you saying that when Tek and HP and all the others provided a full schematic on paper with their products, that was open, but when someone today does the same with a PDF, that's not open?

It's "open", but it couldn't use the OSHW logo.

[T3sl4co1l]

Strangely, there's an animated PNG format;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG (and also MNG)
but it's rarely supported.

A shame that animated GIFs have stuck around for so ridiculously long; there's still demand to this day for high color animations, that GIFs can approximate only very poorly with a 256 color palette.

TIm

[granz]

A bit off-topic from the open hardware vs. OSHW (definition) discussion, but I wanted to point something out.

I often find many open hardware designs amusing because of the all the specialized ICs used.  They are then branded as "completely open!"  This is especially the case as more and more chips which do everything for you become available.  I'm not saying there is no value in open designs, but let's not forget that often there are many orders of magnitude more components hidden away inside those chips.

AFIAK, no semiconductor firms are releasing the designs of their ICs.

Of course, this doesn't apply to all projects, and of course I wouldn't suggest all open projects switch to only discrete parts or anything like that.  Just a thought.

[krivx]

Unless the parts are only available under contract or at huge volumes I don't think it matters. If I can reproduce and/or modify the design then surely it's open?