Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/04/02/11:29:59
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--0-780068158-1427988584=:25799
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015, Russell Nelson wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:00 PM, <gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> IMHO, the gedasymbols library is fine. If it were
> easier to use, people
> would use it more. Here is what I suggest:=C2=A0 o Take
> the current set of
> symbols and footprints and incorporate them into
> gedasymbols.
> =C2=A0 o Nuke the current set of symbols and footprints.
> =C2=A0 o Replace it by a cached copy of gedasymbols.
> =C2=A0 o Make it easy to refresh the cached copy using,
> say, rsync or somesuch.
> =C2=A0 o ONLY, and I mean ONLY pull footprints out of the
> cached copy.
>
> In other words, when you create a footprint or
> symbol, the only way to use
> it is to pull it out of gedasymbols. So when you
> create a symbol or
> footprint, you can simultaneously creating it on
> gedasymbols. If you happen
> to be offline, well, you can pull it out of your
> cached copy. But when you
> refresh, the refresh works bidirectionally.
> Everything you've created
> becomes available to everyone else.
>
>
> Would be the moment I had to fork gschem and rest of geda as
> well. I simply don't believe in such centralized/cloud "we tell
> you where and how to store your own stuff" methods. Some
> implications:
>
> 1. licenses: what if someone wants to have a symbol/fp lib that
> is not distributed or distributed under different conditions
> that's not applicable on gedasymbols? E.g. you are a small
> company trying to make proprietary design (contract work?) using
> open tools and for whatever legal reasons you are not allowed to
> share any parts of the design (including new symbols/fps).
>
>
>You use GPL software. Why do you object to a GPL parts library?
I do not object GPL parts library. My own parts library is licensed under=
=20
the GPL too.
I object restricting a GPL software to be able to emit or work on only=20
GPL licensed data. This is an unreasonable limitation imposed on honest=20
users of the software. I see this even if it doesn't directy affect me (I=
=20
don't have non-GPL parts or schematics).
>=C2=A0
> 2. sandbox: what if I want to have 200 variants of a symbol/fp
> for whatever experiment? Do I have to pollute the central
> library and everyone will always pull all them?
>
>
>Yes. Some contributions would be worthless. Isn't that always going to be
>the case?
Just like above: do you allow the user to decide or not? Unreasonable=20
restrictions limiting everyone to use generic/flexible software in the One=
=20
Good Way someone somehwere invented is plain bad.
=C2=A0
> 3. in case you still allow local symbols of some sort: what if I
> have multiple systems I want to use my own local symbols on? I
> will use version control on them (just like now). What if a
> central symbol added later starts to collide with my own?
>
>
>My proposal makes no allowance for local symbols. Isn't that clear enough?
It is clear enough. This is the part that makes the whole idea totally=20
bad. Removing user choices, forcing your One True Way is just wrong. If=20
you don't believe it, I can write down my own preferred way doing the libs=
=20
and you can imagine how useful geda would be for you if you were forced to=
=20
do it all exclusively my way.
> I think this kind of cloud approach would decrease
> usability/flexibility of the tools big times. This kind of thing
> is more appropriate to web based design tools.
>
>
>So you don't use gedasymbols? You only use the symbols/footprints that com=
es
>with gschem/pcb? Or else you create your own proprietary symbols and never
>share them? Well then you would never sync with gedasymbols, so what about
>this proposal is displeasing you?
As a contributor I do not use gedasymbols. I maintain my own library=20
elsewhere. I do use gedasymbols as user and ocassionally download=20
symbols/footprints. The keyword here is choice: as long as it is the=20
choice of the user whether to download from gedasymbols.org or=20
to contribute to it, it's all fine. As soon as it's labelled as the One=20
True Way and is enforced, it's bad.
BTW, all my symbols are GPL'd and are publicly accessible. It just happens=
=20
that they are not hosted on gedasymbols.org.
What displeases me about your proposal is this: if I understood you=20
correctly, gedasymbols would be an integral part of the tools. They would=
=20
be coupled so tightly that I wouldn't have the option not to use=20
gedasymbols.org. I wouldn't have the option to maintain my own private or=
=20
public libs hosted elsewhere under GPL or other license. I would be forced=
=20
to license my libs under the GPL and automatically share them. It'd be=20
unreasonable and unacceptable restrictions on how I'd use a free software.=
=20
You would remove the ability that users can chose how to use something=20
because you believe you have a better way that should be forced on=20
everyone.
Regards,
Igor2
--0-780068158-1427988584=:25799--
- Raw text -