X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:29:44 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject: Re: [geda-user] PCB and gschem libraries
In-Reply-To: <CA+uY=MT=Td=0VMgHfRcQtuYYTx7v8YVNCmFPn353Liki9QTTSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1504021718120.25799@igor2priv>
References: <1427905808 DOT 32608 DOT 60 DOT camel AT benjamin-hp-g70> <20150401214846 DOT 5d2261e6 AT jive> <201504011954 DOT t31JsnKh020289 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20150401221210 DOT 1b4a299e AT jive> <201504012014 DOT t31KEq1m020861 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <551C574F DOT 2030708 AT xs4all DOT nl>
 <CA+uY=MTgd=aS-vyUE8RHcHZr+dJjtBe_h4yAFANPi6VBPUPVhQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1504020454050 DOT 25799 AT igor2priv> <CA+uY=MT=Td=0VMgHfRcQtuYYTx7v8YVNCmFPn353Liki9QTTSQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-780068158-1427988584=:25799"
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

  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--