X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=mail.ud03.udmedia.de; h= subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=beta; bh= u1kWCb7Gy9nvQkndijwBiGKNMsSTm4kqvNRjo4G+bjk=; b=KJveVQv3fG/jPrYR ofDOrJUwxAl6v2dK1fOfdz9aCaTzUtZxTMVFTNwpDPqscNKFCxZjtPFT0VM5EMeo J+KhWZI/fqrhI4sCVm19EkfOnhPaXX3Fj101XDbqyMm7K4HqRs/f31AxXAUmITdP HUQJw5Ot2pott5+2R2NOrJFvhNw= Subject: Re: [geda-user] Interesting blog post from a commercial EDA vendor To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com References: <55E8E02D DOT 5050402 AT ecosensory DOT com> From: "Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" Message-ID: <55E97313.3050602@jump-ing.de> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:31:47 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55E8E02D.5050402@ecosensory.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Am 04.09.2015 um 02:05 schrieb John Griessen: > It seems odd to me how the blog post from the one founder is implying > open open open, and yet the business they do is closed licensed. No surprise on this one. "Open Source" is the current big marketing buzz in the small scale hardware industry. Open Source software always came with the implication of collaboration. With hardware this no longer works, because you have to have the equipment to make the hardware, which is usually a lot more than just a generic computer. These companies buzzing "Open Source" all keep their work close to their chest. No independent development community, no design for easy replication, no portability. A non-commercial licence is something which plays a role only with hardware. With software it doesn't, because one can't sell binaries, which can be reproduced in a few minutes for free, anyways. Some Open Source hardware enthusiasts are extremely upset about NC clauses. For my part I consider them to be crucial for success. Collaboration and replicability would be much more important, but this doesn't happen. Hardware is far too easy to re-design from scratch. At least it looks like it is, which is why many do, if just to have their "own" product. In addition to this there are many foul-players. Like "Yes, we licenced it GPL, but we don't publish sources, because the licence doesn't demand this". Citation from one of the players. Markus -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/