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=
	fhntG5yRlGM9YzykiMJ41FuQRgrSHwdm5XdBUHOTXgg=; b=EyiDO6YAd8AmpegC
	H7kJt+nyL0YNjeDDvg3MlHOvVzoAiZsIq+w4mqP7QkH8iQ1GDwvHhAvn8j0igHtj
	Y69bFs6GP64NZPl+jiD6AhoT2hsH0vUyujNepkqgrYJuRJIBbajGKE3ggIWl2JeS
	wgWj9dZUz7njGmwMDubhaG9GaLQ=
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Interesting blog post from a commercial EDA vendor
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References: <CAOP4iL3YWQ_MH3HNnyDHMGCGeYFBmazwcw7Af_GATQzAUQJ57g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <55E8E02D DOT 5050402 AT ecosensory DOT com> <55E97313 DOT 3050602 AT jump-ing DOT de>
 <55E9A540 DOT 30109 AT ecosensory DOT com> <55E9B635 DOT 1070200 AT jump-ing DOT de>
 <CAHBYzfRC7QhUPy_Yx1m3XsDWiTDuqpR-NDXEVuupiThKo4cExw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
From: "Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID: <55EA082A.3060808@jump-ing.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 23:07:54 +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: <CAHBYzfRC7QhUPy_Yx1m3XsDWiTDuqpR-NDXEVuupiThKo4cExw@mail.gmail.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 18:13 schrieb Javier Serrano
(javier DOT serrano DOT pareja AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]:
> Disclaimer: success in OSHW
> means different things to different people, and I see a lot of "no
> true Scotsman" arguments in the discussions, justified or not.

Javier,

see me positively surprised to see you on this list. The above is
certainly true. CERN is at about the opposite end of the market
spectrum, I made my experience in a field (RepRap 3D printers) where
many people are proud to have saved ten dollars with some trick. Most
companies there do open source their hardware and many are successful,
still I doubt they're successful for the reasons Open Source software is
successful. Setting marketing in form of riding the hype aside, I see no
reason why it'd work less well with closed source.

The thing where Nathan Seidle is entirely right is that resting on
patents doesn't work.

Perhaps it's a good idea to see Open Source hardware more like the habit
of consumer electronics vendors 50 years ago to make a full schematic
part of the end user manual. One can't count on collaboration to happen,
one can't expect to see a vendor-independent community growing, one has
to do _all_ the work, but one is also recognized as a nice guy and
people can learn about the inners of their device. This meets about my
experience and granted, I had quite different expectations a few years ago.



Markus

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/