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=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=5MscOVsEq+WThE2S56/l70DBzP8LOsuO7GhDGX7qTYM=; b=wfdyXtQNrU8TkQ2jHNhOUKsC4VMCdAV9ryycH+wMwRHLJpVkU60COOwGfQwIPWQfi2 +hx8oAXsZQNpBCX6fpHYF/EzVgdGOS/OmxWLnekzN8Cm1VUFjd6GimFikerX0huGs+2a IFriERS1cg70O8Bb8FWqxxktACcFuzrYWOPY8aOHZLP58fZHcOXRtXU9RYfpyQOs4rzw iYum2aLz1Od6nIRvSoEK0LwvI6VtXJlGf8hOI5OQ+T1fvSBSw2nqxHWjryy6c5RgABP0 m7F4yLct7LGs6Nn7OZB36EyU+EaTdYRsfEunJ01RbLZKiGGxOqDROBTaRlpYbfK92IYc bTRA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.34.47 with SMTP id k44mr14631901qgk.28.1441472110795; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 09:55:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55E9A540.30109@ecosensory.com> References: <55E8E02D DOT 5050402 AT ecosensory DOT com> <55E97313 DOT 3050602 AT jump-ing DOT de> <55E9A540 DOT 30109 AT ecosensory DOT com> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 12:55:10 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Interesting blog post from a commercial EDA vendor From: "Marvin Dickens (mpdickens AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c0a5861e20db051f02e13f 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 --001a11c0a5861e20db051f02e13f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 IMHO, the big draw is browser virtualization of the suite. Everything else is fluff. Regards Marvin Dickens This message was sent from my Android - Please excuse my brevity. On Sep 4, 2015 10:12 AM, "John Griessen" wrote: > On 09/04/2015 05:31 AM, Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via > geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > >> 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. >> > > By this attitude, you leave out eval board users as customers. The NC > clause by upverter is > about design symbols and such, not product IP, so even more anti open HW. > Most of us understand the nature of patents > and copyright not covering open hardware, but the sea of makers out there > are being hyped in > a bait and switch way very often. You should not give up on the open > hardware concept Markus -- there are success > stories different than makerbot. > > And there is plenty of room for more. I see OHLs like CERN and TAPR as > workable with many eval board and > "maker/hobbyist" board or system kinds of uses, > and also compatible with holding some trade secrets back that are part of > the same system, just as separate modules. > Once profit has paid back for trade secret designs, and they get stale, > and new designs are available, the trade secrets > get the open license also, and other new parts are kept back as trade > secrets. That is a picture of further evolution than "break out boards" > for open hardware products. I think it can work. > --001a11c0a5861e20db051f02e13f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

IMHO, the big draw is browser virtualization of the suite. E= verything else is fluff.

Regards


Marvin Dickens

This message was sent from my Android - Please excuse my bre= vity.

On Sep 4, 2015 10:12 AM, "John Griessen&quo= t; <john AT ecosensory DOT com> w= rote:
On 09/04/2015 = 05:31 AM, Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
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.

By this attitude, you leave out eval board users as customers.=C2=A0 The NC= clause by upverter is
about design symbols and such, not product IP, so even more anti open HW.= =C2=A0 Most of us understand the nature of patents
and copyright not covering open hardware, but the sea of makers out there a= re being hyped in
a bait and switch way very often.=C2=A0 You should not give up on the open = hardware concept Markus -- there are success
stories different than makerbot.

And there is plenty of room for more.=C2=A0 I see OHLs like CERN and TAPR a= s workable with many eval board and
"maker/hobbyist" board or system kinds of uses,
and also compatible with holding some trade secrets back that are part of t= he same system, just as separate modules.
Once profit has paid back for trade secret designs, and they get stale, and= new designs are available, the trade secrets
get the open license also, and other new parts are kept back as trade secre= ts.=C2=A0 That is a picture of further evolution than "break out board= s" for open hardware products.=C2=A0 I think it can work.
--001a11c0a5861e20db051f02e13f--