Maker Pro
Maker Pro

D.J. Delorie to work on the gEDA open soirce CAD program PCB

D

David L. Jones

Jan 1, 1970
0
How good in the current autorouter?

I have never used gEDA/PCB, but IMO I wouldn't expend any coding time
at all on anything to do with an autorouter.
There are countless other aspects of a PCB package that are more
important than an autorouter and how well it works or (more usually)
doesn't work.

Dave.
 
Ah, I should have checked first:http://www.linuxfund.org/projects/pcb/

I am a bit dismayed or perhaps surprised by the amount of money
requested for an open source program.
I've used PCB in the past.
Writing programs for open source, I have released more then 20 IIRC,
has always been a fun
thing, mainly writing it for my own use, and sharing it with others to
whom it
may be useful too.
This PCB planning looks more like a business to me.
OK, RatHead and Suze-Soft are also money making ventures using the
work
of people who wrote for free.
Still something about this I do not like.
I most certainly will not donate anything to that project.
The other thing that recently happened that I do not like is the Free
Software Foundation
suing Cisco, as I used the Cisco (Linksys) software, and it was all
available
and I modified it and released it.
So, maybe the times are getting harder and money becomes more in the
foreground?
Maybe I should re-release all my software under my own license?
Who gave the FSL authority to represent me anyways? Only self assigned
authority, have to re-read GPL2.
Did it now:
Shit it is copyright of the Free Software Foundation.
Have to find an other license.
Then I have to rewrite all the soft I used...
Forget it.
Cannot move away from GPL2....
Sign of times.
Write my own Linux distro and release it on CD for 80$ and add
support for 80$ an hour?
mmm, LOL
panteltje-linux.
Why not.
Make some millions :)
Only about 10 years work.

<disclaimer> was just thinking aloud.
 
J

John Devereux

Jan 1, 1970
0
I am a bit dismayed or perhaps surprised by the amount of money
requested for an open source program.
I've used PCB in the past.
Writing programs for open source, I have released more then 20 IIRC,
has always been a fun
thing, mainly writing it for my own use, and sharing it with others to
whom it
may be useful too.
This PCB planning looks more like a business to me.
OK, RatHead and Suze-Soft are also money making ventures using the
work
of people who wrote for free.
Still something about this I do not like.
I most certainly will not donate anything to that project.

But they are paying the same guy(s) who already wrote it, to write
some more, spend more time on it than they could afford to
normally. It's still free software (GPL). I would say (ok guess) that
most of the "heavy lifting" development effort for the major free
software projects (gcc, linux) is nowadays done by people paid to do
it.
The other thing that recently happened that I do not like is the Free
Software Foundation
suing Cisco, as I used the Cisco (Linksys) software, and it was all
available
and I modified it and released it.

As I understand it the point was that it was *not* available,
i.e. they took the free software, modified it, then sold it as theirs
without providing the source code of their modifications. Stopping
this is the idea of the GPL. Otherwise use the BSD or similar license,
or release it into the public domain.
So, maybe the times are getting harder and money becomes more in the
foreground?
Maybe I should re-release all my software under my own license?
Who gave the FSL authority to represent me anyways? Only self assigned
authority, have to re-read GPL2.
Did it now:
Shit it is copyright of the Free Software Foundation.
Have to find an other license.
Then I have to rewrite all the soft I used...
Forget it.
Cannot move away from GPL2....
Sign of times.
Write my own Linux distro and release it on CD for 80$ and add
support for 80$ an hour?
mmm, LOL
panteltje-linux.
Why not.
Make some millions :)
Only about 10 years work.

You can dual-license your own code, so that it is covered by GPL for
free use, but you can still sell it to companies who want to
distribute it in proprietary products (and don't want their own code
GPL'ed).
 
J

John Devereux

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
I think that is not the real case.
For example 'Linux', apart from the kernel, say a 'Linux distribution',
is made up of many thousands of small programs / utilities, all written
(and some long time ago) and contributed for free.
Especially the essential ones.

You may be right for the distribution as a whole, but I think what I
said is true for the projects I mentioned. And it is certainly not
that unusual for private companies to fund open source projects.
Are Alsa developers payed? SDL? The network stuff? I am not sure.

A lot of it is also probably academic (phd projects) and google fund a
lot of things now ("summer of code"). As do Sun, IBM, ...
I am not a lawyer, but that is a right out lie, if they say that.
Here is the proof, and my site has linked against that
for more then a year now:
ftp://ftp.linksys.com/opensourcecode/
All the sources of all their products! The site is up, and has been up
for as long as I used the Linksys routers.

Really? Are you sure it is *all* the sources for *all* their products?
The FSF are not going to go to the trouble of sueing someone unless
there is justification. They would be suing them for the particular
items, incorporating GPL'ed code, that they *refused* to release.

<http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-cisco-complaint>

This is apparently the *first* lawsuit by the FSF, after *5 years* of
talking to Cisco/linksys.
There is a small piece of propriety code in my router, something to do with some
switches, that I am not sure the source is available for, but I can
add propriety code to anything I want.

You can add proprietary code (to GPL software), but you cannot legally
distribute it to others unless you provide the source. (You would have
to read the license for the exact details. The criteria used to be
whether your code was linked in with the GPL'ed code. So you could
distribute a proprietary program running on linux hardware, as long as
it did not link in GPL'ed libraries).
Those sources are complete, at least the one I used, it included
the cross compiler gcc, and I could recompile / cross compile on a x86
PC no problem.
See my project 'wapserver':
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/wap54g/index.html
I have posted about it on the Linksys forum (theirs), and I see many many
downloads of the code.
It seems to be a 'hot' item.
So why FSF complains to them that the source is not available is *not* clear
to me, and keeping a good relation with Cisco is more important to me,
suing them will likely not improve relations.

Do they actually have that good a relationship? I vaguely recall the
linksys routers originally had to be "hacked" and then linksys had to
be *forced* to publish the code they "took". (Could be totally wrong
about linksys here... but it is certainly true for other similar
cases!)
This is a bit tricky, as there are now several licenses, GPL2, GPL3...

If it's your code, you get to choose how you release it.
As I stated, I am not a lawyer, I'd rather keep it all going in good faith
and work together with those companies.
For example for the D-Link DCS-900 camera, I emailed them I wrote Linux soft
for it, so they know, also a 'hot item', lots and lots of downloads, the Linux
soft is simply better then the win stuff they supply with the camera.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/mcamip/
Releasing it does sell more cameras, fun for me, and beneficial for them.

Good for you.
 
D

David Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
I think that is not the real case.
For example 'Linux', apart from the kernel, say a 'Linux distribution',
is made up of many thousands of small programs / utilities, all written
(and some long time ago) and contributed for free.
Especially the essential ones.

In terms of the numbers of different open source applications, I'm sure
the great majority are written for free. But in terms of the the
importance of the software (measured by the number of people that use
it, and how critical it is to their systems), I think you'll find that a
great deal - perhaps the majority - is now commercially backed. The
next most important source of the code is the academic world - again,
the code is written and released as open source for a reason, not just
for fun. As you say, many of the essential components are old, but they
were often still done with commercial backing or at universities. The
commercial backing is not always easy to spot.
Are Alsa developers payed? SDL? The network stuff? I am not sure.


I am not a lawyer, but that is a right out lie, if they say that.

I think you'll find that the FSF do a great deal of research and
diplomacy before calling people "liar". I don't know the details of the
case, but I think it is safe to assume that they know more about the
case than *you* do, and if they say that Cisco are not following their
responsibilities and obligations under the GPL, then I'm sure they have
good reason for it. And I'm pretty sure they have already looked at the
site you reference.
Here is the proof, and my site has linked against that
for more then a year now:
ftp://ftp.linksys.com/opensourcecode/
All the sources of all their products! The site is up, and has been up
for as long as I used the Linksys routers.
There is a small piece of propriety code in my router, something to do with some
switches, that I am not sure the source is available for, but I can
add propriety code to anything I want.
Those sources are complete, at least the one I used, it included
the cross compiler gcc, and I could recompile / cross compile on a x86
PC no problem.
See my project 'wapserver':
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/wap54g/index.html
I have posted about it on the Linksys forum (theirs), and I see many many
downloads of the code.

There is no doubt that a lot of code *has* come out of LinkSys -
personally, I use www.openwrt.org on my LinkSys routers, and it is
historically based on LinkSys's own code. But that's a far cry from
being "proof" that Cisco/LinkSys are fully compliant with their
licensing requirements.
It seems to be a 'hot' item.
So why FSF complains to them that the source is not available is *not* clear
to me, and keeping a good relation with Cisco is more important to me,
suing them will likely not improve relations.

I'm sure it *will* be clear to you if you follow the case as it progresses.

Maybe I should re-release all my software under my own license?
Who gave the FSL authority to represent me anyways? Only self assigned
authority, have to re-read GPL2.
Did it now:
Shit it is copyright of the Free Software Foundation.
Have to find an other license.


The FSF are *not* representing you - they are representing themselves.
They own the copyright to code, or represent the owners of code, that
they feel Cisco is abusing (probably busybox). They don't represent
*you*, or your code, even if it is under the GPL (though they *will*
give you legal help if you ask them).
 
J

John Devereux

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
That leads to:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/complaint-2008-12-11.pdf

I've read it.
Pffffffff

Keep your head cool FSF.



So, who will be next?

You do you realise that the *only* reason linksys released *any* of
their software - that you are so pleased to have free access to - was
because of legal pressure from the FSF, and the fact that linksys used
GPL'ed code?

I noticed some time ago the new Philips TV sets have open source in
those (to play LAN media server stuff via Ethernet), but you have to
order the source? by writing to them. I do not have such a set, but
I think Cisco at least does better by proving it on a website. Also
why does Cisco need to publish the gcc source when they add a gcc
based cross compiler to the thing they publish, while the gcc source
is available from other sites?

Because they are the ones distributing the binaries. Though I agree it
does not make much difference here - but in general how do we know if
the official sources contain all the modifications needed to make the
software build correctly? It is safest if the code is available, at
least in principle, from a single source (i.e. the same one that
supplied the binaries).
I do agree that it would make a lot of sense to have somebody at
Cisco as fixed contact to make things 'license compatible'.

If it all gets too complicated legally I have to update my own OS
and write my own language and or C library. Or rewrite all my stuff
for that MS OS and make a 'lotamoney' :)

It's not complicated - if you distribute binaries of GPL'ed code, you
have to distribute the sources too, or at least be prepared to when
asked.
Do not bet on gcc and binutils to be so essential.

The GPL only covers distribution of the gcc and binutils binaries
themselves, not your code written using them.
 
J

John Devereux

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
Do you realize that if they had not provided source, then I would have bought
something else likely?

Maybe, but it would not have had source either. Corporations can be
stupid and hackers like you (and me) are an insignificant part of
their market.
I thought, at that time, a small embedded Linux PC with RS232
interface and Ethernet, plus WiFi as a bonus, for about 56 Euro, was
a good deal.
So, it runs mainly as server here (after modifications), and only occasionally with /usr/sbin/wl up.
5 Watt for a web server, on 24/7, not bad:
http://81.207.135.196:82/index1.html

Nice!

I always meant to get one myself. Ultra-low power server, plus learn
how to embed linux. Not had the time yet as usual.
In fact, if Linux had not come out with version 0.98 and a free compiler,
I would be the second richest man in the world writing MS soft ;-)

But what if FSF loses the lawsuit, or part of it?

I think that would be difficult - the GPL is the *only* thing that
gives somebody permission to distribute copyrighted code. If it is
held invalid, for some reason, then normal copyright law would then
apply. It would then be illegal for them to use any of the code. That
is why - in every other case so far - companies have given in once
they realise the situation they have put themselves in. I predict they
will here too.
Now that would be a typical example of shooting yourself in the
foot, now would it not? FSF has a lot more to lose then you may
think, while Cisco can always give in to all demands, however
strange those may be. They have already decided to stop the Linksys
brand.

That would be a pity. I guess there's always ebay.
 
N

Nico Coesel

Jan 1, 1970
0
David L. Jones said:
So how does that work? - he now gets paid (something at least) to work
on gEDA/PCB?

About 4 years ago I used the geda package to create a board. The
schematic capture is working but it takes a lot of clicks to get a
netlist ready design.

Back then PCB didn't tag the traces with the net name which caused
quite some grieve. It seems it does that now. One of the things I
really liked about PCB (and Scheda) is that the files are all in
comprehensable text format. It is very easy to create footprints using
C (or any other programming language you prefer). Creating that
cumbersome BGA footprint becomes a walk in the park. You'll know the
locations of all the pads are correct by using (for-next) loops.

I think I'll give PCB a try again some time.
 
N

Nico Coesel

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
I think that is not the real case.
For example 'Linux', apart from the kernel, say a 'Linux distribution',
is made up of many thousands of small programs / utilities, all written
(and some long time ago) and contributed for free.
Especially the essential ones.

Are Alsa developers payed? SDL? The network stuff? I am not sure.

Some work just gets done while getting paid. I made several small
contributions to open source projects for which I got paid by my
employer.

On the other hand, no commercial company would have come up with the
'magic' network stuff available in the Linux kernel. The things you
can do with IP traffic on a Linux box is mindblowing.
 
D

DJ Delorie

Jan 1, 1970
0
A couple of thoughts on this...

First off, my name is spelled "DJ" not "D.J.". I've fixed the subject
line accordingly.

I am a bit dismayed or perhaps surprised by the amount of money
requested for an open source program.

Even in OSS, time is money. My time is valuable to me and my family,
but LF wants to pay me to spend time on what *they* want instead of
what *I* want. That's how it works. They've lined up about three
months worth of full-time development work - that's a lot of time to
buy. Few of the things they want are things I would have done myself
if I were spending my own free time doing it. Not that I won't also
benefit from them - it's just that they wouldn't have made it to the
top of my to-do list ;-)
OK, RatHead and Suze-Soft are also money making ventures using the
work of people who wrote for free.

Aside from your obvious disdain of the company I work for, please note
that Red Hat pays a LOT of developers to work on a LOT of free
software packages - they pay me to work on gcc, for example. Do you
use gcc? If so, send a thank-you note to Red Hat for supplying paid
development time for it. Likewise for GLibC, Gnome, SELinux,
NetworkManager, the Kernel, X, and many other packages.

OSS is about sharing. Red Hat helps develop the packages, as do
others. Others get to share the work Red Hat does, Red Hat gets to
share the work that others do. What do you have against sharing?
 
D

DJ Delorie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
Sell your soul?

Where did that come from? I write OSS software for a living -
contracting out for a programming job is business as usual for me. I
have to feed my family too!
I once bought a RatHead package, installed it, the mouse did not
work, the printer did not work, and IIRC there were problems with
the keyboard too.

I've been using Red Hat Linux since around RHL 2.1 and I've never had
those kinds of problems.
So I emailed for assistance to the provided support address from an
other PC,

Do you have a support contract?
The programs I wrote are in source form available from my website:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
and from:
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux/apps/
So, where are yours?

http://www.delorie.com/
http://pcb.sourceforge.net/
http://people.redhat.com/dj/
http://gcc.gnu.org/ (contributor)
http://sourceware.org/ (contributor: binutils, gdb, newlib)

There's probably a ton more, little stuff. I've lost track over the
years.
 
B

Ben Jackson

Jan 1, 1970
0
I have this little netbook, eeePC 701.
But anyways, I got so sick and tired from clicking 'network',
then selecting a connection, then selecting a window to see what it did,
and shifting it around so I could actually see it, ...

This is a perfect example of where people with a specific itch pay someone
to scratch it. Sure, it's OSS, and anyone (you, for example) could fix
that annoyance. But if no one who is inclined and able to fix it happens
to suffer from your problem, it won't get fixed. This is where it's
useful to have the option of paid, directed development on OSS projects.
 
D

DJ Delorie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Guy Macon said:
Please excuse the slight topic drift, but I would like to mention a
couple of "wish list" items related to the above projects, just in
case you end up working on those parts of the project.

These should probably go on the gEDA wiki...
[1] Let the autorouter do all the easy routes (no sense manually
[2] let the software run all weekend trying different autoplace

The listed work doesn't inlude any autorouter/autoplacer tasks. We
had a Google SoC student working on a new autorouter, though.
gcc:

The Open source FreeBASIC project uses GAS/AS (the GCC assembler)

That would be binutils, not gcc. The latest binutils (cvs on
sourceware.org) should have support for all those opcodes.
It seems to me like it should be possible to have a user-editable
text file that allows me to add new instructions to GAS/AS at will.

That would be the source code :)
 
D

DJ Delorie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Is there any autorouter in the current code?

Yes. It's a gridless rectilinear router, our second generation.
Was the Google SoC project successful?

Yes, technically. The code exists as a separate plug-in but we're
hoping to find time to integrate it more closely. I wouldn't want the
average user to try it out just yet, although the results we get in
"controlled environments" are really sweet.
 
J

James Arthur

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
But these are strange times, from 50 billion pyramid schemes from the ex head of the NASDAC
to presidents invading countries for weapons of mass destruction that they know do not exist,
to zillion dollar debts..
And, if you ask me, it has always been that way, there are lions and sheep.
Snakes and worms, and bats too.
It all keeps itself in balance.


Gee Jan, I don't see anything wrong with DJ getting paid to
write software. And we all stand to benefit.

What's wrong with that?

Thanks RH, and thanks DJ.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 

Similar threads

P
Replies
3
Views
2K
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
P
J
Replies
13
Views
4K
Joerg
J
Top