Open Source Hardware Project with a Restriction, OK or Not Cool? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: yanir
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2011, 11:27:55 pm
content: This is a weird question, because, by definition the project must be completely open source but without explaining the whole idea, if you had access to an open source project (gerbers, mechanicals, code) you wanted to build/modify/improve, but had a high cost to use because there are certifications that you would need to get in order for it be legal for sale and in some cases personal use, would that still be considered open?If the product gerber and mechanical files were not modified you would not need to re-certify the product. This means that you can write new code, and learn from the design. If you wanted to go through the trouble yourself to certify you can.I think this is a good deal, but I know the OSH ideals are strict, and I wouldn't want a community boycott. How would you feel if a product was presented as OSH with this kind of restriction?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 27, 2011, 11:47:45 pm
content: If that certification is required by some outside authority like the FCC, I don't see the issue. As a software analogy, would flight control software be less open because it'd require FAA certification before being allowed for use on airplanes? You're free to modify/copy/use the software as you like, but extra restrictions might apply to use it in airplanes within US airspace. This is not an issue with the software, just with its applications. Same for hardware that requires certifications before you're allowed to sell it.Certification requirements are also be likely to differ between countries, some countries are less strict than others. Some development boards I've seen contain a disclaimer that they're only allowed in designated electronics labs in Japan because they lack some EMC certification. The same boards could be used freely in most other countries.

author: caroper
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2011, 11:51:36 pm
content: About the same as I do with the ChipKit32 boards, Great hardware backed by Digilent and a good community, but hampered by restrictive MicroChip licences. I have a couple of boards and they are great to develop a prototype, but I then move it onto my own target board, use an ICD3 to program it and create my own libraries to avoid any legal hassles.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 01:36:46 am
content: Apart from what people choose to define as open source, there is only one thing that can be truly open and that is the intellectual property of the project. One can not open source things like labor, raw material, assembly, quality control.Certificaton on the other hand depends on all these things. Fault in any of these may (or may not) lead to cert. failure. Of course certification can be given in different forms.In most relaxed cases there are type certificates where anything that fits whitin certain limitations is certified. Even if the design changes, as long as it stays whitin limitations it is OK. For example in the marine industry there is a "coastal craft" type certificate. It says that as long as you cary less than this many passengers, have speed less than so many mph and have this and that safety devices installed, you are OK. Open source designs can easiliy comply with this type of certification.In electronics certifications apply mostly to one model of finished product. If you change anything in the model the cert. is void. In this case, I am not sure but I think every manufacturer should acquire his own certificate. If a product manufactured by A passes certification it does not mean that same product manufactured by B passes too.In a very serious cases each and every item needs to be certified, in some cases many times throughout an item's life. In this case it makes no difference wether the design is open source or not, you test and re-test. Aviation, medical etc. etc. - the serious stuff.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 11:35:17 am
content: Quote from: yanir on December 27, 2011, 11:27:55 pmYes, most certainly.There are many open projects already like this that technically involve "regulated" things in many countries, like RF transmission, mains supply connection, telephone system connection etc.QuoteSorry, I don't quite understand the "restriction" here?OSHW really only has two major requirements.1) All the original source material available (not just the gerbers, but the original PCB CAD files)2) There is no commercial restriction on it's use.If you meet those, everyone should be happy.Dave.

author: yanir
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 03:06:07 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 28, 2011, 11:35:17 amI can meet those requirements. There are RF certs involved and cellular carrier approvals to make the device work. So I was concerned that if you attempt to go on your own with the design there is no guaranty that you can get it on the network. But I could and probably will give you a how to guide for the process. Though the decision is ultimately theirs.Part of my idea is a working product that you can tinker with and avoid all the hassles of approvals. But if you want to take that on you can.On the issue of CAD files, I'm designing this in Altium Designer. I'm not going to switch to Eagle (which isn't free anymore as you know) or an opensource package at this time. I will happily give the cad files away. Do you think this is sufficient?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 04:05:17 pm
content: Eagle isn't free anymore?

author: yanir
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 04:31:11 pm
content: Nope, their lowest cost offerings are the "hobbyist" or the lite version:EAGLE Hobbyist(99 schematic sheets, 6 signal layers, 160x100mm routing area)For non commercial use only! Without this signed form we cannot process your order.Modules 1-UserLayout+Schematic+Autorouter $169EAGLE Light(Limitations: 1 schematic sheet, 2 signal layers, 100x80mm routing area)Modules 1-UserLayout+Schematic+Autorouter $69http://www.cadsoftusa.com/shop/pricing/?language=enThe Board size restriction is lame.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 04:44:58 pm
content: This page is still linked from the front page:http://www.cadsoftusa.com/downloads/freeware/

author: yanir
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 04:58:41 pm
content: There may have been enough blowback from the community to make them change there minds.My design won't fit in their layout restrictions (4 layer, bigger board).So eagle is still out for me.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 09:01:25 pm
content: As a practical matter, an external legal restriction that makes it hard to use is frustrating and will impact how likely people are to use and extend it. That doesn't keep it from being open hardware. The same is true if you have a project that requires rare, expensive, or hard to source in small quantities parts.

author: yanir
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 09:57:31 pm
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on December 28, 2011, 09:01:25 pmAgreed, I'm not looking to create a project that is so hard to commercialize or use for hobby purposes for the sake of calling it open source. This is a project I was doing anyway, and I thought that opening it up would be a good thing and attract a user base that would promote it. But in order for that to happen it needs to be accessible.This is a for profit idea, and I want to benefit as well. I intend to pair the device with a service. So I don't mind giving away the hardware to the community. As far as I know it will still be a first.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 11:08:58 pm
content: Quote from: yanir on December 28, 2011, 03:06:07 pmYes, that is fine. My new PSU project is in Altium because that's what I've always used and have not learned another package yet.It's not mandatory for OSWH developers to spoon feed everyone with every CAD version under the sun, or use an open CAD program.You just have to offer your original CAD files to make your project "open".Yes, Eagle is not (and has never been?) free for commercial use. It's only achieved the defacto status because that's what a majority of the pioneering OSWH people happened to use.Dave.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 11:34:30 pm
content: Just as with the certification, requiring an expensive Altium license is an extra barrier preventing people from participating. Eagle is by no means great software or the best choice for open hardware projects, an open-source EDA package might be a better fit to the ideas of open hardware, but it happens to be extremely popular in the open hardware community. If you provide Eagle schematic/PCB layout files, lots of people will be able to open and edit them. Even if they don't have it installed, they can use the free version as long as they're not trying to make money from it and it fits within the limitations. A much smaller group will have the ability to open Altium files.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2011, 11:41:36 pm
content: Quote from: alm on December 28, 2011, 11:34:30 pmAnd it's that limitation part that really sucks.Take my new PSU PCB, it's >102mm, so not only can it not fit in the free version, or the hobbyist version, it can't even fit within the $575 version!You have to pay $1145 to edit that simple 2 layer PSU PCB.Screw that.QuoteIf you just want to share your project and don't care too much about active community participation at the PCB level, then no real problem.Dave.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 12:04:07 am
content: I think Altium offers a free project viewer? Can it export gerber files?

author: yanir
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 12:13:19 am
content: I doubt it. I played around with it once and I think it's read only. I will share the gerbers anyway.

author: gregariz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 12:32:04 am
content: Quote from: yanir on December 28, 2011, 03:06:07 pmIf there are intentional emissions involved you most definitely will need FCC and the european EN equivalents for testing. You can expect a bill for 5 to 10K for those certifications (I know its horrendous).Even worse is that even if you certify for your manufacturing process, distributing the files to others does not relieve them of having to spend the same amount of money. Every manufacturer has to seek certifications independently unless everyone is building under a consistent quality system, which will not be possible to ascertain.Even worse than that is now the europeans have gone completely over the top with their certifications and will require a CE compliant product and I believe (in effect very soon) a traceable ROHS product. CE compliance will include testing issues however it goes beyond emissions testing and now requires immunity testing. And it is no longer just for finished products, the new rulings are applying to dev boards (considered dual use ie R&D + hobbyist/consumer) and kits (yes you read that right). If you look at Velleman for example most of their kits have CE statements attaced to their kits. Also Arduino's have CE stamps on their products too. Of course the chinese copy the Arduino's completely including the silk screen but they are not legal unless they have undergone EM compliance testing which I would bet they have not.Kit making and dev board development in europe has become very complicated. Of course this assumes that you are going to retail this stuff - and its completely crazy so I assume most people just ignore the law.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 12:36:42 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 28, 2011, 11:41:36 pmFeel free to convince the Sparkfun and Adafruit crowd to use Kicad or gEDA, popularity is the main advantage of Eagle. Popularity is a major factor when deciding on tools for community projects, however.Quote from: EEVblog on December 28, 2011, 11:41:36 pmComing from someone who advocates using Altium, it's hard not to take this statement seriously. How much would an Altium version cost that would allow you to make the same PCB? Last time I checked it was much more than $1145. Even for non-commercial use for simple projects. The only exception is the student licenses which charge a yearly fee (still a fair chunk of change over a few years). It also requires the student to fork over the full price after graduation if they want to continue to work on their Altium projects.Quote from: EEVblog on December 28, 2011, 11:41:36 pmBut the point of open source is to encourage participation. Just publishing your circuit doesn't require an open hardware license, or even PCB files. Even publishing only the schematic would be sufficient.

author: yanir
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 01:48:12 am
content: Open source should not strictly be limited to what people can "participate" in, that would prevent knowledge sharing which is really what it's about. To not share a project because I used an expensive cad tool or because it requires spending 5k to make it legal would deprive people from benefiting from my experience.Sure this concept grew out of projects like Linux where anyone above a certain skill level can participate. But adding to the Linux code base is no easy task either, and if you want to learn how to create a world class OS the information is there. Now create your own and market/distribute it. That's going to cost more than 5k it would take to certify a design that will pass on the first try if you don't make a change. That's pretty valuable.But more to the point, sharing knowledge on electronics design (pcb layout principles/board fab etc) and bringing a product (ul/etl, fcc, etc) is what's really important. I've had to dig and hunt for this knowledge, and I still don't have all the answers. There isn't a single resource you can turn to for it.If I can contribute anything of value that might be it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 06:28:08 am
content: Quote from: alm on December 29, 2011, 12:36:42 amWhen have I ever advocated using Altium for hobby and/or open source stuff?I use it because it is the PCB tool I have used for 20+ years, and I have a license.I do not advocate that others use it for such purposes.QuoteYes, Altium are idiots, they do not understand the hobby/basic market at all, and they have nothing to offer in that area.Quote from: EEVblog on December 28, 2011, 11:41:36 pmNot it is not, according to the open hardware definition.If you want to play by the OSHW community rules and call your project Open Hardware, you are supposed to share ALL your original design files.Sure, individuals are free to release as much or as little as they like, but they won't be well received in the OSHW community if they do not release the PCB files as well if they have them and they are part of the project.If you project is schematic based only, then of course, no need for any PCB files.Dave.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 06:49:52 am
content: Quote from: yanir on December 29, 2011, 01:48:12 amI'm not suggesting that you should not release it or that it should not be considered open hardware. Just that you might expect less participation than you would have with a freely available CAD package. This might not be as much of an issue outside the hobbyist/small business market where expensive tools are easier to justify.Quote from: yanir on December 29, 2011, 01:48:12 amOf course skill level is a barrier, but you can hardly expect someone to limit their circuit to 555s and Arduinos. You'll notice that the Linux code base is developed completely with open-source tools, and that they spent a lot of time developing a replacement from scratch for their one proprietary tool (Bitkeeper).Quote from: EEVblog on December 29, 2011, 06:28:08 amTrue, you won't be able to put the open hardware stamp on your product.Quote from: EEVblog on December 29, 2011, 06:28:08 amAnd the reason for this is to make it easy for anyone to copy and/or modify your design. This should be the prime motivation for releasing a design as open hardware in my opinion. If you don't want to encourage other people to make derivative works, what's the point of open hardware? Just a marketing term that helps sells products?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 07:40:24 am
content: Quote from: alm on December 29, 2011, 06:49:52 amUnfortunately there are some people that may see it that way.Dave.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 10:10:08 am
content: I don't think choice of a PCB tool is actually as big a deal as some people make out.If you want to buy a kit or product and understand it, you can look at gerbers or PDFs (something that really pisses me off is when the author assumes everyone uses Eagle and doesn't even include a PDF of the schematic.)If you just want to make one yourself you can use the gerbers.The majority of OSHW projects are simple enough that the work to redraw in a different package wouldn't be much work - the vast majority of time laying out a PCB is placement, then routing. Once that's done, transcribing it into a different package isn't that big a deal. And if you are wanting to do significant mods, chances are you'll be ripping much of it up anyway.Any decent PCB package should be able to import gerbers, which if nothing else can provide a template to accurately place parts when redrawing.As regards Altium - its predecessor PCAD200x had a documented ASCII file format - I wonder if this is still the case for AD?I'd agree about them being idiots - if they'd released a free version of PCAD with low cost upgrades they could have totally owned the market, as PCAD is a very mature, solid and easy to use product, from which higher-end users can migrate easily to AD.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 10:42:33 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on December 29, 2011, 10:10:08 amI agree, that's pretty darn annoying.QuoteYes, and the vast majority of people of course never touch the original files, or the gerbers, or want to modify anything, they just buy the kit, or maybe build up their own version (veroboard or whatever) from just the schematic.QuotePCAD was an entirely different package to AD purchased by Accel from a division of IBM called "Altium", which was then acquired by Protel in 2000 for $26M (more than Altium's current market value :->). Protel then had ownership of the name Altium, and decided to change it's name to that, but the current version of AD comes from the companies existing (Australian) Protel line of software.Altium's file format is propriety.Dave.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 10:42:55 am
content: Altium was Protel, right?Edit: Ok, ? just saw Dave's message.Alexander.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 10:53:57 am
content: Quote from: firewalker on December 29, 2011, 10:42:55 amYep:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltiumI've been using Protel since Autotrax 1.6 for DOS.For those that don't know, Farnell paid more for CADsoft Eagle, than Altium's entire market capitalisation 6 months back. Goes to show how badly Altium are doingDave.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 11:04:44 am
content: Quote from: gregariz on December 29, 2011, 12:32:04 am

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 11:09:32 am
content: Autotrax?This?I used for some time Protel 98. then I switched to GNU/Linux permanently.Don't forget that EAGLE is cross platform. Is an extra for some designers.Alexander.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 12:48:01 pm
content: Quote from: firewalker on December 29, 2011, 11:09:32 amNo. That "AutoTrax" is nothing to do with Altium/Protel.I'm not sure of the exact history, but the guy who wrote that (Ilija Kovacevic) found that Protel had not registered the name AutoTrax (or it lapsed?) and decided to use it, and forever more confused the entire industry.I believe there was some legal threats and name calling that went on at the time, but by then Protel/Altium had abandoned the Autotrax name.FARK! - I just checked his site and he has blatantly ripped off my PCB design tutorial on the front page!Not happy. Firing up the email...Dave.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 01:03:28 pm
content: Trololololol.If he offers a huge amount of money I want my share...Alexander.Quote from: EEVblog on December 29, 2011, 12:48:01 pm

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 02:29:56 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 29, 2011, 10:53:57 amHow much was that..?If they're so skint, I wonder how much they'd want for the rights to PCAD2006..?Maybe we should do a kickstarter to buy & open source it! Or maybe buy the whole company & open source all their tools - would be fun to watch the competition deal with that!

author: hisense999
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 02:50:18 pm
content: Quote from: alm on December 29, 2011, 06:49:52 amToday OSHW is just a new industry.OSHW in 90% is just a fog to get a free marketing and blind everyone about true which is.... money and mostly selling a product which is not ready for it.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 02:54:42 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on December 29, 2011, 02:29:56 pmawesome!!!Alexander.

author: yanir
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 03:22:29 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on December 29, 2011, 10:10:08 amI totally agree. The gerbers allow you to reproduce a fully functional product for your self. When you have RF or highspeed routing on that board that's a big deal.Quote from: alm on December 29, 2011, 06:49:52 amI'm not aware of all that goes on in the linux community, but my point is that the value of the contribution isn't lessened if we use proprietary tools or high cost/exotic items. It's these exotic technologies or opaque industries (like many RF technologies) that prevent any form of hobby level participation. And if a small startup (maybe one guy/gal bootstrapping a project) wants to know what to do, where can you turn?It's true participation may be lower then for a through hole arduino shield project but there is a hunger for more advanced information out there, and a limited supply.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 06:29:49 pm
content: I expect the open hardware movement to fragment when it comes to licenses, just like the free software / open software movement did.There will be open hardware licenses with very strict requirements when it comes to tools and reproducibility. Others will be more lenient. There will be open hardware licenses facilitating commercial reuse without giving back, while others will make it harder and require giving back.BTW, there is at least one case where some proprietary software was freed by paying off the rights holder. Blender was bought out of bankruptcy from the creditors.

author: gregariz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2011, 07:26:16 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on December 29, 2011, 10:10:08 amIts been quite a while since I used AD but last time I did it was capable of at least importing the old Autotrax ascii format. Somewhere's along the ways (some of the first versions of Protel for Windows perhaps?) they converted over to a non ascii binary input file. They largely lost me at this stage I'm afraid, as I was a loyal DOS Schematics/Autotrax/Tango user to that stage, but I found the windows protel UI to be horific, so I and many others held out using the DOS package for a few more years before going to orcad/eagle/others. I also needed to regularly create funny shapes and I still have a copy of Tango for DOS just for the purpose of writing copper shape files by hand in a text editor.

author: joelby
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2012, 12:18:13 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 29, 2011, 10:42:33 amFor what it's worth, it doesn't actually look like a particularly complicated file format. The binary SchDoc and PcbDoc files look like a simple wrapper around a simple pipe-delimited textual description, and you can skip the binary guff entirely if you save as a "PCB ASCII File" or "Advanced Schematic ascii", which gives you files that look like this:|RECORD=41|OWNERINDEX=607|INDEXINSHEET=12|OWNERPARTID=-1|LOCATION.X=179|LOCATION.Y=651|COLOR=8388608|FONTID=1|TEXT=56pF|NAME=Value|UNIQUEID=YNRNSVJO|RECORD=34|OWNERINDEX=607|INDEXINSHEET=-1|OWNERPARTID=-1|LOCATION.X=179|LOCATION.Y=671|COLOR=8388608|FONTID=1|TEXT=C76|NAME=Designator|READONLYSTATE=1|RECORD=41|OWNERINDEX=607|INDEXINSHEET=-1|OWNERPARTID=-1|LOCATION.X=179|LOCATION.Y=661|COLOR=8388608|FONTID=1|TEXT=Cap|NAME=Comment|UNIQUEID=KEVBKRGEI don't think it'd be too difficult for someone suitably motivated to write an import/export filter for Kicad, gEDA et al.