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

How good in the current autorouter?

How does it compare to Eagle? (or other low cost systems)

For reference, I consider Eagle to be not-great, but it was good enough for the small boards I was working on. If I had a sensible parts layout, it would wire up all the obvious shourt point-to-point connections the way I expected. For longer runs that needed several vias and complicated routing, it would normally find something.

If I didn't like what it did, I could rip up a trace and try again. Sometimes I had to rip up a few other traces that seemed to be causing troubles. Most of the time that didn't take very long.

--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer\'s.  I hate spam.

So how does that work? - he now gets paid (something at least) to work on gEDA/PCB?

Dave.

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:

Dave.

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.

was just thinking aloud.

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.

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.

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).

--

John Devereux

On a sunny day (Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:27:24 +0000) it happened John Devereux wrote in :

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.

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. 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':

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.

This is a bit tricky, as there are now several licenses, GPL2, GPL3... 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.

Releasing it does sell more cameras, fun for me, and beneficial for them.

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.

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, ...

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.

This is apparently the *first* lawsuit by the FSF, after *5 years* of talking to Cisco/linksys.

some

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).

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!)

If it's your code, you get to choose how you release it.

Good for you.

--

John Devereux

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.

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.

some

There is no doubt that a lot of code *has* come out of LinkSys - personally, I use

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.

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

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).

On a sunny day (Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:39:09 +0000) it happened John Devereux wrote in :

That leads to:

I've read it. Pffffffff

Keep your head cool FSF.

So, who will be next? 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?

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' :-)

Do not bet on gcc and binutils to be so essential. And 'readline()' ha, I already wrote my own years ago. FSF should keep their heads cool.

My view.

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?

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).

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.

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

--

John Devereux

On a sunny day (Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:31:11 +0000) it happened John Devereux wrote in :

Do you realize that if they had not provided source, then I would have bought something else likely? 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

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? 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.

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.

with /usr/sbin/wl up.

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.

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.

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

--

John Devereux

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.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
                     "If it doesn\'t fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------

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.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
                     "If it doesn\'t fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of thoughts on this...

First off, my name is spelled "DJ" not "D.J.". I've fixed the subject l> I am a bit dismayed or perhaps surprised by the amount of money

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 ;-)

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?

On a sunny day (16 Dec 2008 08:41:59 -0500) it happened DJ Delorie wrote in :

Sell your soul? make sure you keep true to yourself. And, there are several projects on the internet that ask for people to program something for a fee, for several OSses.

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. So I emailed for assistance to the provided support address from an other PC, got a computer generated reply telling me nothing. Then I was supposed to get a fee Oracle database demo disk with the package, but, after I asked for it, I got the message that that only was for the USA. Still it was written all over the box and sold that way here in Europe. So a lot of money wasted on their crap (for more see below). had to install an other distro, (Suse-7.1), and everything worked right away.

I still remember their experiments with the older -non-compatible- gcc breaking all software work. Thank you note? F*ck them. They just want a propriety system, so people are stuck to _their_ distributions of Linux, rpm is a typical example of that. Look at Slackware for how to do it right (at least it was right last time I use that). Then there is the issue of X.org versus Xfree.

It may be that RatHead actually helped write some drivers, I dunno, and I do not care. Not any I use that I know about.

In case you are wondering, I use 'grml' at this moment, and have been using it now from their first release several years ago. That is Debian based. But I completely changed it so it is more panteltje-Linux now.

Suse-Soft is now dead for me as they are having sex with MouseSoft.

The programs I wrote are in source form available from my website:

and from: ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux/apps/ So, where are yours?

Oh, yes, I used djgpp in the win31 period before I moved to Linux, thank you for that.

Anyways RatHead, SuseSoft, and whatever else is out there, are not worth the attention and discussion even. Hope you enjoy yourself. I have read somewhere that MS now also has a free version of Visual Studio, but I do not have it. If I anted to make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ with software I would be writing for that OS. It has still the biggest market share, and people are used to paying much for little.

This is my personal opinion, so you are stuck with it.

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've been using Red Hat Linux since around RHL 2.1 and I've never had those kinds of problems.

Do you have a support contract?

(contributor) (contributor: binutils, gdb, newlib)

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

On a sunny day (16 Dec 2008 09:46:45 -0500) it happened DJ Delorie wrote in :

Looks like they did not test on a lot of hardware platforms.

One would expect it to at least work. RatHead supplied a not working product.

It is an old trick of the Evil to sell crap stuff and then charge for support. That is a bit like those 1 Euro / minute help desk from ISPs, they f*ck up, you pay. So they f*ck up something every day, so they get some income.. No thank you. Should be made illegal.