Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/12/22/05:26:12
--001a11c3253477994205277a0646
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I really sympathise with the point about the standard not being freely
accessible.
The same also applies for many of the academic papers behind things like
the auto routers in pcb.
The standard authors understand this...
The best compromise the ISO would allow them to make, was this:
They give away the data model (the bit you need to make data structures
that match the standard, parsers, interface libraries, validators etc....)
They were also able to roll the text of almost all of the hundreds
(thousands?) of standard sub-parts and resources, and put them on a CD,
made available for about 380chf. I'm told this was a huge compromise for
the ISO, and one they had to fight hard for. Normally these parts would all
be individually chargeable (at significant cost).
If you see the sheer size of the standard, you might begin to appreciate
that the fee they charge is actually very good value.
I'm also told that the fees from this effort are not paying any of the
costs of developing the standard - just running the ISO. Actual development
costs are sponsored by the considerable time that individuals and the
companies employing them have put in.
We might wish that in some ideologically better world, that it had been
developed and licenced in a way that makes it open and redistributible, but
this is not reality.
Since I'm not in a position where I have the resources to devote to
developing gEDA at the moment, my opinion is merely that.
It will ultimately be up to those who are doing the development work to
decide how they approach it, and whether they do or don't choose to obtain
and utilise this standard to inform and strengthen their work.
Kind regards,
Peter Clifton
On 22 Dec 2015 04:39, <gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>
>> Despite of all the huge amount of work the have invested, unless they make
>>> the work really publicly available, I'd prefer not building on it.
>>>
>>
>> I.e. you want someone to either steal the work for you, or do a great
>> deal of work on your behalf without any compensation?
>>
>
> Nope. As far as I understood, we are considering the very first step of a
> roadmap. The first step is about how to pick a file format or data
> structure. Peter proposed a specific standard and listed a lot of pros.
>
> My point is only this: not having the standard freely available is a con
> that we should not ignore.
>
>
>> I don't think either of these are valid ways to run a project. The
>> ISO standards are always copyright protected and sold for a fee;
>> that's how ISO funds its operation. Much of the software you use
>> today is built on ISO standards - including the C/C++ language that
>> gEDA uses.
>>
>> The ISO standards are publically available, for a fee. They are not
>> "proprietary" or "secret", just not "free of charge".
>>
>
> Ok, so if I buy it once, can I just include a copy in the documentation of
> the software dostribution? I assume not. For me this makes it non-free,
> not the price I paid for it.
>
> And I do hate when this happens with any of the standards, including ANSI
> or ISO standards, including C. I still do use C, but that doesn't mean I
> have to like or deny the non-free aspects.
>
> So if you want to refrain from using this standard because you feel
>> it's too expensive for you to purchase, fine. But please do not
>> confuse the "free" in "free software" with "everything else should be
>> available to me without charge too". Even the FSF charges a fee for
>> its software, to fund its activities.
>>
>
> I did not say I wanted to refrain from using the standard because it was
> expensive. It was your (mis)interpretation. I said a drawback of the
> standard is that it is non-free (not mainly in the charge sense).
>
> I am wondering how this thread went into the usual senseless geda flamewar
> this fast...
>
>
--001a11c3253477994205277a0646
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">I really sympathise with the point about the standard not be=
ing freely accessible.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The same also applies for many of the academic papers behind=
things like the auto routers in pcb.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The standard authors understand this...</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The best compromise the ISO would allow them to make, was th=
is:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">They give away the data model (the bit you need to make data=
structures that match the standard, parsers, interface libraries, validato=
rs etc....)</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">They were also able to roll the text of almost all of the hu=
ndreds (thousands?) of standard sub-parts and resources, and put them on a =
CD, made available for about 380chf. I'm told this was a huge compromis=
e for the ISO, and one they had to fight hard for. Normally these parts wou=
ld all be individually chargeable (at significant cost).</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">If you see the sheer size of the standard, you might begin t=
o appreciate that the fee they charge is actually very good value.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I'm also told that the fees from this effort are not pay=
ing any of the costs of developing the standard - just running the ISO. Act=
ual development costs are sponsored by the considerable time that individua=
ls and the companies employing them have put in. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">We might wish that in some ideologically better world, that =
it had been developed and licenced in a way that makes it open and redistri=
butible, but this is not reality.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Since I'm not in a position where I have the resources t=
o devote to developing gEDA at the moment, my opinion is merely that.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">It will ultimately be up to those who are doing the developm=
ent work to decide how they approach it, and whether they do or don't c=
hoose to obtain and utilise this standard to inform and strengthen their wo=
rk.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Kind regards,</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Peter Clifton</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 22 Dec 2015 04:39, <<a href=3D"mailto:ged=
au AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu">gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution=
"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, DJ Delorie wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Despite of all the huge amount of work the have invested, unless they make<=
br>
the work really publicly available, I'd prefer not building on it.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I.e. you want someone to either steal the work for you, or do a great<br>
deal of work on your behalf without any compensation?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nope. As far as I understood, we are considering the very first step of a r=
oadmap. The first step is about how to pick a file format or data structure=
. Peter proposed a specific standard and listed a lot of pros.<br>
<br>
My point is only this: not having the standard freely available is a con th=
at we should not ignore.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I don't think either of these are valid ways to run a project.=C2=A0 Th=
e<br>
ISO standards are always copyright protected and sold for a fee;<br>
that's how ISO funds its operation.=C2=A0 Much of the software you use<=
br>
today is built on ISO standards - including the C/C++ language that<br>
gEDA uses.<br>
<br>
The ISO standards are publically available, for a fee.=C2=A0 They are not<b=
r>
"proprietary" or "secret", just not "free of charg=
e".<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ok, so if I buy it once, can I just include a copy in the documentation of =
the software dostribution? I assume not. For me this makes it non-free,<br>
not the price I paid for it.<br>
<br>
And I do hate when this happens with any of the standards, including ANSI o=
r ISO standards, including C. I still do use C, but that doesn't mean I=
have to like or deny the non-free aspects.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So if you want to refrain from using this standard because you feel<br>
it's too expensive for you to purchase, fine.=C2=A0 But please do not<b=
r>
confuse the "free" in "free software" with "everyt=
hing else should be<br>
available to me without charge too".=C2=A0 Even the FSF charges a fee =
for<br>
its software, to fund its activities.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I did not say I wanted to refrain from using the standard because it was ex=
pensive. It was your (mis)interpretation. I said a drawback of the standard=
is that it is non-free (not mainly in the charge sense).<br>
<br>
I am wondering how this thread went into the usual senseless geda flamewar =
this fast...<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
--001a11c3253477994205277a0646--
- Raw text -