Is Duet still open source?
-
Ah, i was looking under a different user. Thank you very much, I don't use KiCad, so the schematic prints are fine for me.
-
@arhi said in Is Duet still open source?:
I guess kicad files will be there for 1.0
they've in the past released design files for all versions, and I suspect they will do the same for the Duet 3. I don't recall the exact wording but I the gist of it was to avoid clones at launch, to both reduce bad rep to bad quality and reap the benefits of the development i guess. fair enough.
it does remind me, I was suppose to see I got the kicad tools for making .brd files running as that would be convenient middle ground while we wait.
(edit: schematics are already up for 1.0)
-
@bearer said in Is Duet still open source?:
avoid clones at launch, to both reduce bad rep to bad quality and reap the benefits of the development i guess
totally understandable, for 99% of cases pdf schematic is enough
-
@arhi said in Is Duet still open source?:
totally understandable, for 99% of cases pdf schematic is enough
absolutely, and the brd format would make troubleshooting and repairing easy enough without releasing design files or gerbers as well. gonna poke it some more, think I had python version issues last time i poked it.
-
@bearer well, converting brd to gerber is 2 clicks, IMHO pdf schematic when PCB silkscreen is properly made is enough for repair too. The Kicad generated pdf's are not as fancy as for e.g. something you can get out of Altium where you can have index of part and click on a part will quickly find it on the schematic
but since duet3 is not that big nor complicated this "simple" pdf works ok. And IMHO great that KiCad is used since I no longer have access to Altium 
-
@arhi said in Is Duet still open source?:
well, converting brd to gerber is 2 clicks
i was under the impression you could strip most the layout from this and still have it work with https://openboardview.org/
leaving you with net names, part and pin locations and thats it more or less?
-
@bearer said in Is Duet still open source?:
leaving you with net names, part and pin locations and thats it more or less?
I used a lot of PRC services for "reverse engineering" stuff for machines that are old and unsupported but require fix/retrofit, everything from 24 layer PCB to mcu's and fpga's. They will make gerbers out of image of the PCB. They use a cnc grinder to grind away layer by layer, take few images, photoshop macro and convert that into gerber. Takes 2 days for A4 size 8layer PCB (last one I did) if you just want gerbers that will "print". If you want to do the board files, schematic (with netlists parts and other things) that can take few weeks depending on the complexity of the board, they do full reverse engineering then, but for just duplication, 2 days and $300 for 8 layer 210x280mm.
So if you are showing the layout gerbers are 2 clicks away :D. IMHO if you are open source, you open-source and give it all out. No real point in preventing many regular users from using/learning from it to prevent a few hours of PRC reverse engineering hack. "Mushing" stuff and creating BRD file is IMHO wrong. In that case release PDF of the board, why bother releasing brd file at all ?
But of course, as I said, I'm happy with schematic only as long as there's clear silkscreen on the PCB and it matches the schematic
-
@arhi said in Is Duet still open source?:
So if you are showing the layout gerbers are 2 clicks away
but you're not, or at least that was my understanding.
anyways, i do agree releasing the design files is much preferred, but as i said, while we wait, .brd file would be convenient - you don't have to agree with that, but saying it makes cloning easier when it still requires a physical sample that could be duplicated without the files in the first place makes no sense to me.
-
@arhi said in Is Duet still open source?:
.. totally understandable, for 99% of cases pdf schematic is enough
" source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design. The hardware’s source, the design from which it is made, is available in the preferred format for making modifications to it. "
https://www.oshwa.org/definition/
The goal of open source is to make it easy to clone, with or without modifications. I doubt is a PDF, without BOM and CAD files qualifies as OSH.
In the world of OSH, cloning is a feature, not a bug.
[This post is about terminology, not on how and when Duet should or should not release their IP]
-
@zapta yes, I agree, I was talking about repairability part, not about OSH part
@bearer I don't think there is a way to provide BRD that will make creating printable gerbers impossible unless you remove all the internal layers (but that makes the BRD pretty useless for repair work).
-
@arhi said in Is Duet still open source?:
@zapta yes, I agree, I was talking about repairability part, not about OSH part
Yes, you are right, repairability and OSH have different goals and requirements. Reparability doesn't even require an open source license, but does require a schematic and parts list.
It was common for commercial electronic manufacturer to provide schematics and parts list. These days it's often discouraged, hence The Right To Repair movement.
BTW, this is my favorite repair document. The entire schematic is artfully condensed into a single page
http://colinoflynn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MX-500P-11.pdf
-
@zapta I have ton of old tektronix equipment (7106 is what I love the most)
that's documentation ppl should learn how to make these days, but back then the idea was to make repairable equipment, today I'd say the idea is completely opposite today 
so helping OSH projects like duet, smoothie... is really important -
@arhi, yes, I also appreciate the old repair manuals though I doubt if I would spend the time to read them in this era of TL;DR.
Duet uses a different model for reparability. Instead of spending time and money preparing in advance detailed repair documents, they use an 'on demand' approach where users can ask repair question whenever they arise.
I think this is a better model for small and fast moving company such as duet.
My 2c.
-
@zapta I find way duet doing thing great so far, no complaints
would not change a thing -
@zapta I agree on the OSHW side of things, mainly because Duet3D's website makes a big deal about being open source hardware, software, and an open community.
You can't have it both ways, either your hardware is opensource, and design files are released, or it's closed source, and they are not - but perhaps a schematic is provided for assisting with software dev.
For my project, I only need the schematic so my needs are covered, but I don't see that as falling under open source hardware.
Withholding the hardware design for whatever reason isn't in good faith for open source goals and claims. If the source is withheld, then the open source claim is just marketing fluff for people who think open source is good and want to support open source projects, even if they have no intention of using the source.
If you want sole distributorship/manufacturing rights (for whatever reason) and to not have anyone else sell your design or remixes thereof, don't release it as open source, or instead use a restrictive open license. Alternatively, make older versions open source, with the newest version proprietary commercial, but don't claim to be open source if you don't release the source files (which is the very definition of closed source.)
This is why I originally questioned whether the project was still open source.
-
FWIW, I believe Duet should either remove the entire "OPEN" green bar from their website, or, my preference, they should get a lot better about actually releasing things. And perhaps link from that green bar to the repository.
Right now, they clearly don't deserve to be representing that they are open.
-or-
Clearly state something like "hardware files will be released after first hardware shipments to customers" (and then, of course, do that).
-
@Danal said in Is Duet still open source?:
FWIW, I believe Duet should either remove the entire "OPEN" green bar from their website, or, my preference, they should get a lot better about actually releasing things. And perhaps link from that green bar to the repository.
Right now, they clearly don't deserve to be representing that they are open.
-or-
Clearly state something like "hardware files will be released after first hardware shipments to customers" (and then, of course, do that).
It’s amazing how many people are so demanding of projects (open and closed).
To the entire team of hardware and software devs building these products..Thanks, you are amazing and your work is awesome.
To those that are complaining, chill out. This stuff isn’t easy or free to design, build and test. If it is rushed you will just get buggy garbage that catches fire spontaneously.
-
@mwwhited said in Is Duet still open source?:
To those that are complaining, chill out. This stuff isn’t easy or free to design, build and test. If it is rushed you will just get buggy garbage that catches fire spontaneously.
and clones with the same issues with no incentive to fix it; duet have said they'll release it, just not when. idk if the license has any requirements to that regard
-
@bearer said in Is Duet still open source?:
... idk if the license has any requirements to that regard
I think that the concerns are about truthful representation to potential buyers. For example, the Duet's website currently states:
All the hardware designs are licensed under the CERN OHL 1.2. The design files are released on GitHub.
Not all buyers are long time members here and understand the nuances, timeline, and the dilemmas of the Duet team.
-
@zapta said in Is Duet still open source?:
Duet's website currently states:
I would think the simple explanation is the good old "it was true at the time"; and while I feel less strongly about it it would warrant adding an caveat to that statement or simply releasing the files.
Simply changing "are released" to "will be released" should satisfy the current and future debacles?
