Open source hardware and propietary ECAD?

[Pedro]

Hi all,

We are a group of EE's and we are thinking about doing some open source hardware designs. We all use propietary ECAD as our main tool, but we don't know how well does it match to do a open source design with Altium, or OrCad, PADS, etc.

Furthermore, most of us use legal, licensed software at work, but not at home.

The thing is that I would like all of us to develop with whatever tools we feel more confortable with. I think it would be a loss that someone dind't publish their work just because of having to use a different tool than the one they already know. Or because of fear that someone starts asking about licenses of the software used.

Anyone knows about examples of opensource hardware projects designed on such EDA packages?
Is there any policy of vendors such as Altium on this kind of use?
Would it be useful/usual to just publish schematic/pcb pdfs and gerber files?
Are there any GOOD schematic/pcb conversion tools out there?
What is the sense of life?

Thanks guys,

[alm]

The thing is that I would like all of us to develop with whatever tools we feel more confortable with. I think it would be a loss that someone dind't publish their work just because of having to use a different tool than the one they already know. Or because of fear that someone starts asking about licenses of the software used.

Agreed, although it's nice for people who want to use/modify the design if they're able to open it, a design published in a proprietary CAD package is better than no design.

Anyone knows about examples of opensource hardware projects designed on such EDA packages?
Is there any policy of vendors such as A!tium on this kind of use?

Well, Eagle is not anymore open than those packages, only less professional, so I don't really see the issue. The only difference is that Eagle offers a free version (for simple designs and non-commercial use) that anyone can download, and an affordable commercial version, although some manufacturers might have free viewers (?).

I don't see vendors having any issue with this as long as you have a valid license, if commercial use is fine, open source shouldn't be an issue. They may be able to tell if it's a legal version from the files, though, I know Cadsoft (Eagle) is.

Would it be useful/usual to just publish schematic/pcb pdfs and gerber files?

Sure. I would also publish the proprietary files in case someone does have the package or has a way to convert. Unless the design is very complex, redoing the schematic should be fairly simple for anyone with the time and motivation. PCB is slightly more work, but if you have the footprints, tracing images isn't very much work.

Are there any GOOD schematic/pcb conversion tools out there?

Not that I know of, and no universal formats like DXF either.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I really don't understand the current fuss about OS tools for OS projects.
If I publish a design for an open source bookcase, should I insist that it is only made using an open source table saw?
EDA SW is just another tool - you have to pay for a soldering iron, parts etc, so I don't see how software is any different. OK it's more accessible if the SW used is freely available (O/S or proprietory), but using non-open and/or non-free tools does not make a design any less open-source.
There will never be any project using an FPGA that can use fully open-source tools as no FPGA manufacturer is ever going to produce a complete O/S toolchain.
Many PCB tools can import gerbers, and you clways have the option to redo a layout from a schematic in your own favourite EDA S/W - obviosly any O/S project using proprietory file formats should also include PDFs, Gerbers etc. to aid conversion bu those without access to the same tools.
I think some people have mis-interpreted the 'necessary software' part of the OSHW definition - this only applies to firmware, PC support SW etc. required to make the thing work, not tools to re-create it.

[alm]

I really don't understand the current fuss about OS tools for OS projects.
If I publish a design for an open source bookcase, should I insist that it is only made using an open source table saw?

I think it's mainly about open file formats, not so much the tools (DJ Delorie touched on this in his interview with Dave). For example, Eagle's file format is proprietary, encrypted and DRM protected, so it's not exactly friendly for someone to re-use. I believe their new open XML format was created to address this concern (I haven't looked into if it's really open, or like MS's Office 'Open' XML).

In my opinion, it's nice if I can use an open hardware project without investing money in proprietary tools, but I wouldn't consider it mandatory. Just like there are also open source projects using proprietary compilers. It makes it harder for people to participate, but it doesn't make it not open.

There will never be any project using an FPGA that can use fully open-source tools as no FPGA manufacturer is ever going to produce a complete O/S toolchain.

Never is a very strong word, even if no FPGA manufacturer is going to do it, that doesn't mean no-one can. When FPGA's get more popular in hobbyist circles, I wouldn't be surprised if someone started this. Especially if FPGA get dirt cheap (say a dollar or so in 20xx currency), like 8-bit MCU's are now.

[EEVblog]

Especially if FPGA get dirt cheap (say a dollar or so in 20xx currency), like 8-bit MCU's are now.

You can get FPGA's that cheap in volume, but they are small logic counts.

Dave.

[Zero999]

I think it's mainly about open file formats, not so much the tools (DJ Delorie touched on this in his interview with Dave). For example, Eagle's file format is proprietary, encrypted and DRM protected, so it's not exactly friendly for someone to re-use. I believe their new open XML format was created to address this concern (I haven't looked into if it's really open, or like MS's Office 'Open' XML).

Yes, that's the main reason why OS is better.

When you save your work in a proprietary format, it's no longer 100% yours because the software vendor owns the format irrespective of whether the program can be used legally free of charge.

Yes, PDFs and Gerbers should be published but converting to another package is a pain.

Yes, I'd steer clear of Eagle, apart from the fact that there are better CAD packages, it's DRM protected format is bad news.

[EEVblog]

Yes, I'd steer clear of Eagle, apart from the fact that there are better CAD packages, it's DRM protected format is bad news.

Unfortunately Eagle is the package used by almost all of the people who are pushing the Open Source Hardware standard, and often designs are crippled to fit into the limitations of the free version of Eagle.
It's a tad hypocritical, but that's the way the world works.
My open projects have always been in Altium/Protel, but I've been doing open hardware for 20 years and no has seemed to mind that.

Dave.

[JohnS_AZ]

Has anyone tried FreePCB yet? I've downloaded it but haven't actually done a board on it yet.

http://www.freepcb.com

[Pedro]

Thank you all for your answers. 

It would be great if there was some sort of standard file formats for our designs as dxf or step are for mechanical stuff. Until then,  I think the best we can do is to provide as much information as possible. What we'll probably do is to give schematics, gerbers, and source files.

See you all soon!
Pedro

[webfootguy]

I like eagle for simple projects.  The ExpressPCB tool is good too (as in free) and their 3 boards for $51 shipped is hard to beat for prototyping.

[GeoffS]

I like eagle for simple projects.  The ExpressPCB tool is good too (as in free) and their 3 boards for $51 shipped is hard to beat for prototyping.

The gEDA suite of tools are pretty good and getting better.

For cheap prototype boards you can get 10 off 100mm x 100mm double sided boards for under $30 from ITead.  Seeed offer a similar service.