Subject: Re: Open Source Hardware (Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more)
From: Mark Knecht (markknecht_AT_gmail.com)
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 02:32:02 EET
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:46:27 +0100, Vedran Vucic <vvucic_AT_eunet.yu> wrote:
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> There are several important rules when speaking on open source hardware:
> Hardware should use protocols, interfaces, cores, programming tools, debugging
> tools that are free in full meaning , i .e. free as freedom.
> That kind of hardware should be fully documented .i.e schematics, diagrams,
> assembly instruction, parts list, gerber files etc. in order to be really free
> fo reveryone and not only to companies that would use that for profit only not
> taking care about freedom.
> It is desirable that hardware is fully programmable or reconfigurable by using
> FPGA and similar devices. Thus, it is needed to examine which manufacturers
> ie.e Xilinx, Motorola, Analog Devices do manufacture processors or other chips
> that may be used in audio applications.
> The rest is choice of technical solution, but if you study carefully legal
> consequences of using firmware that is not free or using protocols and
> standards
> that are not free than you will see that technical choice of chips should be
> carefully undertaken.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vedran
>
Yes, Vedran, you're points are ones I understand. Let me make a couple
of things very clear form my point of view:
1) On this project, when I speak of 'firmware' I mean something
generated from some sort of source code the we develop ourselves. This
project won't use any firmware produced by other companies. The source
code we use should be open and licensed under some GNU like license
and compiled/assembled into our 'firmware'. (TBD later)
2) I am not against a for-profit company manufacturing and selling the
design for profit, much as the Open Source software model doesn't stop
people from making money putting together software. However,
improvements made to the design should be given back to the Open
Source community in and open and timely manner.
3) While it would clearly be desireable to use Open Source tools, I
would not personally limit my projects to that requirement. Another
possibility is to use prorietary tools in the beginning and then drive
the Open Source community to produce tools later that work also. I.e.
- I will not be limited today by what hasn't been developed in the
Open Source community if there is a reasonable expectation that some
Open Source variant could and will be developed in the future. My
thought is that there may be tools developers looking for projects
like this as a reason to get started.
Just my thoughts for now.
Thanks,
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Dec 16 2004 - 02:40:36 EET