Post by thread:[PICLIST] Open source programmers

As was the CUMP <sarcasm> which is NOT DEAD... its just that all the participants have been madly working on their own for, what, 6 months now?</sarcasm> <flame> The point is that programmers (and test equipment) seem to be something that are totally ruled by "perceived value" If you charge $1000 for it, then it must be really good and everybody will buy it. But if you try to make one open source (or do in fact make one in the case of "the Engine" which is a hell of a neat programmer) no one seems to want it. Although some people (Hi Dan) have beat me bloody about the head and ears over this point, I still don't understand how hobbyists can be so damn STUPID as to not see the value in this. Is there some law that says we can't build our own programmers and test equipment? And do a better job than the commercial people? (Don't say it Dan) The only thing people are interested in is the Free ICD, which is a clone of the Microchip product. Is it that we have no confidence in our own abilities to do a better job and must only copy others works? Lame. </flame> For a series of ideas / products / projects that are not getting the attention and interest they deserve, see: www.piclist.com/techref/default.asp?url=idea/ebb www.piclist.com/techref/default.asp?url=piclist/cump http://www.piclist.com/cump http://www.sni.net/~oricom/ http://www.picnpoke.com/demo/ROMzap.html http://www.picnpoke.com/engine.html http://www.epemag.wimborne.co.uk/0300.htm Sorry, couldn't help myself. {Original Message removed}

James Newton wrote: > >As was the CUMP <sarcasm> which is NOT DEAD... its just that all the >participants have been madly working on their own for, what, 6 months >now?</sarcasm> > ><flame> >The point is that programmers (and test equipment) seem to be something that >are totally ruled by "perceived value" If you charge $1000 for it, then it >must be really good and everybody will buy it. But if you try to make one >open source (or do in fact make one in the case of "the Engine" which is a >hell of a neat programmer) no one seems to want it. > >Although some people (Hi Dan) have beat me bloody about the head and ears >over this point, I still don't understand how hobbyists can be so damn >STUPID as to not see the value in this. Is there some law that says we can't >build our own programmers and test equipment? And do a better job than the >commercial people? (Don't say it Dan) > Well, having been singled out here, I guess I'll put in my $0.02. It's not STUPIDITY, it's REALITY and PRAGMATISM. I was not around here during the advent of CUMP or the Engine, but my perception of this whole thing is that most people on piclist don't want [or have the time] to hack these sorta things. They want something as cheap as possible [some have even been known to cut their Radio Shack pcbs in half to save $$$], and with as little learning curve as possible - get this over with, and then get on with their projects. I know I am much that way. These things are just "tools" and byways on the way to an end-goal, not avocations, for most poeple. ================== >The only thing people are interested in is the Free ICD, which is a clone of >the Microchip product. Is it that we have no confidence in our own abilities >to do a better job and must only copy others works? > >Lame. ></flame> > The reason I think that the Free ICD is so popular, but the CUMP flamed, is *ONE* thing --> it works with MPLAB. After taking the time and effort to learn MPLAB [which is free], the ICD [also free] has a natural appeal. I few cheap parts, and botta bing. No hacking, besides one-time h.w. Then on to the projects. More than anything, the Free ICD sealed the fate of CUMP. Reality is a harse mistress. It's hard to compete with free [MPLAB], free [ICD], free, free, free, free, free - this is true 21th century internet capitalism. The reason the CUMP failed is because it was all committee meetings and no workers. Just like communism - no payoff that the guy doing the work could perceive. The other thing of course is that there are sooooo mannnnnyyyy programmers out there now, free, cheap, and otherwise. best regards, - Dan Michaels ============== {Quote hidden}>For a series of ideas / products / projects that are not getting the >attention and interest they deserve, >see: >www.piclist.com/techref/default.asp?url=idea/ebb >www.piclist.com/techref/default.asp?url=piclist/cump >http://www.piclist.com/cump >http://www.sni.net/~oricom/ >http://www.picnpoke.com/demo/ROMzap.html >http://www.picnpoke.com/engine.html >http://www.epemag.wimborne.co.uk/0300.htm > >Sorry, couldn't help myself. > > >{Original Message removed}

>open source, CUMP, flames I am amazed, after using Linux for more than 5 years, and meeting oodles of people doing the same, to see the confusion between 'free' and 'open source' go on. Open source means mostly that the source of a program (which you buy or not) is available to you so you can maintain and modify it to suit your goals. Free means that you pay no money for something. There is ABSOLUTELY no connection between these two, and the GPL, Linux, LGPL, LGPL2, and BSD license or any artistic license or other such thing. Also 'open source' and 'public domain' are different. 'public domain' can be open source AND must be free. So an open source programmer is a commercial programmer to whose API or source you get access (perhaps after signing a NDA). This is essential to make production units work, as I can see no way to integrate and maintain certain in-circuit production line programmers without having access to source. You must remember that there are industries where people just don't talk to you if you sell something that cannot be adjusted, reproduced or modified and recompiled (as long as we are talking tools, not products). The key is to sell the technology, not the product. Peter -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

> I am amazed, after using Linux for more than 5 years, and meeting oodles > of people doing the same, to see the confusion between 'free' and 'open > source' go on. Open source means mostly that the source of a program > (which you buy or not) is available to you so you can maintain and modify > it to suit your goals. Free means that you pay no money for something. What you are saying here contradicts the definition provided by the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html --- ``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. --- $0.02 -Steve -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Peter Peres wrote: >>open source, CUMP, flames > ......... >not products). The key is to sell the technology, not the product. > The original idea of CUMP was to be open/free-everything. In the public domain of piclist and the world. There was some talk about it a few months ago, but nobody wanted to actually bite the bullet and do any work. And as I indicated a day or two ago, with so many other free/free/free/cheap/cheap/cheap programmers around, it was kinda like reinventing the wheel. Then, along came the Free ICD, and the coffin was caulked. This is my take on it, - danM -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

[Climbin' on soapbox.] The word 'free' has been overloaded by the FSF to carry the four meanings listed in a prior post. These meanings of the word are not those common when referring to other 'free' products. For my purpose, I needed a programmer with available source code so that I could modify it to 'calibrate' the unit being programmed (by actually running a program in the unit, then burning on the calibration constants). This certainly matches some of the connotations of 'free' as defined by FSF, but can also be met by rather 'unfree' (restricted?) implementations. An example would be a proprietary system available under NDA. While I am a big fan of the 'open-source' / FSF / whatever you want to call it movement, I do feel that it is appropriate for programmers to be able to maintain ownership of their intellectual property and to profit from it. We don't expect other forms of intellectual property to be 'freely' shared, why must it apply to software? [Steppin' down from soapbox.] Bob Ammerman RAm Systems (contract development of high performance, high function, low-level software) oh, ps: I ended up coding my own customized programmer from scratch. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

>What you are saying here contradicts the definition provided by the FSF: >http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The FSF did not coin the term or define what Free or Open Source is. Afaik it is not possible to copyright or trademark words found in a common dictionary, such as for example 'Open Source' (not even if you use capitals). And if it is possible then we live in a world that is really really sad. They have an opinion and others have other opinions. For a truly 'free public domain software' (i.e. take it and don't tell me about it) definition read the U.C.Berkeley license to be found in many source files on the net, among them many used in Linux systems. This is not a matter of philosophy imho, it is a matter of common law and common sense. And it has nothing to do with open (or 'with source') PIC programmers. Peter -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]: PIC only [EE]: engineering [OT]: off topic [AD]: advertisements

Just by their name "Free Software Foundation", the FSF has connected their own meaning to the term "Free Software", and also, by association, "free software" (without the caps). Perhaps they should have named themselves the "Freely Obtainable, Non-Supported, Do What You Want With It, ... Software Foundation." This might alleviate some confusion. Of course, we are free to assign whatever meaning we want to "free", and even to "Free". :-) What really matters is that there is a whole spectrum of ideas of "individual intellectual property rights" vs. "freely available information", and it is a good that that that is so. For example, I am more than willing to share some of the tools I build for myself, but would not be willing to give away code I have written for customers (nor would they allow me to.) Bob Ammerman RAm Systems (contract development of high performance, high function, low-level software) {Original Message removed}

I was under the understanding that one could trademark a phrase, provided it was not in common use. "Where do you want to go today?" can be trademarked, but "The cat's out of the bag" could not. At this point "Open Source" is used so widely by different entities that one would probably not be able to trademark it and defend the trademark against use. (sure, they can trademark it, but they won't be able to stop someone else from using it) -Adam "Peter L. Peres" wrote: {Quote hidden}> > >What you are saying here contradicts the definition provided by the FSF: > >http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > > The FSF did not coin the term or define what Free or Open Source is. Afaik > it is not possible to copyright or trademark words found in a common > dictionary, such as for example 'Open Source' (not even if you use > capitals). And if it is possible then we live in a world that is really > really sad. They have an opinion and others have other opinions. > > For a truly 'free public domain software' (i.e. take it and don't tell me > about it) definition read the U.C.Berkeley license to be found in many > source files on the net, among them many used in Linux systems. This is > not a matter of philosophy imho, it is a matter of common law and common > sense. > > And it has nothing to do with open (or 'with source') PIC programmers. > > Peter > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]: PIC only [EE]: engineering [OT]: off topic [AD]: advertisements -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]: PIC only [EE]: engineering [OT]: off topic [AD]: advertisements

Bob Ammerman wrote: > Just by their name "Free Software Foundation", the FSF has connected their > own meaning to the term "Free Software", and also, by association, "free > software" (without the caps). Perhaps they should have named themselves the > "Freely Obtainable, Non-Supported, Do What You Want With It, ... Software > Foundation." This might alleviate some confusion. And would also be quite incorrect. I've gotten better support using software from the FSF than I've gotten from most commercial stuff. > Of course, we are free to assign whatever meaning we want to "free", and > even to "Free". :-) The FSF makes it very clear exactly what they mean by free software. A quote from http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html : Think "free speech", not "free beer". They then go on to give a full definition of what they mean by the term "free software". -- Mike Werner KA8YSD | He that is slow to believe anything and | everything is of great understanding, '91 GS500E | for belief in one false principle is the Morgantown WV | beginning of all unwisdom. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]: PIC only [EE]: engineering [OT]: off topic [AD]: advertisements