gEDA-user: Re: Comment on free technology please

[Karel Kulhavy <clock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I think you need to stop seeing the world as black/white and think more
> of the impact of documentation on the usefulness of your work.

I have to know what is free technology and what not, because free technology
is recursive. Therefore I have to tell if tools are free technology to be
able to decide if to use them or not.

For example Karl Jan Skontorp made Ronja RX and TX PCB's in Protel but
put the diode on the wrong side of rectangle etc. and now it's a total
mess, because:
1) KJS says he has no time to rewrite it into gschem
2) There are some HF problems with the board, people are repeatedly building
it and some are failing and some not
3) I refuse to pay anything for Protel license and can't modify the design
therefore tp fix it.

Therefore the solution was that I ignored these and today I have been testing
my own PCB TX design and it seems to run well (the problem was in RX - it
was an old lightning-bolt stricken one that I left for forensic examination
and therefore can't repair, and now I am repairing some different that is
just obsolete design).

It borught just tons of wasted time and double work. Therefore I have to
see the world black/white to prevent such double work and mess.

If I have a sound argument, I can persuade the developers to use gEDA from
the beginning because other systems won't be free-technology compliant.

But now they can just reply "bullshit, I like Protel more, stick your gschem
up your ..." and I don't have any counter-argument against this and the
double-work will occur.

It also generates lots of traffic on the mailing list which looks like this:
mail 1: I got problem during tesing, <5 pages of tespoint values and details>
mail 2: "did you build everything according to the guide?"
mail 3: "I used KJS's PCB's."
mail 4: "sorry, unsupported, throw your RX and TX away, build it on airwire
         and try again."

Cl<