Re: gEDA-user: PCB suggestion

[Al Davis <ad62@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 06 January 2005 07:05 pm, M. P. Dickens wrote:
> Let's be reasonable: Free EDA tools are not looked upon as
> good for business by the vast majority of commerical EDA
> tools makers. 

You might be surprised to find out how they really look at the 
open-source tools.  Many of the proprietary tools are based on 
open source tools.  For a really strong example of this, look 
at Spice.

Based  on my observations and private conversations, the big 
ones actually like us, and the little ones hate us.

The big ones (Cadence, Synopsys) like us for several reasons.  
First, we fill a market that is unprofitable for them.  We will 
always be in this market, never in their high profit market.  
We can potentially get people to use EDA tools early, with 
simpler tools, thereby increasing the market for their high 
profit tools.  We provide competition for the companies that 
can threaten their business, without threatening them.  They 
claim to support open standards, but sometimes can't deal with 
each other.  We can be a neutral intermediary.  We are not a 
threat to them, and they are not a threat to us.

The well known low end ones (Electronic Workbench, Protel, 
Eagle) hate us, because they depend on the educational market 
for their feed, and we can provide benefit that they can't.  
Giving away crippled versions of their product, or cheap 
educational site licenses are key promotional tools.  You find 
them on CD's in textbooks, and in college labs.  We are their 
biggest threat, and they are our biggest threat.

The startups build on open source, and will sing the praises of 
BSD license.  The focus on some esoteric job and hope to make 
it big and sell out.  Mostly their products are specialized 
enough that the work wouldn't be done without funding.  We are 
not a threat to them, and they are not a threat to us.

The real little guys are a diverse bunch.  Some see us as a 
threat to them, but they are not a threat to us.  Some see us a 
potential allies.  They can provide some marketable value that 
hopefully will lead to profit, and they don't need to rely on 
potential competitors.  We need to swing them over to our way.

> In the event Mentor Graphics as donated their 
> format for usage without charge, I see no problems. But, if
> they have copyrighted it or made it proprietary IP somehome,
> I think the chance exists that they could demand it be taken
> out of PCB and whatever other gEDA tools adopt it. Does
> anyone know Mentor Graphics official position? Have they even
> stated an official position?

I don't know the official position, but based on some committee 
experience in the past, Mentor's behavior has not been 
open-source friendly.

> Has anybody looked to see if IEEE or any other organization
> has any official standards? It would seem to me that adopting
> standards from an official organization would be the way to
> go. Kind of like Linux and POSIX.

There are too many standards for special applications.  We need 
one that can be used by different types of tools.  VHDL and 
Verilog are official standards.  With the AMS extensions (also 
official standards) they provide much of what is needed for 
simulation and synthesis, both analog and digital.

That's why I proposed building on VHDL.  If we do this, and it 
works, industry will notice in a good way.  They might even 
help us.  There might be help available from both EDA vendors 
and EDA users.  We can solve a problem that has been plaguing 
them for many years.  The gschem and PCB formats are not 
elegant enough to be considered as standards.

If somebody has a better idea, or knows of a better 
comprehensive standard, please tell me.