There is so much potential in open source hardware design.
Right now, we are held back by (at best) mediocre tools. We need better HDL software, better synthesis software, better EDA software before we have any hope of widespread use of open source hardware.
Imagine if the only compilers available were proprietary compilers locked behind hundreds of pages of licensing requirements and legal bullshit. Open source software would still be in the dark ages.
I applaud any effort to advance the open source hardware design toolset.
As a reminder, Stallmans's first attempt at GCC used the Pastel compiler source code from LLNL. http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History
> Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I obtained the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a multi-platform compiler developed at Lawrence Livermore Lab. It supported, and was written in, an extended version of Pascal, designed to be a system-programming language. I added a C front end, and began porting it to the Motorola 68000 computer.
I presume that the Pastel compiler therefore didn't require "hundreds of pages ..." in order to use and redistribute it. Or if it did, it wasn't binding on those who acquired the source.
It did Pastel, which is related to Pascal but isn't actually Pascal.
I picked it as an example of a compiler where others could distribute the source. Since you want to narrow it to C compilers, I'll instead point to the proprietary Aztec C compiler. It didn't come "locked behind hundreds of pages of licensing requirements and legal bullshit".
In fact, as far as I can tell, it had no licensing requirements outside of it being covered by copyright. Certainly there are fewer requirements than the GPL.
Here's a list of C compilers for micros of the 1980s. http://www.z80.eu/c-compiler.html . In a spot check, I can't find any which have hundreds (or even tens) of of pages licensing requirements.
Do you have any evidence to support your earlier statement? I've noticed that people sometimes emphasize Stallman's impact, but do so more out of ignorance of the other threads of history. How do I know that you aren't similarly inclined, given that it seems to be different than the written accounts from that time?
There is so much potential in open source hardware design
I wish, but no, there isn't. The problem is that even if you could create an amazing design, there is nowhere to run it. FPGA? Expensive and slow. ASICs? Out of the question.
There is a reason why software is eating the world. Everyone has a cpu handy. And even if everyone also had an FPGA attached, it wouldn't matter. Show me a killer [hw] app.
Not all hardware is designing digital integrated logic. Manufacturing medium-complexity PCB boards (6+ layers, BGAs, etc.) is within hobbyist budgets (and certainly Kickstarters, thrifty startups, etc.) but the open and low-end design tools are not up to to the task. For example, I'm not aware of an open design with Eagle or free tools that has a fast, modern DRAM interface. Professional tools are extremely expensive (10-100K), but certainly not more complex than, say, a modern C++ compiler like gcc or LLVM/clang.
I think this is where FPGAs might prove very useful. Even if the designs made on FPGAs are small-scale, amateurish or sub-optimal today, they will help develop an ecosystem of tools, including open-source tools, that will ultimately help larger-scale open-source hardware.
The problem with FPGAs is the design software. Have you ever tried to use WebPACK ISE or Quartus? Both of them blow. Terrible UI, terrible design, terrible licensing requirements.
We need simple, easy, powerful, and free tools for FPGA development before open source FPGA cores take off.
But I am suggesting an alternative to your second point. When FPGA boards become available to more people, the tools will automatically come. Note that, the open-source tools can be built by software professionals, even though they might be amateurs in hardware design.
Thee's already cheap ($50 and less) FPGA boards. But all FPGAs are proprietary, there's no available documentation on the internals, the bitstream, and many other things one need to create 3.party/open source tools.
And I also suspect they're hard to impossible to reverse engineer.
Right now, we are held back by (at best) mediocre tools. We need better HDL software, better synthesis software, better EDA software before we have any hope of widespread use of open source hardware.
Imagine if the only compilers available were proprietary compilers locked behind hundreds of pages of licensing requirements and legal bullshit. Open source software would still be in the dark ages.
I applaud any effort to advance the open source hardware design toolset.