CERN Open Sources Its KiCad Component Libraries
- Reference: 0183204725
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/05/13/077203/cern-open-sources-its-kicad-component-libraries
- Source link:
> [2]CERN , a longtime Open Source pioneer, has made several contributions over the years to [3]KiCad ("KEE-kad"), an Open Source EDA (Electronic Design Automation) package widely used in the hobbyist and professional electronics communities. It's gotten so widely used that users can now submit their KiCad design files directly to several electronics fabricators (rather than the traditional step of converting the layouts to Gerber files). Over the years, CERN has also developed their own symbol and footprint libraries to support their own internal electronic designs. Last week, CERN [4]released those KiCad component libraries , containing over [5]17,000 symbols , under the [6]CERN Open Hardware License .
[1] https://slashdot.org/~ewhac
[2] https://home.cern/
[3] https://www.kicad.org/
[4] https://home.cern/cerns-kicad-component-library-now-open-source/
[5] https://gitlab.com/ohwr/cern-kicad-libs
[6] https://cern-ohl.web.cern.ch/
KEE-kad? (Score:2)
I've been an electrical engineer a long time and I've never heard anyone pronounce it keekad, nor is it written that way. If you see anyone call it that say "hi" to them for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, when [1]the project leader [youtube.com] calls it that, it kinda implies it should be pronounced that way... How do you pronounce it?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRolB1my6fI
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but how often does that work out? Do you say Lie-nux, Lynn-nux, or Lee-nux?
Re: (Score:2)
Linus pronounces it [1]Lynn-nux [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJlBffNI_k
Re: KEE-kad? (Score:2)
Or jif for GIF. Which is the oddest because graphical starts with a hard G not a soft G.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard it both ways - Kee-cad is a popular one, but Keye-kad (short i - think aye, or the "ki" from "kite")
So far that's the only two pronunciations I've heard
Re: (Score:1)
Ditto... I've always assumed it was KEYE-KAD. Isn't pronunciation fun, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
It's French. The French guy who created it calls it key-cad because, in French, it is indeed written that way:
[1]https://youtu.be/V9y8H2JMRow?s... [youtu.be]
If you're American it's not terribly surprising you've never heard it pronounced that way. You may have never heard croissant, champagne, or St. Louis pronounced or seen connaisseur spelled correctly either. The single syllable "ki" is even more subject to anglici s ation, especially if even a few populari s ers pronounce it that way.
KiCad seems to support both pronuncia
[1] https://youtu.be/V9y8H2JMRow?si=do5C997MapJ86Raa&t=42
Re: (Score:2)
The [1]original creator was French [wikipedia.org] and I believe Ki in French would be pronounced like "Key" would be in English. Thus the association with CERN should be pretty unsurprising that there's a lot of very smart people there who don't have English as their first language.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KiCad#Early_history
Welcome addition (Score:2)
Well, that's certainly very kind of them, not least because one of the other big libraries (alternatekicadlibrary.com) seems to have gone a bit quiet with no update since Aug 2024.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in that case I will have to release my KiCAD library of random LCSC parts as opensource too.
converted (Score:2)
Apparently CERN doesn't actually use KiCAD. "The libraries are the result of automatically converting the original Altium Designer source libraries". And "3D models and datasheets are not included" which is unfortunate, it is very handy to be able to see a 3D rendering of your layout.
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly 100% of the time I get the 3d model of a part from Digikey.
Taxpayer-funded should always mean Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
The people of Europe fund CERN through their taxes, so all of CERN's inventions should ALL be Open Source by default.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's been open source for decades. You're using their protocol to access slashdot right now.
Re: (Score:1)
[1]https://opensource.web.cern.ch... [web.cern.ch]
[1] https://opensource.web.cern.ch/
Re: (Score:2)
Again, the fact that CERN release some Open Source software does not affect my point.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1. The fact that one thing invented at CERN is Open Source has no bearing on my point.
2. Whether one can use a protocol is not dependent on it being Open Source.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off, you demented cunt.
Re: Taxpayer-funded should always mean Open Source (Score:2)
Typically that is something that is negotiated. A company (which often includes government created corporate entities) can offer a lower rate if they retain IP rights as that offers the opportunity to monetize. For example, [1]CSIRO [csiro.au] licenses technology that was funded by taxpayers and revenue from licensing IP.
[1] https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/ip-commercialisation/licensing?start=0&count=12
Re: (Score:3)
"Typically that is something that is negotiated."
And my point is that it should not be - If you use the public's tax money to make something, the public have rights to the IP of that thing
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody uses the public's tax money. You do, your employer does. That by itself isn't much of an argument.
Is there something specific you think CERN should open source that they haven't?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you want to see things in black and white, eliminating private ownership of scientific journals seems like it should be a higher priority than preventing public organisations from self-funding by licensing their output. But it's a red herring anyway in this case: the title should really be "CERN publishes its KiCad component libraries". And there there are interesting questions about the cost/benefit of putting in the effort to make the internal product available externally.
Re: (Score:2)
Now do the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
The US might not be as effective, but US federally funded labs like SLAC, Fermilab, Argonne, and Brookhaven aren't "slacking" in providing good shared open science data. As for the Open Source Software side of the equation gets [1]a lot more political [archives.gov].
[1] https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-12_1.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
So Europeans should get the CERN's software free as in beer, not Americans, Chinese, Russians, etc. Open Source has nothing to do with it per se. That's as far as your argument goes, no further.
Re: (Score:3)
Way to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Weird place to be complaining about (Score:4, Insightful)
CERN has pragmatically delivered arguably the best return on investment for Open Science data and contribution back to Open Source projects. Best effort contribution is about being a good steward of the resources given especially when the funding is really for the science data.
Of any place that could be criticized about doing their work in the open, CERN is probably the worst target. Their whole organization is driven [1]open science [wikipedia.org] principles and policies. I personally have been at [2]conferences with CERN presenters [sched.com] on how they are contributing back to Open Source projects. They already go above and beyond with the resources that they are given.
Being the best steward with good policies and principles is different than a short sighted requirement of distributing and maintaining everything. And what they have already delivered proves that they are doing things correctly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Open_science
[2] https://kccnceu2024.sched.com/event/1YeOF
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about "contributing back to Open Source projects". That is something every company using Open Source code is morally obliged to do.
This is about stopping organizations funded by the people from hiding from those people the products those people paid for.
Want to help the people and have a good mission ? We'll fund you.
Want to keep secrets ? Get your own fucking funding.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that simple, because some of the data in there might be proprietary. Sometimes manufacturers of electronic components only let you have them if you sign an NDA. Accidentally releasing even stuff like schematic symbols and associated notes could cause problems for CERN.
I had a quick look because this is of great interest to me, and it seems like they don't have any 3D models. My guess would be that it's for licencing reasons, because even though the models are often freely provided on manufacturer w
Re: (Score:2)
Stuff that cannot be made Open Source does not have to be made Open Source.
Obviously.