From: Frans S. <fra...@gm...> - 2013-06-06 20:57:27
|
Hello everyone, I have closed most of the bugs. Some of them dated back from 2006 and some of them clearly had been fixed. If there are any bugs that need to be reopened, please do so. There are now 2 bugs remaining, of which I want to fix #90 before release 0.0.17. I don't know the status of #83, so I left that one open too. I guess all other bugs have been fixed by now! Anything else blocking the release? Anyone suggestions for what we have to do for the release? I will send a "needs packaging" request to Debian and Ubuntu after we released it. I think also other distributions will have similar request possibilities (any suggestions?) Frans |
From: Frans S. <fra...@gm...> - 2013-06-06 21:50:00
|
Dear Robin Getz, Including Spice macro models from ADI under the GPL with qucs sounds like a good plan. If we can distribute these models with the permission of you / analog devices, I don't see a big problem in distributing them. Today we are close to a new release for qucs, and I think that we need to test Qucs with newly distributed models and also implementing changes to get everything working will take some time. For this reason I think we will have to move the ADI models to post-0.0.17-release branches of the repository. Anyway, I am glad to hear that Analog Devices is watching the qucs project and it would be nice to collaborate. Kind regards, Frans Schreuder On 06-06-13 23:36, Getz, Robin wrote: > On : Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:57 PM, Frans Schreuder [mailto:fra...@gm...] wrote: >> I guess all other bugs have been fixed by now! >> Anything else blocking the release? >> > Not blocking, but a question: > > Qucs is distributed under the GPL. > > I would like to include/maintain some spice macro models which aren't under a GPL license. (Semiconductor models, which are under their proprietary, but permissive license). > > Thoughts/issues? > > I'm not sure if people consider the "model" to be part of the "source", or not? I wouldn't think so - for the same reason as described at: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF > > For example: > http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/static/techSupport/designTools/spiceModels/license/spice_general.html > > For the ones which ADI owns - and has redistribution rights to, I would like to include them within Qucs (to make it easier for people to use them). > > Modifications (other than so that it will run on Qucs) needs to distributed as a patch - so people understand what is ADI's model, and what are others. > > ? > > Thanks > -Robin > |
From: Getz, R. <Rob...@an...> - 2013-06-06 22:13:29
|
> Including Spice macro models from ADI under the GPL with qucs sounds like a > good plan. I can't do GPL - what I can do is tweak the existing license. (which I think is already compatible with the DFSG, but when it comes to legal, and licenses -- my opinion is just that - my opinion). > If we can distribute these models with the permission of you / analog devices, I > don't see a big problem in distributing them. Yeah, no problem there - I'm not on the SPICE/Modeling group - but do have permission from that group to add them to open source simulators - like Qucs. > Today we are close to a new release for qucs, and I think that we need to test > Qucs with newly distributed models and also implementing changes to get > everything working will take some time. > For this reason I think we will have to move the ADI models to post-0.0.17- > release branches of the repository. Makes sense. > Anyway, I am glad to hear that Analog Devices is watching the qucs project and it > would be nice to collaborate. Sounds great. > Kind regards, > > Frans Schreuder > > On 06-06-13 23:36, Getz, Robin wrote: > > On : Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:57 PM, Frans Schreuder > [mailto:fra...@gm...] wrote: > >> I guess all other bugs have been fixed by now! > >> Anything else blocking the release? > >> > > Not blocking, but a question: > > > > Qucs is distributed under the GPL. > > > > I would like to include/maintain some spice macro models which aren't under > a GPL license. (Semiconductor models, which are under their proprietary, but > permissive license). > > > > Thoughts/issues? > > > > I'm not sure if people consider the "model" to be part of the "source", or not? I > wouldn't think so - for the same reason as described at: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF > > > > For example: > > http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/static/techSupport/designTools/spice > > Models/license/spice_general.html > > > > For the ones which ADI owns - and has redistribution rights to, I would like to > include them within Qucs (to make it easier for people to use them). > > > > Modifications (other than so that it will run on Qucs) needs to distributed as a > patch - so people understand what is ADI's model, and what are others. > > > > ? > > > > Thanks > > -Robin > > > |
From: Getz, R. <Rob...@an...> - 2013-06-06 21:52:46
|
On : Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:57 PM, Frans Schreuder [mailto:fra...@gm...] wrote: > I guess all other bugs have been fixed by now! > Anything else blocking the release? > Not blocking, but a question: Qucs is distributed under the GPL. I would like to include/maintain some spice macro models which aren't under a GPL license. (Semiconductor models, which are under their proprietary, but permissive license). Thoughts/issues? I'm not sure if people consider the "model" to be part of the "source", or not? I wouldn't think so - for the same reason as described at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF For example: http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/static/techSupport/designTools/spiceModels/license/spice_general.html For the ones which ADI owns - and has redistribution rights to, I would like to include them within Qucs (to make it easier for people to use them). Modifications (other than so that it will run on Qucs) needs to distributed as a patch - so people understand what is ADI's model, and what are others. ? Thanks -Robin |
From: Richard C. <r.c...@ed...> - 2013-06-07 08:24:24
|
Robin, I am also not a lawyer, but in my view all models which are not compiled and linked into Qucs may be considered merely as 'data' which is processed by Qucs. Models which are compiled into Qucs link with it, and pass data structures at the code level must be GPL compatible. Models which do not do this, and are merely interpreted and processed by the Qucs program can be under any licence you like. This is especially true with spice models, as in this case Qucs is merely interpreting a 'standard interface', the spice model is portable between multiple simulators, not tied to just Qucs. This is analogous to the Octave project, where m-code may be released under any licence you want, but code which links with the Octave C++ sources must be GPL. However, my immediate reaction is that I am not sure about distributing these models with Qucs, mainly because Users might assume everything that comes with Qucs is GPL or similar and inadvertently incriminate themselves. Having looked at the licence you link to, it's not all that permissive in my view, for instance: "You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any software you sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes to the redistributed copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other than to: 1. Include comments. 2. Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's software. No changes may be made that affect the performance or function of the model." But in principle I see the benefit of distributing these models, and in practice think most users would not want to modify them. How about giving us a sense of what the tweaked licence for the subset of models you are interested in would be like though. Regards, Richard On 06/06/2013 22:36, Getz, Robin wrote: > On : Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:57 PM, Frans Schreuder [mailto:fra...@gm...] wrote: >> I guess all other bugs have been fixed by now! >> Anything else blocking the release? >> > Not blocking, but a question: > > Qucs is distributed under the GPL. > > I would like to include/maintain some spice macro models which aren't under a GPL license. (Semiconductor models, which are under their proprietary, but permissive license). > > Thoughts/issues? > > I'm not sure if people consider the "model" to be part of the "source", or not? I wouldn't think so - for the same reason as described at: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF > > For example: > http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/static/techSupport/designTools/spiceModels/license/spice_general.html > > For the ones which ADI owns - and has redistribution rights to, I would like to include them within Qucs (to make it easier for people to use them). > > Modifications (other than so that it will run on Qucs) needs to distributed as a patch - so people understand what is ADI's model, and what are others. > > ? > > Thanks > -Robin > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: > 1. A cloud service to automate IT design, transition and operations > 2. Dashboards that offer high-level views of enterprise services > 3. A single system of record for all IT processes > http://p.sf.net/sfu/servicenow-d2d-j > _______________________________________________ > Qucs-devel mailing list > Quc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qucs-devel > |
From: Guilherme B. T. <gui...@gm...> - 2013-06-07 08:28:22
|
On 06/06/13 22:57, Frans Schreuder wrote: > Hello everyone, Hi! > I have closed most of the bugs. Some of them dated back from 2006 and > some of them clearly had been fixed. > If there are any bugs that need to be reopened, please do so. Nice cleanup! Thanks! > I guess all other bugs have been fixed by now! > Anything else blocking the release? > Well I believe I introduced/found at least 3 bugs into master. That is because I started pushing to master instead of a branch. My bad! I was used with pull-requests... Now I'm using the branch post-release-0.0.17 (created by Clemens) and checking things more thoroughly before landing changes into master. By the way, I'm putting together a qucs_testset_prj with a variety of small examples very helpful in 'exercising' or 'covering' and debugging the code execution. I'll share it later. Now back to the issues, we can either roll those commits back or merge the code on post-release and fix the issues for the release. Let me mention that, as it is now, most of the qucs/qucs/dialogs and the subtools (except qucs-help and qucs-filter-v2) are mostly free of Qt3Support classes. I say mostly because once you remove the flag -DQT3_SUPPORT other mismatches in methods' signatures will show up. The whole dockable dialog containing Projects/Content/Components was not yet ported (I couldn't get my head around its implementation either). 1) The dialog/librarydialog still lacks a field to insert the subcircuit description. I'm planing to use a QStacks to avoid creating another dialog. 2) The dialog/qucsettingsdialog is incomplete on the table of file types. I started placing a QTableView, but perhaps a QListView is better. 3) I was testing master for digital simulation and it is now crashing with: ASSERT: "uint(i) < uint(size())" in file /usr/local/Cellar/qt/4.8.4/include/QtCore/qstring.h, line 699 The crash report point to these changes : https://sourceforge.net/p/qucs/git/ci/6db21755d115c770b3aba4e61102fc6fd9085ccf/tree/qucs/qucs/schematic_file.cpp?diff=fd43f78cb5965a622aa1975af0a96dc0a0e367a7 It is about the section symbol (§), not paragraph as I wrote on the comments. I shall mention that the schematic_file.cpp was encoded as ISO-8859-1 which was choking Qt Designer because it expected a Utf-8 file. I converted it with iconv. Now it is crashing during a digital simulation, the simple example from the 'Getting started' help (yes I have freehdl installed). For that matter, there is a variety of file encoding across the code base... Shall we fix that? There were similar issues with the encoding of the degree symbol (°), but this only goes into the GUI, they are not involved on the handling of netlists or vhdl code... ---- So, what do you think? Go back or go forward? Sorry for the mess! Last but not least, if you can give me another week I can include freehdl and icarus on the Mac OSX package, so it would be more or less like the Windows installer, right? Best regards, Guiherme |
From: Frans S. <fra...@gm...> - 2013-06-07 14:34:07
|
Hello Guilherme, I think rolling back will make things worse now, if you have found these bugs it may be good to fix them in stead. I think it is also good to have some people with mac's test the package before we release 0.0.17. We can sure wait one or two weeks, as Mike Brinson also wants to put his BSIM4 model in the new release. I have filed 3 new bugs with the exact text from your points here. What do you think, will it take a lot of time to fix those bugs? I assigned one to myself, but we can see who is fixing which one. Thanks for addressing those. Frans On 7-6-2013 10:28, Guilherme Brondani Torri wrote: > On 06/06/13 22:57, Frans Schreuder wrote: >> Hello everyone, > Hi! >> I have closed most of the bugs. Some of them dated back from 2006 and >> some of them clearly had been fixed. >> If there are any bugs that need to be reopened, please do so. > Nice cleanup! Thanks! >> I guess all other bugs have been fixed by now! >> Anything else blocking the release? >> > > Well I believe I introduced/found at least 3 bugs into master. That is > because I started pushing to master instead of a branch. My bad! I was > used with pull-requests... Now I'm using the branch > post-release-0.0.17 (created by Clemens) and checking things more > thoroughly before landing changes into master. > > By the way, I'm putting together a qucs_testset_prj with a variety of > small examples very helpful in 'exercising' or 'covering' and > debugging the code execution. I'll share it later. > > Now back to the issues, we can either roll those commits back or merge > the code on post-release and fix the issues for the release. > > Let me mention that, as it is now, most of the qucs/qucs/dialogs and > the subtools (except qucs-help and qucs-filter-v2) are mostly free of > Qt3Support classes. I say mostly because once you remove the flag > -DQT3_SUPPORT other mismatches in methods' signatures will show up. > > The whole dockable dialog containing Projects/Content/Components was > not yet ported (I couldn't get my head around its implementation either). > > 1) > The dialog/librarydialog still lacks a field to insert the subcircuit > description. I'm planing to use a QStacks to avoid creating another > dialog. > > 2) > The dialog/qucsettingsdialog is incomplete on the table of file types. > I started placing a QTableView, but perhaps a QListView is better. > > 3) > I was testing master for digital simulation and it is now crashing with: > ASSERT: "uint(i) < uint(size())" in file > /usr/local/Cellar/qt/4.8.4/include/QtCore/qstring.h, line 699 > > The crash report point to these changes : > https://sourceforge.net/p/qucs/git/ci/6db21755d115c770b3aba4e61102fc6fd9085ccf/tree/qucs/qucs/schematic_file.cpp?diff=fd43f78cb5965a622aa1975af0a96dc0a0e367a7 > > It is about the section symbol (§), not paragraph as I wrote on the > comments. > > I shall mention that the schematic_file.cpp was encoded as ISO-8859-1 > which was choking Qt Designer because it expected a Utf-8 file. I > converted it with iconv. Now it is crashing during a digital > simulation, the simple example from the 'Getting started' help (yes I > have freehdl installed). > For that matter, there is a variety of file encoding across the code > base... Shall we fix that? > There were similar issues with the encoding of the degree symbol (°), > but this only goes into the GUI, they are not involved on the handling > of netlists or vhdl code... > > ---- > So, what do you think? Go back or go forward? > > Sorry for the mess! > > Last but not least, if you can give me another week I can include > freehdl and icarus on the Mac OSX package, so it would be more or less > like the Windows installer, right? > > Best regards, > Guiherme |
From: Getz, R. <Rob...@an...> - 2013-06-15 12:06:03
|
Richard: The goal is that no changes may be made that affect the performance or function of the model, which end users think are coming from Analog Devices. What I suggested to our SPICE team was something like: -------- You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any software you sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes to the redistributed copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other than to: 1. Include comments. 2. Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's software/open source software package which you help maintain. Any files which have been modified for any reason above, should be clearly marked (in the header, read me, appropriate software documentation, or file name change) that this is no longer an Analog Devices Inc verified/original SPICE model. Any changes beyond the above (which may affect performance or function of the model) are permitted, but must be distributed as a "patch file" alongside the original, unmodified spice model. -------- Would you suggest anything else? From: Richard Crozier [mailto:r.c...@ed...] However, my immediate reaction is that I am not sure about distributing these models with Qucs, mainly because Users might assume everything that comes with Qucs is GPL or similar and inadvertently incriminate themselves. Having looked at the licence you link to, it's not all that permissive in my view, for instance: "You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any software you sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes to the redistributed copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other than to: 1. Include comments. 2. Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's software. No changes may be made that affect the performance or function of the model." But in principle I see the benefit of distributing these models, and in practice think most users would not want to modify them. How about giving us a sense of what the tweaked licence for the subset of models you are interested in would be like though |
From: Richard C. <r.c...@ed...> - 2013-06-17 08:37:53
|
This seems ok to me, lets see what the debian folk say. I can't speak for the other Qucs developers but I didn't hear any other objections. Richard On 15/06/2013 13:04, Getz, Robin wrote: > > Richard: > > The goal is that no changes may be made that affect the performance or > function of the model, which end users think are coming from Analog > Devices. > > What I suggested to our SPICE team was something like: > > -------- > > You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any > software you sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes to > the redistributed copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other than to: > > 1. Include comments. > > 2. Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's > software/open source software package which you help maintain. > > Any files which have been modified for any reason above, should be > clearly marked (in the header, read me, appropriate software > documentation, or file name change) that this is no longer an Analog > Devices Inc verified/original SPICE model. > > Any changes beyond the above (which may affect performance or function > of the model) are permitted, but must be distributed as a "patch file" > alongside the original, unmodified spice model. > > -------- > > Would you suggest anything else? > > *From:*Richard Crozier [mailto:r.c...@ed...] > > However, my immediate reaction is that I am not sure about > distributing these models with Qucs, mainly because Users might assume > everything that comes with Qucs is GPL or similar and inadvertently > incriminate themselves. Having looked at the licence you link to, it's > not all that permissive in my view, for instance: > > "You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any > software you sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes to > the redistributed copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other than to: > > 1. Include comments. > 2. Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's > software. No changes may be made that affect the performance or > function of the model." > > But in principle I see the benefit of distributing these models, and > in practice think most users would not want to modify them. How about > giving us a sense of what the tweaked licence for the subset of models > you are interested in would be like though > |
From: Frans S. <fra...@gm...> - 2013-06-17 11:07:08
|
Hello Richard, It's the same for me, I have no objections. only that i want to include it after 0.0.17 Frans On 06/17/2013 10:37 AM, Richard Crozier wrote: > > > This seems ok to me, lets see what the debian folk say. I can't speak > for the other Qucs developers but I didn't hear any other objections. > > Richard > > > On 15/06/2013 13:04, Getz, Robin wrote: >> >> Richard: >> >> The goal is that no changes may be made that affect the performance >> or function of the model, which end users think are coming from >> Analog Devices. >> >> What I suggested to our SPICE team was something like: >> >> -------- >> >> You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any >> software you sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes to >> the redistributed copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other than to: >> >> 1. Include comments. >> >> 2. Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's >> software/open source software package which you help maintain. >> >> Any files which have been modified for any reason above, should be >> clearly marked (in the header, read me, appropriate software >> documentation, or file name change) that this is no longer an Analog >> Devices Inc verified/original SPICE model. >> >> Any changes beyond the above (which may affect performance or >> function of the model) are permitted, but must be distributed as a >> "patch file" alongside the original, unmodified spice model. >> >> -------- >> >> Would you suggest anything else? >> >> *From:*Richard Crozier [mailto:r.c...@ed...] >> >> However, my immediate reaction is that I am not sure about >> distributing these models with Qucs, mainly because Users might >> assume everything that comes with Qucs is GPL or similar and >> inadvertently incriminate themselves. Having looked at the licence >> you link to, it's not all that permissive in my view, for instance: >> >> "You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any >> software you sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes to >> the redistributed copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other than to: >> >> 1. Include comments. >> 2. Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's >> software. No changes may be made that affect the performance or >> function of the model." >> >> But in principle I see the benefit of distributing these models, and >> in practice think most users would not want to modify them. How about >> giving us a sense of what the tweaked licence for the subset of >> models you are interested in would be like though >> > > > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. |
From: Richard C. <r.c...@ed...> - 2013-06-17 11:08:32
|
Yeah, I was assuming the same. Richard On 17/06/2013 12:07, Frans Schreuder wrote: > Hello Richard, > > It's the same for me, I have no objections. only that i want to > include it after 0.0.17 > > Frans > > On 06/17/2013 10:37 AM, Richard Crozier wrote: >> >> >> This seems ok to me, lets see what the debian folk say. I can't speak >> for the other Qucs developers but I didn't hear any other objections. >> >> Richard >> >> >> On 15/06/2013 13:04, Getz, Robin wrote: >>> >>> Richard: >>> >>> The goal is that no changes may be made that affect the performance >>> or function of the model, which end users think are coming from >>> Analog Devices. >>> >>> What I suggested to our SPICE team was something like: >>> >>> -------- >>> >>> You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any >>> software you sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes >>> to the redistributed copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other >>> than to: >>> >>> 1. Include comments. >>> >>> 2. Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's >>> software/open source software package which you help maintain. >>> >>> Any files which have been modified for any reason above, should be >>> clearly marked (in the header, read me, appropriate software >>> documentation, or file name change) that this is no longer an Analog >>> Devices Inc verified/original SPICE model. >>> >>> Any changes beyond the above (which may affect performance or >>> function of the model) are permitted, but must be distributed as a >>> "patch file" alongside the original, unmodified spice model. >>> >>> -------- >>> >>> Would you suggest anything else? >>> >>> *From:*Richard Crozier [mailto:r.c...@ed...] >>> >>> However, my immediate reaction is that I am not sure about >>> distributing these models with Qucs, mainly because Users might >>> assume everything that comes with Qucs is GPL or similar and >>> inadvertently incriminate themselves. Having looked at the licence >>> you link to, it's not all that permissive in my view, for instance: >>> >>> "You may include copies of Analog Devices' SPICE models with any >>> software you sell or distribute. However, you may not make changes >>> to the redistributed copies of Analog Devices SPICE models other >>> than to: >>> >>> 1. Include comments. >>> 2. Change nomenclature so that it will run on Your company's >>> software. No changes may be made that affect the performance or >>> function of the model." >>> >>> But in principle I see the benefit of distributing these models, and >>> in practice think most users would not want to modify them. How >>> about giving us a sense of what the tweaked licence for the subset >>> of models you are interested in would be like though >>> >> >> >> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > |