ZCAD is a simple CAD program, written in Lazarus / FPC (only for windows). It can open DXF files and save it as PDF, SVG... Also, it has some edition tools.
License: mLGPLv2 https://github.com/zamtmn/zcad
Urban Modeling. System that takes an aerial LiDAR point cloud as input, and reconstructs 3D urban models in an efficient manner. MIT License http://qianyi.info/urban.html
Openjardin. Openjardin is a free software GNU gpl 3.0 for the management of a permaculture oriented garden. (Français-Italiano-English)
It allows interactive management of crop plots, with annual planning and crop rotation . https://sourceforge.net/projects/openjardin/
Is there room for a list of electrical design software in our FreeSoftwareDirectory or we should create an independent wiki page?
(For tools like KiCad, Qelectrotech, etc)
Just a little clarification here. Software that only runs on Windows cannot be truly libre/fred software. It has a non-free dependency which is the operating system itself. Even though the wording in this section is a but off target such software is better placed in : https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Free_software_extensions_to_proprietary_software
We need therefore to move ZCAD when someone has time.
@duncan said:
Just a little clarification here. Software that only runs on Windows cannot be truly libre/fred software.
mmmm. Sorry, I think that is not correct. Are you saying that windows version of Blender, windows version of FreeCAD, windows version of whatever, are not free software as defined by https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ??
@bitacovir I think there is a misunderstanding in @duncan 's post in his words "Software that only runs on Windows cannot be truly libre/free software".
I think what he meant to say is that the Wiki is divided into two directories: 1) Free software that doesn't depend on proprietary software, and 2) Free software that does depend on proprietary software. Both lists are legally free software and fulfill the GNU definitions, just that the former guarantees that dependencies can also be free, whereas the latter requires you to use non-free dependencies.
I think he misread that ZCAD only worked on Windows (because you wrote "only for windows" in your post), and wanted to move it to the second directory.
@Moult said:
I think what he meant to say is that the Wiki is divided into two directories: 1) Free software that doesn't depend on proprietary software, and 2) Free software that does depend on proprietary software.
I had a different interpretation about that. I think extending that "propietary software dependency" to the Operative System itself is an exaggeration.
@bitacovir ah yes, that is a separate question of "how black and white is your ideology". Do we stop at the OS? Do we stop at the drivers? I think no matter what decision is made, there will be someone who disagrees. Luckily, looking at our current list I think there are only two items where the dependency limit can be debated: Meshroom, which depends on NVIDIA CUDA (which a brief search suggests it may be source-available) and XBim Xplorer (which depends on Windows only). So two apps out of a directory of hundreds I think is not something to get too caught up about personally.
And what about low level hardware related things like BIOS ?
Sounds like even open source os and by extension every single foss software rely on proprietary code to run, so i realy don't think such argumentation make any sense.
This is getting into the fundamental difference between opensource and free/libre software @stephen_l . And your wrong about everything needing proprietary code in the end.
Opensource software is a proposition that it is practical, advantageous and gives a better product if the code is shared and people can trust that it will always be shared.
Free/Libre Software is the proposition that users have an ethical right to run their software freely, study and alter the software, share the software and share the changes you make. That's the Four Essential Freedoms.
Often people muddle these things together quite a bit as if they are the same. It is absolutely not true that "every single foss software rely on proprietary code to run". There are computers that run fully free software from the bios up which is great.
When we promote software that costs nothing and only runs on Windows we are basically saying "this costs nothing and it's practical". When we promote free/libre & opensource software that runs on a free software operating system we're saying "this gives you freedom to inspect, learn and develop". I don't think that's a theoretical difference, it's the difference between choosing a path because it's easy or choosing a path because it's the right things to do. But we still have to pay our bills and get our day jobs done, so sometimes we take the easier solution.
... another whole discussion is the difference between copy left and permissive licenses.
@bitacovir if it also runs on Linux then my objection was a mistake. Good that we cleared that up :-) But if someone could work on the wiki text that would make it clearer. I don't know what Lazarus/FPC is so maybe that's what confused me.
ZCAD is a simple CAD program, written in Lazarus / FPC (only for windows). It can open DXF files and save it as PDF, SVG... Also, it has some edition tools.
@duncan I'm not aware of any open source BIOS (or commercial hardware shipped with such bios) , so whatever the state of the os, at lower level your soft rely on bios and by doing so rely on proprietary software.
Does this make sense ?
@duncan said: @bitacovir if it also runs on Linux then my objection was a mistake. Good that we cleared that up :-) But if someone could work on the wiki text that would make it clearer.
just wanted to point out that for example System76 who manufacture Linux laptops, desktops, and servers include some models sold with System76 Open Firmware. These models utilize coreboot which is a replacement for your BIOS. That being said, free/libre or open source BIOS is not so easy to get on commercial hardware at the moment...
@stephen_l said: @duncan I'm not aware of any open source BIOS (or commercial hardware shipped with such bios) , so whatever the state of the os, at lower level your soft rely on bios and by doing so rely on proprietary software.
Does this make sense ?
@stephen_l said: @duncan I'm not aware of any open source BIOS (or commercial hardware shipped with such bios) , so whatever the state of the os, at lower level your soft rely on bios and by doing so rely on proprietary software.
I totally get that BIOS is part of the software stack for any OS. You can see a FSFs list of computers that run libreboot/coreboot (I don't quite understand the difference) at the link I sent earlier: https://libreboot.org/docs/hardware/
But I think the central part of this discussion is more about why we support libre/free software and/or opensource software. The difference can be subtle but it's there. This article from FSF goes carefully through the practical & ethical implications of the differences between various FLOSS licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
@duncan my point was simply you can't exclude software only running on windows for "proprietary os" reasons. To me it's only matter of license. I guess when we talk about extension to proprietary software, it's in the "addon/plugin" sense, as even with effort to make it cross platform, it does still will rely on proprietary code.
Agree with @stephen_l on this one, and I think also @bitacovir was on the same page. If it is open-source but runs only in Windows it should be ok, after all there is always the possibility to extend it to other operating systems I guess.
Personally, I prefer to be not very "radical" on this issue as in any other similar issue in general.
@stephen_l said:
... even with effort to make it cross platform, it does still will rely on proprietary code.
For a GPL licensed application running on Trisquel as OS and coreboot as BIOS where is the proprietary code?
I agree that I've muddled my language a bit so it looks like I'm misunderstanding the terms. Rather silly since I'm trying to promote a clear interpretation of terms.
It is of course totally true that software licensed according to FSF or OSI is either free/libre software or opensource software. But why do we support FLOSS software? I support because I think it's an ethical imperative that people have control over their software & hardware. I cannot say to people their software should be developed in the open and be transparent in what it does with their data - and then say Windows 10 or macOS is no problem.
@duncan I mean in "addon / plugin" context, eg a Revit addon will always depends on Revit (proprietary code) whatever the os / bios, where a windows only GPL may be ported to gpl os and even using gpl bios.
It is clear that opinions are divided :) To bring this back to the current issue, I believe there are only two "contested" listings on the directory: XBim Xplorer and Meshroom. (2 out of more than a hundred!)
XBim Xplorer runs only on Windows and depends on Windows because it uses WPF. This is different to free software which runs on Windows, but could be ported. In the case of XBim Xplorer, the entire codebase is completely coupled to WPF, which is proprietary, and so the only way to port it would be effectively to rewrite from scratch, such as making it based on Qt instead. Therefore, I think with this logic, it is safe to treat it the same way we treat Revit add-ons.
As an example, Ladybug Tools historically only ran on Grasshopper and was coupled to Grasshopper (and therefore Windows / Mac), but they then went through the exercise of rewriting everything from scratch, and so they have switched lists on the wiki since then.
I don't know much about Meshroom's dependency on CUDA, so I don't have an opinion :)
Looks like it's hard requirement for both hard and soft, according meshroom release notes
"Requirement: NVIDIA CUDA-enabled GPU (built with CUDA-10 compatible with compute capability 3.0 to 7.5)."
@stephen_l said:
Looks like it's hard requirement for both hard and soft, according meshroom release notes
"Requirement: NVIDIA CUDA-enabled GPU (built with CUDA-10 compatible with compute capability 3.0 to 7.5)."
Comments
ZCAD is a simple CAD program, written in Lazarus / FPC (only for windows). It can open DXF files and save it as PDF, SVG... Also, it has some edition tools.
License: mLGPLv2
https://github.com/zamtmn/zcad
Urban Modeling. System that takes an aerial LiDAR point cloud as input, and reconstructs 3D urban models in an efficient manner. MIT License
http://qianyi.info/urban.html
Openjardin. Openjardin is a free software GNU gpl 3.0 for the management of a permaculture oriented garden. (Français-Italiano-English)
It allows interactive management of crop plots, with annual planning and crop rotation .
https://sourceforge.net/projects/openjardin/
Is there room for a list of electrical design software in our FreeSoftwareDirectory or we should create an independent wiki page?
(For tools like KiCad, Qelectrotech, etc)
@bitacovir I did a quick online search and it looks like there are quite a few lists https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=opensource+electrical+design+software so I'm not really thinking we should start one as well. But I haven't looked at those lists.
Anyone here an acoustics / sound guy? :)
I found http://openpstd.org/ and https://github.com/openPSTD but it looks a little inactive :(
Just a little clarification here. Software that only runs on Windows cannot be truly libre/fred software. It has a non-free dependency which is the operating system itself. Even though the wording in this section is a but off target such software is better placed in :
https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Free_software_extensions_to_proprietary_software
We need therefore to move ZCAD when someone has time.
mmmm. Sorry, I think that is not correct. Are you saying that windows version of Blender, windows version of FreeCAD, windows version of whatever, are not free software as defined by https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ??
The ZCAD readme states "Crossplatform (Windows x86/x64, Linux x86/x64 - gtk/qt)" <-- so it is not Windows-only.
The license of ZCAD mLGPLv2
https://github.com/zamtmn/zcad/blob/master/COPYING.modifiedLGPL.txt
See if it fulfils the GNU definition. I think that is the main point.
@bitacovir I think there is a misunderstanding in @duncan 's post in his words "Software that only runs on Windows cannot be truly libre/free software".
I think what he meant to say is that the Wiki is divided into two directories: 1) Free software that doesn't depend on proprietary software, and 2) Free software that does depend on proprietary software. Both lists are legally free software and fulfill the GNU definitions, just that the former guarantees that dependencies can also be free, whereas the latter requires you to use non-free dependencies.
I think he misread that ZCAD only worked on Windows (because you wrote "only for windows" in your post), and wanted to move it to the second directory.
I had a different interpretation about that. I think extending that "propietary software dependency" to the Operative System itself is an exaggeration.
@bitacovir ah yes, that is a separate question of "how black and white is your ideology". Do we stop at the OS? Do we stop at the drivers? I think no matter what decision is made, there will be someone who disagrees. Luckily, looking at our current list I think there are only two items where the dependency limit can be debated: Meshroom, which depends on NVIDIA CUDA (which a brief search suggests it may be source-available) and XBim Xplorer (which depends on Windows only). So two apps out of a directory of hundreds I think is not something to get too caught up about personally.
And what about low level hardware related things like BIOS ?
Sounds like even open source os and by extension every single foss software rely on proprietary code to run, so i realy don't think such argumentation make any sense.
This is getting into the fundamental difference between opensource and free/libre software @stephen_l . And your wrong about everything needing proprietary code in the end.
Opensource software is a proposition that it is practical, advantageous and gives a better product if the code is shared and people can trust that it will always be shared.
Free/Libre Software is the proposition that users have an ethical right to run their software freely, study and alter the software, share the software and share the changes you make. That's the Four Essential Freedoms.
Often people muddle these things together quite a bit as if they are the same. It is absolutely not true that "every single foss software rely on proprietary code to run". There are computers that run fully free software from the bios up which is great.
When we promote software that costs nothing and only runs on Windows we are basically saying "this costs nothing and it's practical". When we promote free/libre & opensource software that runs on a free software operating system we're saying "this gives you freedom to inspect, learn and develop". I don't think that's a theoretical difference, it's the difference between choosing a path because it's easy or choosing a path because it's the right things to do. But we still have to pay our bills and get our day jobs done, so sometimes we take the easier solution.
... another whole discussion is the difference between copy left and permissive licenses.
@bitacovir if it also runs on Linux then my objection was a mistake. Good that we cleared that up :-) But if someone could work on the wiki text that would make it clearer. I don't know what Lazarus/FPC is so maybe that's what confused me.
@duncan I'm not aware of any open source BIOS (or commercial hardware shipped with such bios) , so whatever the state of the os, at lower level your soft rely on bios and by doing so rely on proprietary software.
Does this make sense ?
Done! I just deleted the the sentence.
just wanted to point out that for example System76 who manufacture Linux laptops, desktops, and servers include some models sold with System76 Open Firmware. These models utilize coreboot which is a replacement for your BIOS. That being said, free/libre or open source BIOS is not so easy to get on commercial hardware at the moment...
I totally get that BIOS is part of the software stack for any OS. You can see a FSFs list of computers that run libreboot/coreboot (I don't quite understand the difference) at the link I sent earlier: https://libreboot.org/docs/hardware/
But I think the central part of this discussion is more about why we support libre/free software and/or opensource software. The difference can be subtle but it's there. This article from FSF goes carefully through the practical & ethical implications of the differences between various FLOSS licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
@duncan my point was simply you can't exclude software only running on windows for "proprietary os" reasons. To me it's only matter of license. I guess when we talk about extension to proprietary software, it's in the "addon/plugin" sense, as even with effort to make it cross platform, it does still will rely on proprietary code.
Agree with @stephen_l on this one, and I think also @bitacovir was on the same page. If it is open-source but runs only in Windows it should be ok, after all there is always the possibility to extend it to other operating systems I guess.
Personally, I prefer to be not very "radical" on this issue as in any other similar issue in general.
For a GPL licensed application running on Trisquel as OS and coreboot as BIOS where is the proprietary code?
I agree that I've muddled my language a bit so it looks like I'm misunderstanding the terms. Rather silly since I'm trying to promote a clear interpretation of terms.
It is of course totally true that software licensed according to FSF or OSI is either free/libre software or opensource software. But why do we support FLOSS software? I support because I think it's an ethical imperative that people have control over their software & hardware. I cannot say to people their software should be developed in the open and be transparent in what it does with their data - and then say Windows 10 or macOS is no problem.
@duncan I mean in "addon / plugin" context, eg a Revit addon will always depends on Revit (proprietary code) whatever the os / bios, where a windows only GPL may be ported to gpl os and even using gpl bios.
It is clear that opinions are divided :) To bring this back to the current issue, I believe there are only two "contested" listings on the directory: XBim Xplorer and Meshroom. (2 out of more than a hundred!)
XBim Xplorer runs only on Windows and depends on Windows because it uses WPF. This is different to free software which runs on Windows, but could be ported. In the case of XBim Xplorer, the entire codebase is completely coupled to WPF, which is proprietary, and so the only way to port it would be effectively to rewrite from scratch, such as making it based on Qt instead. Therefore, I think with this logic, it is safe to treat it the same way we treat Revit add-ons.
As an example, Ladybug Tools historically only ran on Grasshopper and was coupled to Grasshopper (and therefore Windows / Mac), but they then went through the exercise of rewriting everything from scratch, and so they have switched lists on the wiki since then.
I don't know much about Meshroom's dependency on CUDA, so I don't have an opinion :)
Looks like it's hard requirement for both hard and soft, according meshroom release notes
"Requirement: NVIDIA CUDA-enabled GPU (built with CUDA-10 compatible with compute capability 3.0 to 7.5)."
You can use meshroom to complete the reconstruction without nvidia GPU (no best quality but...)
https://github.com/alicevision/meshroom/wiki/Draft-Meshing
I had a few random test with Meshroom. With CUDA, it runs as expected. Without CUDA, a lot of scenes fail and the quality is not good indeed.
CityLite - for smarter and greener cities (Cassini Hackathon 2021)
Mozilla Public License 2.0.
https://github.com/Parametricos/citylite-smartcities-cassini-hackathon-2021
BagaPie Modifier (Free Blender Addon)
https://abaga.gumroad.com/