Hello all,
It's been an absolute age since I showed my face round here - sorry about that.I've had a few projects on the boil but sadly can't afford to actually make / test them so I thought I'd post them all here in case anyone wants to run with any of them.
#2) CPC 512K ExpansionIt's a TTL-based DK'tronics compatible RAM expansion for the CPC6128. Sorry, I don't think it will work with the 464 or 664. This one is a shameless rip-off of an already existing design but I wanted to do my own version that also has available schematics.
Quite untested so use at your discretion.
All the best,
Charlie
What can I use this for in my 6128 plus, RAMDISK or are there other uses?
Thanks
Bill
Quote#2) CPC 512K ExpansionIt's a TTL-based DK'tronics compatible RAM expansion for the CPC6128. Sorry, I don't think it will work with the 464 or 664. This one is a shameless rip-off of an already existing design but I wanted to do my own version that also has available schematics.
Quite untested so use at your discretion.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to take exception to this one since it is indeed a "shameless rip-off" of my own existing open source project which is still freely available in source code, as bare PCBs and as fully built kits from eBay sellers.
The original is described briefly on the CPC Wiki (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Old_School_512K_RAM_Expansion).
It's all open source under the GPL license (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html).
Full documentation is available on GitHub (https://github.com/revaldinho/cpc_ram_expansion/wiki/CPC-512K-RAM-Expansion) including
- a full bill of materials and assembly instructions
- explanation of extended RAM operation on the CPC
- Eagle CAD files, gerbers and netlists.
PCBs are readily available via SeeedStudio (https://www.seeedstudio.com/Amstrad-CPC6128-512K-RAM-Expansion-Card-g-1136535) for anyone wanting to build their own, and of course you can use the provided Eagle/gerber files to have PCBs made anywhere else.
The board has been fully built and tested by a good number of users and I'm always willing to provide support for any issues - unlike the 'unbuilt and untested' and 'use at your own discretion' status of this new derivative.
I don't mind eBay sellers adhering to the GPL providing kits or ready-built versions of the project - in fact I'd encourage that, although slightly lower prices might be good :D . However, ripping off something which is basically free already and providing a new 'unbuilt and untested' version without the original documentation isn't helping anyone.
Please find a way of supporting and extending open source projects rather than simply tweaking the layouts and passing off as your own work.
R.
Quote from: revaldinho on 11:18, 22 September 19
I'm sorry, but I'm going to take exception to this one since it is indeed a "shameless rip-off" of my own existing open source project which is still freely available in source code, as bare PCBs and as fully built kits from eBay sellers.
I agree with
revaldinho. I found his board on GitHub and I am ordering 10 boards from SeedStudio. So any one needing a board please let me know. Bill
@revaldinho:
I'm sincerely sorry I ruffled your feathers, it was certainly not my intention to do so. Having said that I feel obliged to point a few things out in response to your unreasonable reaction:
1) If you are going to publicly post designs under GPL I don't think it is reasonable of you to complain if someone else produces their own spin on that design - indeed imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Github where you published your design has a branching facility for precisely this purpose.
2) You obviously have no issue with others ordering their own boards based on your freely published work, as retro_collector seems intent on doing, so where is the harm in my doing an alternate layout? Github where you published your design has a branching facility for precisely this purpose.
3) It is also at best inconsistent, and possibly morally dubious, to on the on hand note what I had already said in humorously calling this "a shameless ripoff" while finishing your post by saying "...rather than simply tweaking the layouts and passing off as your own work." I take exception to the implication, doubly so as you are obviously aware I had no such intention and seem bent on painting my motives as blackly as possible to suit your own narrative. Github where you published your design has a branching facility for precisely this purpose.
4) It is also interesting to note that you either didn't see, or chose to ignore, my clearly stating that I wasn't going to make these myself as well as the obvious allusion to this not being my own design. Yes, Github where you published your design has a branching facility for precisely this purpose.
5) Did you take time to note that while I freely gave of my time in publishing an update of your project, including the Eagle files, I did not include any gerbers? Possibly my motivation was to be helpful rather than crassly ripping you off as you so very kindly stated. I did not include the very files that would make direct production of my version of your design possible even though it would not be unreasonable to do so.
6) As I have made no claims, done no harm, and indeed (possibly) furnished you with an improved PCB layout for your design at the cost of my own time maybe thanks would be a more appropriate response!
The short version:
-GPL and Github allow for others to update published designs
-At no point did I make any attempt to pass this off as anything other than a spin on a preexisting design
-I obviously posted this material to be helpful
-I take great exception to suggestion that I was in any way dishonest, especially as the person making that claim was dishonest enough to make that suggestion when their own post shows they clearly understood my motives.
@moderators:
I suggest you close this thread so it doesn't risk becoming a slagging match. For myself I rarely make an appearance unless I have something to contribute (see recent posts). Having made my defense the subject is done as far as I'm concerned.
@Charlie (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=372) well I don't see any reference to @revaldinho (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1776) 's work in the opening post to this thread. So if your design is indeed based on it (only you and @revaldinho (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1776) can judge that), then IMHO it would be nice to somehow give credit to the original designer and his work... just my few cents.