Jump to content

Talk:Gerber format

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming the page

[edit]

A Gerber File is a file according to the Gerber Format. Shouldn't we rename the page this way? Lothartklein

Agreed these are artwork files. I sent a vendor an artwork file. The file was in Gerber format, GDSII format, David Mann format, etc.

Revise the copy/paste

[edit]

This article seems to be heavily a copy paste of http://www.ucamco.com/files/downloads/file/81/the_gerber_file_format_specification.pdf

Up to and including the poetic license taken on "Light was shone into the most remote corners of the format."

This doesn't seem like a smart fit for the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.210.190 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the whole History section added by Karloman2 is a copy & past from the Gerber specification, that has in each page a Copyright notice. This is contrary to Wikipedia rules, and should be immediately revert to Revision as of 16:51, 19 July 2015 to avoid sue.--Efa (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC
Oops. No bad intentions, I mentioned in the edit that I took this from the spec. This does not take away the possible copyright violation. I will mail to the gerber address at UCAMCO and ask if they agree or disagree. Karloman2 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am Ucamco’s document manager. As a general rule, we do not want the specification of any part of it to be duplicated as this can only cause confusion, wrong Gerber files and scrap in production. There must be only one reference of the source. However, a different versions of a mere history is not damaging; it will not result in wrong data. A history section is a normal part of an encyclopedic article. Ucamco does not want to hamper a worthy initiative as Wikipedia if no damage is done. Consequently, we have no objection to this specific instance of the use of our copyrighted material. Wbiliet (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question is how we proceed now. The above is important to know. However, I diagonally looked at the Wiki copyright rules and I do not think if formally fulfills those rules. We must respect copyright but I will not study and pursue the legal side of this. Too boring. I suggest the following. The content of the history is a fact, and therefore cannot be a violation of copyright. The text is indeed Ucamco's. I find the text rather long for an encyclopedia and Ucamco self-aggrandizing anyhow. (I already cut in what I copied here.) I propose that I cut some more, and tone down some of the more lyric parts. But of course leave the facts in place. The result indeed does no damage to anyone. (Apart from this, I will already add the new draft nested step and repeat they published, but which is not yet in the "official" history. I will already cut the preceding history section to show concretely what I propose.) Burning objections to this proposed solution? Karloman2 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not good enough. That history is a fact does not nullify a copyright of text describing that history. Wbiliet's comment "we have no objection to this specific instance" is not an appropriate release: others are allowed to copy WP text to other places without making a specific attribution to Ucamco. Revert and start over. Glrx (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glrx, I feel you could have given me some time to do this. I have a job. I can only work on this in the weekend. Some weekends, I have a family too. Bbiliet's comment is indeed not a proper release, but a strong indication the copyright holder has no issue with this, so I do not see the urgency. The issue was under discussion and abruptly reverting to an older - and boring - version in the middle of the discussion is maybe not so nice, and not very motivating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karloman2 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has been on the table for more than a month. Glrx (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. This was also still under discussion. You abruptly, without mention here, reverted to an very old version, throwing out a number of perfectly acceptable edits in the process. If you would read my post, you would see I accepted that there was copyright violation, accepted that Bbiliets post is not a proper release, accepted that a rewrite was needed, did not say that history being a fact justified copyright violation, but suggested to use these facts for a rewrite, mentioned what I would rewrite in the text and offered a sample of what I suggested. IMHO This deserves a better response that just throwing everything out. Karloman2 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Partially replaced by fresh copy.Karloman2 (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gerber format. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gerber format. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gerber_format&oldid=1250058115"