Talk:SPICE

Hi, the article states

Hi, the article states "The original SPICE program was released under a restrictive license, which makes it difficult for others to improve upon the original software." and yet I have read in print ( I think it was in the IEEE Spectrum ) that SPICE was originally "public domain" and I think they implied it was the first "open source" program. Can someone source the assertion about the original license, and change it if necessary ? --Rob

Question moved from article:

Does anyone know the revision level of the first C implementation of SPICE?

If you know the answer add it to the article in the appropriate paragraph. dave 10:02, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

not currently known, but check the following for clues... Waveguy

• http://www.intusoft.com/isspice4.htm

Found it. SPICE 2G.6 (1983) is the last FORTRAN version. SPICE 3 is C. -- RTC 20:08, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Hello, I am Paolo Nenzi, ngspice developer. Ngspice is not covered by the GPL license, it is still covered by the old BSD license. We asked Berkeley's Regents some years ago to change spice license to new BSD (no obnoxious clause) but we got no answer. Thanks for citing ngspice in wikipedia!

I feel that this article could also include information about the SPICE elements such as their function, computational methods, parameters, etc. -- Peter 1:53 AM, 2 Apr 2006 (EST)

XSPICE merged

The brief text from the page XSPICE has now been merged to this article. The XSPICE page has been changed to a simple redirect. DFH 08:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

restrictive license?

SPICE was released under what amounts to the BSD license (or Don Pederson's force of will, depending on how you look at it). There's a line in the article (poorly placed) which asserts BSD is restrictive. It's not gnu, and in many senses it's less restrictive than gnu. Can we remove this line? A note about licensing is probably appropriate, since SPICE was probably the first open source program, but the emphasis should be switched to point out how the nascent IC industry benefitted from a freely available open source circuit simulator. 66.69.212.211 15:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Steve

This point is moot; Berkeley went to BSD licensing per their download page. YoungGeezer 17:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

SPICE Acronym Meaning

The explanation of the SPICE acronym has been changed to match standard usage (previously C was 'circuits', now 'circuit'). 25 Jan 2007, Steve

External/commercial links

I propose eliminating the links to commercial simulators. This has gotten out of hand and has been flagged by Wikipedia as excessive and in need of cleanup. To replace them, I think it would be sufficient to simply say, "There are many commercial circuit simulators, some of which are direct descendants of SPICE2," with a possible mention of PSPICE and HSPICE as being two of the earliest and most popular. Steve, 66.69.212.211 14:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the Macspice link from 'Open Source' to 'Commercial', as it's not open source. However, it is free (as in beer), so it doesn't really belong there. The thing is there are so many commercial spice implementations, and it's not really as if a few dominate the market so it's got to be all or nothing.144.173.6.75 11:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Open source

SPICE has been referred to for many years as one of the first open source programs. The open source article mentions source code available to the general public with relaxed or nonexistent IP restrictions; as I remember, the SPICE license was essentially BSD, which is certainly one of the less restrictive. However, now I can't find the original language in the source code or elsewhere, and the current software agreement is about as open as can be found. I suggest the language in the article about restrictions and an acknowledgment clause can be removed. YoungGeezer 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This point is moot; Berkeley went to BSD licensing per their download page. YoungGeezer 17:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Compact model council purpose

The CMC mainly exists to make it easy to port model parameters from one simulator to another. This requires standard models and standard model parameters. The reason this is important is primarly for fabless (or fab-lite) semiconductor companies, who need to take the model parameters given by the foundry and use them in various simulators. While there are still syntax differences between the different simulators, a standard model will at least ensure that a given set of model parameters will produce a known result on each of the simulators (assuming the implementation follows the reference implementation faithfully, which is again somewhat iffy but at least there's a standard to use to beat on the implementations that deviate).

All that said, the CMC website mentions this obliquely through the first sentence in their vision statement: "Standardized compact models for all major technologies so that customer communication and efficiency can be enhanced." "Customer communication" basically comes down to sets of model parameters to run into standard models.

As it turns out, the "standard interfaces" thing dropped out. Eight or nine years ago a couple of standard interfaces were proposed, but neither caught on, because of their implicit assumptions about simulator architecture. A better approach is being pursued now, using Verilog-AMS as an executable specification and a program like ADMS to translate the Verilog-AMS into simulator code (with some intervening steps and a bit of work).

So I'm reverting the change regarding the purpose of the CMC.

YoungGeezer 18:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanationBrews ohare 18:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaccardi link does not work

I undid this link because it didn't work Brews ohare (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Tina-TI?

There seems to be a toggling of the TI simulator reference from TISPICE to Tina-TI and back. The paragraph in question is about industrial circuit simulators. TISPICE is a SPICE derivative which is written, supported and used in TI. Tina-TI is a give-away for marketing purposes, was not written in TI, and as far as I know is not used (except by marketeers) in TI. The proper reference for the paragraph is to TISPICE. YoungGeezer (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lists of compact models

I (somewhat regretfully) removed the recently added list of 'alternative compact models'. The article is about SPICE; the GEIA Compact Model Council and standard models is somewhat related, but I don't think the SPICE article is the correct place for a list of all possible compact models -- there are sooo many of them, everyone has their favorites, and most have only limited usage. Perhaps the transistor models article would be a better place. YoungGeezer (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

perhaps some discussion of gnucap could be added?

Perhaps there are complicated reasons for not doing so, but it seems that adding some reference to gnucap as an open source project largely inspired by the SPICE program family might be in order? <gnucap_website> 71.197.225.209 (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Gnucap is to be commended for being an independent circuit simulation development and open source. But, other than being a circuit simulator, it is about as unrelated to SPICE as is possible: It did not originate at Berkeley, and as far as I know is not derived from SPICE (I think Al is somewhat proud that it is new and perhaps better code). I'm interested in the SPICE article remaining focused on SPICE -- the article history shows that excessive links to commerical simulators were purged some time back and I'd just as soon not accumulate another mass of links to other simulators, open source or not. There is a category for Electronic Circuit Simulators and separate articles on a number of simulators -- perhaps that would be the better route for mentioning gnucap... YoungGeezer (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of citation inserted by 132.178.10.11

After thinking about this for a week, I removed this citation. For starters, it referenced an IC design textbook by a Boise State faculty member, posted from a Boise State IP address. Looks bad, at minimum. Secondly, the citation was added in proof of the assertion that simulation with SPICE is an industry-standard practice. Probably every circuit-design-related textbook written in the last 25+ years mentions using SPICE -- perhaps one of the great classics might be mentioned (Gray & Meyer, Mead & Conway, Weste, etc.) but I'd really like to not see an accumulation of "cite my text too" cruft. (And really, the canonical reference for the assertion is probably the IEEE Spectrum article on Don Pederson, if needed.) YoungGeezer (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Blog links, etc.

I just removed a link to a blog, which was formatted as a reference. Referencing your own blog is a bit on the self-serving side, and when the blog content is trivial it doesn't help keep the quality up. The reference was in regards to translation of a netlist to equations; a better reference would be to a standard text on the subject, e.g. Singhal and Vlach -- if it fit more cleanly into the article as it stands. YoungGeezer (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi YoungGeezer. I understand your concern about linkspam, but I'm wondering if you'd reconsider your deletion of the reference to my blog posting. I believe the deletion is a case of "throwing out the baby with the bath water." The reason for my blog posting and my linking to it is that, as a product manager for a commercial version of SPICE, I find that my customers benefit from a short explanation of how SPICE works. I agree that implementers of circuit simulators need to invest the time on the textbooks. But I believe that textbooks aren't a great investment of time for SPICE users and that something shorter works best, hence the blog posting. Although the posting is short, and the introductory paragraph reviews the history of SPICE, I object to your characterizing the article as "trival." Larry Nagel (with whom I correspond occasionaly by email) left a comment on the posting, and several readers sent me messages that they found it helpful. I'm not going to undo your deletion because I don't want even the appearance of being "self serving." But I do appeal to you to read the posting in full, consider it (and its intended audience), and restore to reference as it was. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Woz2 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is moot now because the info was printed in traditional media (EMC Journal). Updated ref to reflect this.Woz2 (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Colin, I've reverted your edit. It's still apparently self-serving and a possible conflict of interest, whether you and I disagree on 'trivial' or not. (And I still think the article is trivial. Publishing in a trade journal doesn't raise the level.) On Wikipedia, you shouldn't write your own biography and generally you shouldn't cite your own material unless you really are a notable person in that area, but probably not even then. Also, the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines may apply here: You’re selling a circuit simulator and stand to benefit from attention to it. If someone other than you (a disinterested third party, not a marketing colleague, etc.) thinks your article is appropriate for citation, please let them make the case. YoungGeezer (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

YoungGeezer, Here's my response:

Non-Triviality 1) Larry Nagel liked the article enough to leave a positive comment. I seems to me that Larry Nagel's opinion is worth something. 2) An editor in a traditional media publication thought it worthy. From my perspective it seems your threshold for worthiness is a moving target. First your objection seemed to be "blogs aren't worthy, only traditional media." Now that tradition media has picked it up it's "Only certain traditional media sources are worthy." It seems to me that the data are changing, but your opinion is not. Where does it say (in wikipedia policy, not in your opinion) that EMC Journal is unworthy?

WP:COI says "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount" (my emphasis). I am certain that the interest of the community are paramount in placing this reference, and the community is poorer because of your deletion. Everyone who has communicated to me about this article (except you) has found it useful, as I mentioned above. The article (which is applicable to any version of SPICE, free or commercial, Agilent or non-Agilent) mentions my company's product only tangentially. Thus, the remain paramont condition is satisfied.

BTW, unlike me, you don't reveal your identity so I'm unable to determine whether your deletion of my contribution is in your interest or the community's. I'd be grateful if you'd rectify that situation by stating your name and affiliation either publically (preferably) or privately via the email link Special:EmailUser/Woz2 that I have enabled on my user page (and which BTW you have not: It's an opt in check box under "My preferences"). Best regards, Woz2 (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Woz2: It’s nice that Larry made a comment. Larry is a nice guy. But basically, though, it comes down to you saying your stuff is wonderful, and insisting that it be cited in this Wikipedia article. Further, you are certain that you are not in a conflict of interest situation and "the community is poorer" since your article isn’t referenced. Sorry, but I disagree. I think citing one’s own writing is often self-serving and hubris, especially when better references exist. If it is a great contribution and it fits, someone will cite it for you. And I still think prima facie evidence suggests a conflict of interest.

The dozens of other SPICE-ish software vendors have, for the most part, had the decency to not inject links to their own blogs, application notes, trade press articles, press releases and such, and I’m grateful just from the standpoint of not having to sort through the mess. The SPICE article was earlier flagged for a problem with vendor link-spam, and it would be nice to avoid similar situations in the future.

Anyway, we disagree. As I mentioned, if others, e.g. a third-party editor, become convinced of the appropriateness and quality of your work, they can make a case for inclusion if so inclined.

About my identity: This episode leaves me happy that I’m semi-anonymous. Suffice it to say, I work in circuit simulation but my simulator is not sold. I’ve cited none of my publications. If anything in the SPICE article hints as to a conflict of interest, you’re free to point it out or edit it out. This is Wikipedia, after all. YoungGeezer (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral editor: Please undo the deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SPICE&action=edit&undoafter=301176119&undo=302597842 Woz2 (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I got here from the requested edit template placed on this page. I'm treating this more like a third opinion request since there is a dispute here between two parties. Regarding the edit in question, although it was made within a conflict of interest I do believe the source was added is reliable, and I don't think it overtly promotes the editor who made it. I have performed the requested edit (while tidying up the added reference) but feel free to revert and discuss if there is an issue with it other than the conflict of interest. ThemFromSpace 11:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reproduce chunks of the SPICE manual in this article?

Thanks to bassplr19 for being bold in adding the model parameter tables, but I'd like to revert and discuss whether we should reproduce the SPICE manual here in this article. I think not. I think it would be better to add a link to the UCB archive. See WP:NOTAMANUAL Thanks Woz2 (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I heartily concur, an encyclopedia article is not a manual. It appeared bassplr19 got midway through the edit and thought better of it - and just as well, since the various MOSFET tables go forever. The article has links to a manual, Berkeley pages and the standard models; best to leave it at that, I think... YoungGeezer (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

djo

hej —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.58.167.33 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Multisim

I removed the association of Multisim and XSPICE because the cited article contradicts the claim. The Multisim article says "Multisim is one of the few circuit design programs to employ the original Berkeley SPICE based software simulation" not XSPICE. BTW, the claim in the Multisim article is itself unsourced, but that's another can of wax... Woz2 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Fast-SPICE

I've reverted the addition on Fast-SPICE, mainly because it detracts from the topic. I'd encourage anyone interested in the topic to write an article about it and put a link in the SPICE entry. In particular, start with Hermann Gummel's MOTIS, some similar work at UC Berkeley, then to on to mention the current crop of commercial fast-SPICE programs: nanosim, hsim, ultrasim, etc. The only real relation to SPICE that any of these have is that they are not SPICE, and are often much faster but also often not very accurate. YoungGeezer (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Simulator links

In the interest of not getting into the situation this article had in 2007, when it was flagged for excessive external/commercial links, I've removed a list of links to other simulators. Since a list exists, the List of free electronics circuit simulators, and a category, Category:Electronic circuit simulators already exist for this purpose, let's please use them and not clutter this article. YoungGeezer (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Versions with source code available

The contents of this list is somewhat mixed and does not always follow the two topics "Spice Version" and "Source code available".

Spice2 and Spice3: o.k.

Cider: o.k.

ngspice: o.k.

Spice+: This is a graphical user interface, but not Spice itself. Many others of this kind are available (kjwaves, GNU Spice GUI, gsim ...) .

tclspice: o.k.

XSPICE: o.k.

Spice Opus: Free spice simulator. Some source code is available on code models, but no source code on the simulator itself.

PyOPUS: An optimization framework with source code, but not Spice itself. Others are available (ASCO ...).

LTSpice: Probably the most widely used free Spice simulator, but definitely no source code available.

Because I am a little bit biased, somebody else might take care of an update to this list.

James HV (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

CANCER was an acronym for "Computer Analysis of Nonlinear Circuits, Excluding Radiation," a hint to Berkeley's liberalism of 1960s

Can someone explain this sentence? Is this comment about the use of a morbid acronym? Unless someone can clarify "a hint to Berkeley's liberalism of 1960s" it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.6 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I added a citation in Larry Nagel's own words. Woz2 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither Berkley or liberalism are discussed in the citation given. So I'm tagging it as having failed verification. 67.51.98.218 (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In the cited talk Nagel says: "The name CANCER was a brash statement that this program never would simulate radiation and was not funded by the defense industry. It was developed at Berkeley in the sixties, remember!" I think that opposition to the defense industry within American liberalism are well established. I'm going to remove the tag if you don't mind. Markluffel (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

TISPICE

Judging by this it appears it was just a user-contributed TI-92 program. I doubt it was the company's internal design/simulation software. JMP EAX (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)