GNU License Questions

Re: GNU License Questions

jkomp316 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:39:40 -0500

jbayless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jkomp316 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I say, let the corporate interests play. Makes
> no
> > difference to me. I'm waiting for the day HP
> > makes an affordable 3d printer. I will be
> first
> > in line to buy one. I'll take it straight
> home,
> > rip out the circuit boards, throw away the
> > proprietary software cd, and wire up a reprap
> > board. >:D<
>
>
> Probably not the best idea, since if you've looked
> under the hood in any modern inkjet printers,
> you'll find that just about the only components
> that are decently made are the electronics and
> software. The mechanics have as many corners cut
> as can possibly be cut.

Indeed. But those $40 printers still perform with remarkable accuracy. I see no reason why a mass made 3d version would be any different. Aside from the closed source software/firmware.

Re: GNU License Questions

chrissketch — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:42:09 -0500

What you're describing is patenting, which takes time (the backup is a couple years now) and money (~$1000 to file for just the preliminary patent). Patents give you commercial protection but force (or in this case allow) you to release the method to reproduce the invention.

If RepRap or Makerbot were closed source the only thing preventing me from copying their idea would be my skill in reverse-engineering.

All you're doing by releasing your designs is attempting to generate popularity for your design and to use others time and talents to improve it. I know it isn't your intention, but what you're proposing is exploitation. Free design files aren't free if I'm not allowed to profit off my contributions as much as you are yours.

Re: GNU License Questions

jbayless — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:56:02 -0500

jkomp316 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I say, let the corporate interests play. Makes no
> difference to me. I'm waiting for the day HP
> makes an affordable 3d printer. I will be first
> in line to buy one. I'll take it straight home,
> rip out the circuit boards, throw away the
> proprietary software cd, and wire up a reprap
> board. >:D<

Probably not the best idea, since if you've looked under the hood in any modern inkjet printers, you'll find that just about the only components that are decently made are the electronics and software. The mechanics have as many corners cut as can possibly be cut.

Re: GNU License Questions

brnrd — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:28:15 -0500

Quote
vulcanrd
Is there a type of license that is limited to personal use, so a competitor cannot simply sell our designs, but anyone could have the source info for personal use?

Quote
Leghk
Creative Commons' "CC-BY-NC" is common, or perhaps "CC-BY-NC-SA" for a more GNU-like "Share-Alike" clause added to the mix.

I don't think this type of license applies to the printer. Yes, you might own the rights to the drawings and the documentation on how to build the printer, etc. But it doesn't prevent someone from using your design to make the parts or the whole printer and selling them. As far as I know, the only legal means to prevent someone from doing that is to keep your designs secret or patent it.

Re: GNU License Questions

jkomp316 — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:17:22 -0500

I say, let the corporate interests play. Makes no difference to me. I'm waiting for the day HP makes an affordable 3d printer. I will be first in line to buy one. I'll take it straight home, rip out the circuit boards, throw away the proprietary software cd, and wire up a reprap board. >:D<

Re: GNU License Questions

nophead — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:54:16 -0500

Quote

I guess to put it a different way. If we developed a 100% new and novel 3D printer and wanted to share it with the community for personal use but wanted to protect ourselves from commercial intrusion what is the best way to go about that?

You would have to patent it.

Re: GNU License Questions

NoobMan — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:21:03 -0500

vulcanrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand what you are saying completely.
>
> While the Prusa mendel may be the inspiration for
> the project, the similarities would be limited to
> having 3 axis of movement and extruding plastic so
> it really isn't a derivative work.

We are such a long way since cartesian movement was first used in automation, that any possible cartesian topology was already used by at least 10 commercial companies around the world since 100 or more years ago. Probably all topologies depleted soon after the first metalworking mills appeared. Not to mention reprap at all. It is very likely that at this point in time nobody can come with a new topology for cartesian movement. About mechanics in general, tips and tricks, also it is unlikely that any new stuff or method of doing things can come up in such a bot. Usually if somebody thinks it got a new way or thing, its either "has been used before but you dont know" or "its not done like that for some hidden reason that you will figure later". We are a long way since wheel got invented too.

Let me think: "prusa is an inspiration" (remotely or not) + it will extrude plastic (let me guess, a geared extruder, and btw, this is 4th axis) + let me guess, use reprap firmware / software ... well i think that pretty much qualifies as a derivative. Imo. Can you elaborate further?

> I do not expect some other company to come in and
> pay millions for an idea, but I do think that a
> novel way of doing something can be monetized on a
> small scale and should be protected from
> commercial entities from doing the same thing.

"Commercial entities" is a term, i would ask what you understand by that. As i said i think most of reprap companies are somewhat extremely small 1-2-3 ppls even part time jobs, something like that. I dont know of any big corporations or something. Few players bigger than that, and those gave most of the stuff that was used, sort of they gave much more than could possibly receive.

> I guess to put it a different way. If we
> developed a 100% new and novel 3D printer and
> wanted to share it with the community for personal
> use but wanted to protect ourselves from
> commercial intrusion what is the best way to go
> about that?

For example make it a stewart platform or 4-6 freedom degrees robotic arm, and employ for example an ultrasonic plastic welding tool. Develop own software and electronics. I think that would pretty much make it entirely your game, but its likely to be the a group effort for something like an engineer department for a company, for like at least a couple of months or so. Maybe my estimate isnt good, but you catch my drift.

******************
Ppls making discoveries these days, are not single ppls, are actually teams working in laboratories with hardware of millions funded by big intl companies, and they work for tens of years, and most of them for their entire lifetime without getting their names up and only a few of them achieve something worthy of mention. Rarely, every now and then. Thats R&D this century. Days of the "lone genius in a simple lab" ended up about the same time with "wild west alone gunman to rob the payment train from railroad workers".

If you do develop something that takes lets say 10 days of 8h of work, the value of that is the salary for a person pondered once to the days/time worked, that pondered once by your skill / that professional skill and then pondered right again with the buyer interest, e.g. if it has other choices will be even less. Pretty much no inherent "unseen" value. If you want to work alone and make huge value discoveries, that ended centuries ago. There are lots of videos like "free energy" on youtube from the garage of random guy. Right next to the videos of "chicken with 3 heads", and such, except the latter are more probable. Dont get hopes up, the entropy law which is pretty much at the base of all other laws, energy related too, cant be possibly toyed with. But the heads of the chickens might be.

Thats pretty much my opinion and view about value of such stuff and related nowadays.

******************
Also i should of said first welcome to community, and i probably would of in different circumstances. I cant speak for anyone else, but i think that pretty much any given value you find and take for yourself, was given away by ppls willing to help the others for free, and they did, and if you took something from here, then they helped you too. I cant say what ppls manners should be like, but i think as far as it goes for myself i try the following:
- answer to other ppls problems and post best help i can for others, at least in the same amount that i received myself from other ppls; this post being one of such!;
- try develop at best of my abilities some stuff that could be regarded as something in exchange for the value i felt i have received myself;

Sort of speaking, i took lots of things of value from community, without which i couldnt do what i did, etc, so i just try to be a gentleman and put something of value back, at least of the value i feel i did benefited myself.

Thats pretty much my opinion and view about my position and my relation with community.

Re: GNU License Questions

vulcanrd — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:20:05 -0500

I understand what you are saying completely.

While the Prusa mendel may be the inspiration for the project, the similarities would be limited to having 3 axis of movement and extruding plastic so it really isn't a derivative work.

I do not expect some other company to come in and pay millions for an idea, but I do think that a novel way of doing something can be monetized on a small scale and should be protected from commercial entities from doing the same thing.

I guess to put it a different way. If we developed a 100% new and novel 3D printer and wanted to share it with the community for personal use but wanted to protect ourselves from commercial intrusion what is the best way to go about that?

Re: GNU License Questions

NoobMan — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:29:19 -0500

1) How about taking under consideration that basically without the work other ppls did (under gnu gpl), you might never had a 3d printer like that ... most probably would never thought about making one, to start with.

2) My hard impression is that the biggest number of reprap companies i think are very small ones, hardly surviving, perhaps equivalent of a bunch of few diy-guys in best case. The two or three names that are exception of this rule are also the companies which gave as open source and gpl almost all we have and use. They gave way far more than they received anyway. Also probably catching their breath from one day to the other. Also if they would project making money out of a product i think they have enough guys inside to make them a few stl files.

Sorry to take your dream away, but i dont think there is anything that you, or next guy, or anyone else could possibly design and some other company will use it and pay you millions. Its a nice dream but nothing more. Excess in this direction is just a step away from getting ridiculous. I'd say lets get the feet on earth.

Not to mention that existing designs are gpl, that stipulates that derivatives based on them will also have to be shared and their license is also gpl too - how do you plan to avoid that, since your design is likely based on existing ones, and then it would fall basically in the same attributes.

Re: GNU License Questions

Leghk — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:53:21 -0500

Creative Commons' "CC-BY-NC" is common, or perhaps "CC-BY-NC-SA" for a more GNU-like "Share-Alike" clause added to the mix.

GNU License Questions

vulcanrd — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:44:41 -0500

We have begun working on our own, improved version of an inexpensive 3D printer, fairly distantly based on the Prusa Mendel but having almost exclusively unique parts. When we are done with it (who knows when that may be!) we would like to release it to the community to modify, make and fiddle with for personal use. Is there a type of license that is limited to personal use, so a competitor cannot simply sell our designs, but anyone could have the source info for personal use?