An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP

An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP It's late into the night, I'm getting really philosophical, and things are coming to a head with my internal struggle about intellectual property (IP), the community. What does it all means for the next generation, and what does it tell us about the human psyche. I hoping one of you can relate and help me think about what to do about it. The community (reprap and makers) are pretty unique when it comes to the ownership of ideas (vs. the average American). I started out with a very open-source mentality and laid out all my best ideas here. I began to shift over time with a few key events. It started when I watched this video of a really neat stepper motors generating sounds to play super mario bros (1980's represent!). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh2AWswAMvw. People in the comments started to demand that the author release their code. As if they are entitled to it. The creator did all of that work, and presented the video because it was cool. Of course he/she could share the code, but it was their choice not to (Why not though?). That got me thinking...the sense of entitlement killed my mojo for open source creation if I was going to be a slave to unappreciative people who just want to use my creative energies for their benefit. Perhaps he didn't share the code only because people asked rudely. A second thing that got me thinking was when I wanted to print Ironman and couldn't find any 3D data files, and realized I could never share an authentic ironman STL even if I made one. So I thought about licensing figurines from major companies. I would then release the 3D designs to allow people to 3D print Ironman (while respecting the copyright holders) as a direct sales proposition. It then occurred to me that that people currently pay top dollar to be able to print a t-shirt or mug with such copyrighted designs. A copyrighted design is automatically (?) owned by the artist of any character, or graphic design, because their individual creativity made a unique and memorable character design. Like the owner of the stepper motor video, Marvel has the choice to release their designs into the wild freely or for charge (and they do, by not sueing every artist on deviant art, or free cad model sites). Except in this case, the law recognizes their creative IP and allows them strong ($$) protections. I'm not sure how you defend your IP if you are not iconic, or establish a date of creation. Also aside: you can loose your copyright if you don't sue people that violate it. Thirdly, a fan spashed spiderman on their mobile home (or bus?) and paid $4000 for the artwork. They were then sent a cease and desist letter and told to remove it (i.e. hide it from the public). It really pains me to think that even as an individual, I could be told that I do not have the freedom to run around with anyone elses copyrighted designs on my person, or worse, be pulled over by the cops for having a cool piece of derivative copyrighted artwork, just for becoming iconic and not falling in line with the companies ideals. Ouch. Fourthly, I thought of distributing a working 3D printing pen and ran into these issues of ego and I vs. we. I stumbled upon a small outfit that had apparently been working on a 3D printing pen long before 3Doodler released theirs. A real space race this was, technically they were scooped. I could never know who was first (in fact, a 2010 Thingiverse file predates both of them), and the community has been removing nozzles to make 3D pens for a while. So I thought, If this stuff is really not "owned" by 3Doodler, why don't I release it to turn a profit. Surely they are tons of people in reprap and abroad that want a 3D printing pen, and don't feel like waiting for kickstarter and pre-order delivery dates, so I would actually be holding back a technology for the "we", right? The internal drama that ensued was deep. I was justifying trying to benefit the we, when infact I wanted to help the me. 3Doodler didn't invent the 3D pen. They may not even get their patent. But what they DID do it make is beautiful, and iconic. In the very same way an artistic can make a character iconic, why shouldn't a technological inventor have the right to protect their ideas? So I dropped the whole thing, even though I could have made money, and someone else will do it soon anyway, for the sake of the "we" ego, I had to pay my respects and let it go. I'll let the next guy get yelled at. On this note, when IS it okay to release a "knock off" product without feeling like you are ripping off someone else? These issues are really at the core of the 3D printer copyright issues (dishonoring others) in the future. If someone designs a new as-seen-on-tv patent product, and you print that exact product, you are dishonoring the inventor, just in the same way you torrented a movie or mp3, no? You are denying the original inventor revenues, control, or credit. So at the real depths of this issue is the ego of man. The fact that "I" invented it and "I" deserve money for my creations and "I" deserve control over it. And I think the community is about "we" invented it and "we" deserve to all know how it works and what the real costs are to share in this collectively (with the only ego being a legacy of breakthroughs and creations in blog posts?). On the other hand, I have to evaluate these issues as a business. Let's say I designed the concept for Harry Potter. Lets say I meant to motivate children to dream, but a pervert rebranded Harry Potter in a derviative work that's gaining popularity and in a way that offended me. Do I get the right to send a cease and desist? Because, my design would be the one that is iconic (first) and if someone else to used this character willy-nilly they would be doing it mainly to sport popularity from someone elses brilliance. Therefore, I would demand control and credit. In the "we" method, no one has any control, no one stands to profit immediately, and no one gets to claim all of the originality. As a result, if people contribute freely in this semi-communistic or semi-star trek future, innovation moves 100 times faster than ever before. However, there is no control, and little incentive (ego or financial), if say, people want to 3D something that could harm someone, the fact that "we" have no control to lockout users is something we accept in exchange for freedom. And that's really in line with everything that is American isn't it. But I question, how stable is the "we" movement. How do people innovate if not for their ego, to say "I did it, and I'm first" or to make profits and have control. How do people put their "skin in the game" and risk lots of money to make a big leap in development that demands a research budget. This is why I believe the community will invert as more and more "we" inventors switch to make companies. You will get the smartest people contributing the least. I saw the full brunt of this at 2013 NYC maker faire, where virtually no new printers were being made, and all the innovations were in software, and charging money of course. I think some innovations just demand a research budget, and for all that money you invested you don't want to just give it away. From this day fourth, every small idea could be a secret, followed by a kickstarter frenzy. Do I patent that new thing, or do I let it go. Ultimately, an idea is nearly worthless, its presentation, execution, delivery, support, and branding that count. https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,249120#msg-249120 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 21:09:23 -0400 Phorum 5.2.23 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,263174#msg-263174 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,263174#msg-263174

Quote

Which principles is this eroding?

The principles of those who can't swallow that there exist many variations of "Open Source" and also don't see how the their pure religion simply doesn't work for many people of the real world. They're quite happy when developers go away unpaid and cheer when copy shops make millions with other delevopers' work.

I think you're on the right track, @Replications. Sustained development/design can only work if there is some reward and in our current world the medium of choice for this is money.]]> Traumflug General Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:11:05 -0500 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,263049#msg-263049 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,263049#msg-263049

Quote
bobc
It's been said before, but if you have to pay royalties, then it is not Open Source.

Even if the royalties are voluntary? Which principles is this eroding?

I know I said "(compelled by license?)" just to throw it out there, but I tend to be less comfortable with that. I'm mostly talking about a voluntary micro-royalty program, which the casual user could ignore, but the large marketplaces would have a clearcut way to contribute back to development. Which principles of open source am I destroying?]]> [carrythewhat?] Replications General Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:34:38 -0500 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,263046#msg-263046 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,263046#msg-263046
If you want to turn Open Source back into a closed source, to "make it viable in the marketplace", all you have done is destroy the principle of Open Source. You won't get any thanks for that, apart from those people who didn't really believe in Open Source principles in the first place.]]> bobc General Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:14:55 -0500 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,263028#msg-263028 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,263028#msg-263028
I came upon this forum post through a mailing list and wanted to add my perspective, as it relates to the RepRap project and free & open source hardware in general.

My wife and I run a small 3D print shop which has been supporting us full time for 4 months. We produce 3D prints of toys, puzzles, magnets, basic accessories.. some cosplay stuff.. (on Etsy as well as in person craft fairs and events) and we're also producing for a recently successful kickstarter.

Everything we make or sell is 'open source', in that it is all documented and posted on Thingiverse, mostly under a [commercial] creative commons license. This means that some of the things we make are our designs, but many are not. I think this would put us sort of in the same boat as the 'copy shops'.

While we've received mostly positive feedback from designers about selling their designs, there still remains a rift when it comes down to licenses.

As a part-thanks, part-incentive for additional development of replicable foshware goods, we're rolling out the pilot 'DevShare' program.

Basically, 10% of profit is earmarked for people who contributed to the designs. Right now it's an all-or-nothing allocation, but in the future it will be split up amongst anyone who's contributed, based on their level of contribution.

Obviously, the algorithm I describe is not yet robust enough to apply immediately to the RepRap project. But I wanted to get your opinions and intuitions about it. The organization structure I'm suggesting would atomize RepRap (and other foshware projects) into distinct & version controlled projects. New contributions would be rated by existing contributors, and older contributions would eventually decay. CopyShops would sell versioned products, and agree (or be compelled by license?) to distribute the 10% back to the developers, split amongst contributors according to some transparent algorithm.

For foshware to really take off, there needs to be economic incentives for developing and specializing in that, without everyone also having to be a salesman and manufacturer. Neither should we insist that all the design be done by engineers and artists in their off time, having full time jobs at some IP dungeon that is the rest of the economy.

When we think about what RepRap (and replication technology in general) can do for humanity, it's primarily in economic terms.

Even if we're jumping right to Personal Manufacturing. You can make that widget yourself, so you don't have to go out and buy it. Post scarcity won't be a switch that's flipped, it will be gradual if it's going to happen.

But in the meantime, there is this entire other enormous economy, atomized into these little tiny islands, hording and duplicating work again and again as they fight one another, pouring money into things like marketing or patent acquisition which skews demand and increases the cost of things and prevents others from entering the market.

It is my belief that replication technology + free & open source hardware has the potential to do some serious disruption to this system of inefficiency and inequity --- but it will do this by actively engaging in commerce, rather than shying from it.

So anyway.. I have some ideas on the specifics of what a RepRap-compatible DevShare system might look like, but I wanted to first get some gut reactions to the idea.

Thanks for your time!
Chris]]> [carrythewhat?] Replications General Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:33:22 -0500 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,262902#msg-262902 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,262902#msg-262902
They have secured crowd development finance of US$20'000.00+ in 5 days via a donation portal.

They claim to be an open platform like OpenMoko (licence unclear) and build on GTA04 which is CC-NC

[www.neo900.org]
[wiki.openmoko.org]
[projects.goldelico.com]]]> KalleP General Mon, 04 Nov 2013 04:21:44 -0500 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,260010#msg-260010 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,260010#msg-260010 -------------------------------------------------------
> This post was a genuine attempt for a simple
> solution to a complex problem, I tihink if some
> thought was put into it, it could
> work, but this has largely been ignored.
>
> johnrpm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As I said before, I am more than happy to share
> > with fellow tinkeres and experimenters, but not
> > with someone who just wants to make money.
> > therefore, this may be a naive idea, but why
> not
> > have an area of the wiki for NC, clearly stated
> as
> > such, developers can choose to post their work
> > in the gpl or nc area.
> > I am the first to admit that I have not thought
>
> > this through fully, and it may not work.
> >
> > P.S, some people like to post ideas to stop
> > patents, others just don't want their ideas
> used
> > commercially.
>
>
> I was shocked to hear from a member of the core
> team,
> [reprap.org]
>
> @johnrpm
> is it just me who is not running a shop?
>
> @Traumflug
> My estimate is, you're one of very few. No
> objection with this, I'd like to do development,
> only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to
> do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10%
> RepRap. My choice was the former.
>
> I have tried to listen to all sides of the debate,
> but can not see a solution to this problem for the
> forseeable future, there are as many opinions
> as people, so achieving a consensus will be very
> difficult, but I wish you all luck, please leave
> me out of the debate, thanks.

johnrpm: Below is the reply I made earlier to your post. It addressed your simple solution which proposes what is already in place. People do read what you have to say and comment on it, we do appreciate you in the conversation. Flagging the development pages with the chosen licence model serves the same purpose and is already in place. However some do not want the licence model to be anything other than GPL so the same people would ask that the -NC section of the wiki should be closed down. Obviously there needs to be a desire for license options before people will accept various ways of indicating the options.

No need to reply to this if you wish to bow out from this rather heated debate, I think you have ideas to share and a part to play when it suits you.

Don't mind the core team, they are just random people who make assumptions the same as everyone else. I think the barrier to entry in that club are still pretty low and the dress code seems to be informal. I am also not a shop but only because I have not found a product yet that will be less work to sell than it is worth, either way having a shop or not does not detract from my wanting developers to be compensated for development time. I do not want developers to leave RepRap because it is not of value to them. The bounty system may turn out to be great for much of the development and rewarding those who fill specific needs, the innovative designer still has to find a way to get paid before he publishes a revolutionary idea that no-one even knew to ask for. It would be a neat idea if the ownership of the bounties ideas went to all RepRap users (held by the RepRap Foundation) and was available under licence to all RepRap shops to fund new bounties and speculative development.

> > johnrpm: From this it looks like you are having exactly the same dilemma as all the
> > others who would like to limit the abuse of their ideas. That is exactly what this thread
> > is discussing and you are unlikely to find a better platform to air your views. The wiki
> > already has a place on the development pages to specify the licence model. The only
> > problem is that there is a portion of the community that believes only GPL should be
> > allowed in that variable field, almost as if it should not be an editable.

rumba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really enjoy this discussion (:P)

rumba: Glad to be able to entertain. Nice to have a new voice in the room.

jac Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kalle,
>
> The list I gave do indeed provide remuneration for
> designers of parts. Set up a kickstarter and you
> even get the money before you spend any time
> working on the design. Using your experience as
> evidence to get a new job also helps you
> financially, in an indirect way. Donation buttons
> bring in as much money as people are willing to
> give.

jac: I am not a USA social security number holder so am not able to use KickStarter. Also as discussed in other threads, KickStarter is not a shop for products and trying to peddle the publishing of an idea will likely get you 5% of what you hoped to gain after having to disclose publicly much of the detail without any protection. KickStarter is what it is but it is not a development remunerator. Indigogo is similar and open to all but there are no guarantees of getting donations for development work before disclosure and less after.

Most people are not going to change jobs on the bais of some open source disclosure they have made. There is also little reason to disclose in most cases because most companies will not give the time spent on developing an open source project all that much merit, just draft it in your portfolio and hope it impresses the recruitment guy. This is also only useful if you plan to look for a job in a similar industry which would be a tiny market here in South Africa.

Yeah, have you tried a donation button, I wonder how may places disclose the amount of donations they get per visitor. It is not about how interesting your idea is mostly but of how many page views you are likely to get. I donate occasionally to projects if they have saved me actual cash but am also slow to donate when it is a hobby project that I could have worked around, not a sure fire way of getting a salary.

> Of course you aren't being paid royalties for each
> item made. If that is the way "Open source"
> hardware is to work it would be indistinguishable
> from what we do now.

jac: No, closed source is what is inside your 2D printer firmware. Open source is what is inside your RepRap firmware. One forces royalties, the other has none. Jail-breaking and reverse engineering exists because most things are NOT open source. Getting royalties is not an inherently evil thing. If you design something for me and I sell lots of widgets that I could not without your design it seems the nice and nble thing to give you some of that profit. Nothing sinister in it if it is done openly and fairly.

> If everyone refuses to release their super secret
> ideas so they can make a few pennies themselves
> (and let's face it, there is not much profit in
> RepRap hotends) then the community collapses.
> We've already all gained from the freely released
> designs of existing printers and components. As
> with software, if no-one is contributing to
> development the project will cease or else become
> closed source and we are back to the bog standard
> "I sell it, you buy it" world. My understanding
> was that the Open Source hardware movement was
> about taking some of the lessons from software and
> extending them. Afterall, Linus Torvalds doesn't
> have the time to write a complete OS on his own
> that could run the internet, but once people (and
> companies) see the benefits they get from everyone
> else's work it makes more sense to collaborate.

jac: The companies that benefit from Open Source Software are the ones who use it or can leverage the market to purchase some of their other products, make no mistake, they are not charities. The small hardware developer does not usually have a massive use for incremental improvements in his own design from the community (though eventually he would integrate them) and he seldom has a secondary market for the designs unless he is a manufacturer. So in your analogy it would make sense for StataSys, HP, MakerBot and others to fund open source 3D printing so they can steal the ideas honestly but it would still not be a fair exchange, because they have the capital they do not have to share their ideas and as such it plays into their hands. Now if they were the ones who had to pay licence and the end users and DIY crowd would get it for free it might make sense, unfortunately the GPL licence model does rather favour the big guy in a collaboration.

> Yes there will be freeloaders. I for example might
> never contribute anything constructive to the
> RepRap project. However, I hope that with hardware
> we see the same benefits as we do with software.
> Even with freeloaders giving nothing back, the
> product made as a result of collaboration is
> orders of magnitude beyond what is made with a
> purely competitive attitude.

jac: You are not a freeloader, you are a participating community member, however you are not being paid for it so you are a donor or a volunteer and one day you might go do something where you are able to have more input on how your time is valued.

Open Source Software exists partly due to unethical licensing models that large companies have and still use which has angered the end users. It also exists partly out of fear of the big players in the industry that cannot be beaten by any other company working alone. It is pretty much the same problem that politics has to contend with. If the majority party are not doing a perfect job then you should always cast your vote to any other party. If they majority still wins they will be more nervous and that is the only way to keep them from being too greedy, if they do not win, hopefully you selected the party best able to serve the needs of the society, in the case of software, Open Source is the other party that is needed to keep Microsoft etc. on their toes.

> Are Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds
> billionaires like Bill Gates?
> No.
>
> Is linux better than MS Windows?
> Well, one of those runs TV boxes, CT scanners,
> nuclear power stations, mobile phones and
> basically the entire internet. The other lets
> grandma email you pictures of cats.

jac: They do not have to compete. However for linux to compete it has to offer the same service level agreements and take the responsibility for the software, linux on it's own cannot which is why there are distributions that are commercial that are prepared to take these responsibilities. I think the same for RepRap, while it can guide and nurture, it is not in a position to be responsible for all breeds of printer out there.]]> KalleP General Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:53:14 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,259359#msg-259359 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,259359#msg-259359

Quote

~~RepRapPro~~[Any RepRap shop] may make money by selling atoms, but the IP is all released Open Source (AFAIK).

IP makes the value of atoms, so they also sell the IP. With hardware, these two are connected. With software built upon Open Source, like a Linux distro with closed source installer, too.]]> Traumflug General Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:11:55 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,259328#msg-259328 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,259328#msg-259328 -------------------------------------------------------
> thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the irony here is that the founder himself has
> his
> > own online store
> >
> http://www.reprappr
>
> > o.com/
> >
> > reprap is about build self replicating printers
> > not eliminating capitalism .....
>
> And still people do not understand that
> Open Source does not mean you can't make money!
> RepRapPro may make money by selling atoms, but the
> IP is all released Open Source (AFAIK). There is
> absolutely no inconsistency with the original
> goals, nor any irony.
>
> I guess that we have spent so much time with
> concepts such as capitalism and communism, that
> when something comes along which is quite
> orthogonal we struggle to find a way to think
> about it. But you can't pigeonhole Open Source
> into any existing categories, it is a new category
> "Open Source", and requires a new way of
> thinking.
>
> I admit it took me several years to get my brain
> around the concept of Open Source, and I realised
> a lot of what I thought I knew about IP was wrong.
> I'm not a lawyer, and don't wish to be one!
>
> Unfortunately, when there is such widespread
> misunderstanding, and even fundamental
> disagreement in the RepRap core team, there is
> probably not much hope for everyone else to find a
> consensus that works.
>
> One leaf I take from Adrian Bowyer's book, is that
> it is better to just get on with doing it, rather
> than talking about it!

the irony i refer to in that post is relative to the quote and the opinion of the person being quoted,

i personally don't care if people build a buisnesses for themselves, it's how they build their buisness that matters and conduct themselves that matters]]> thejollygrimreaper General Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:05:36 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,259321#msg-259321 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,259321#msg-259321 -------------------------------------------------------
> the irony here is that the founder himself has his
> own online store
> http://www.reprappr
> o.com/
>
> reprap is about build self replicating printers
> not eliminating capitalism .....

And still people do not understand that Open Source does not mean you can't make money! RepRapPro may make money by selling atoms, but the IP is all released Open Source (AFAIK). There is absolutely no inconsistency with the original goals, nor any irony.

I guess that we have spent so much time with concepts such as capitalism and communism, that when something comes along which is quite orthogonal we struggle to find a way to think about it. But you can't pigeonhole Open Source into any existing categories, it is a new category "Open Source", and requires a new way of thinking.

I admit it took me several years to get my brain around the concept of Open Source, and I realised a lot of what I thought I knew about IP was wrong. I'm not a lawyer, and don't wish to be one!

Unfortunately, when there is such widespread misunderstanding, and even fundamental disagreement in the RepRap core team, there is probably not much hope for everyone else to find a consensus that works.

One leaf I take from Adrian Bowyer's book, is that it is better to just get on with doing it, rather than talking about it!]]> bobc General Sat, 26 Oct 2013 15:42:36 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,259219#msg-259219 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,259219#msg-259219
Regarding your suggested solution: I find it generally questionable to part an open community into different classes. All developments have advantages and disadvantages, you'd have to have hundreds of such classes next to classes of licencing. I'm also not enthusiastic about this "Core RepRap Developer" class, IMHO it shouldn't exist. I'm on this page because I help administering the server, not to elevate me against other RepRappers (as you can see, the core dev page redirects to the admin page).

With everything handled in the same class, developments (hopefully) shine by their qualities, only. That's the goal, isn't it? And I'm not sure wether NC licences win over GPL or the opposite happens or both continue to be choosen for the next decade. Let's find out by not stigmatising one or the other. :)]]> Traumflug General Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:24:30 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,259019#msg-259019 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,259019#msg-259019 work, but this has largely been ignored.

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I said before, I am more than happy to share
> with fellow tinkeres and experimenters, but not
> with someone who just wants to make money.
> therefore, this may be a naive idea, but why not
> have an area of the wiki for NC, clearly stated as
> such, developers can choose to post their work
> in the gpl or nc area.
> I am the first to admit that I have not thought
> this through fully, and it may not work.
>
> P.S, some people like to post ideas to stop
> patents, others just don't want their ideas used
> commercially.

I was shocked to hear from a member of the core team, [reprap.org]

@johnrpm
is it just me who is not running a shop?

@Traumflug
My estimate is, you're one of very few. No objection with this, I'd like to do development, only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10% RepRap. My choice was the former.

I have tried to listen to all sides of the debate, but can not see a solution to this problem for the forseeable future, there are as many opinions
as people, so achieving a consensus will be very difficult, but I wish you all luck, please leave me out of the debate, thanks.]]> johnrpm General Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:07:06 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258833#msg-258833 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258833#msg-258833
The list I gave do indeed provide remuneration for designers of parts. Set up a kickstarter and you even get the money before you spend any time working on the design. Using your experience as evidence to get a new job also helps you financially, in an indirect way. Donation buttons bring in as much money as people are willing to give.

Of course you aren't being paid royalties for each item made. If that is the way "Open source" hardware is to work it would be indistinguishable from what we do now.

If everyone refuses to release their super secret ideas so they can make a few pennies themselves (and let's face it, there is not much profit in RepRap hotends) then the community collapses. We've already all gained from the freely released designs of existing printers and components. As with software, if no-one is contributing to development the project will cease or else become closed source and we are back to the bog standard "I sell it, you buy it" world. My understanding was that the Open Source hardware movement was about taking some of the lessons from software and extending them. Afterall, Linus Torvalds doesn't have the time to write a complete OS on his own that could run the internet, but once people (and companies) see the benefits they get from everyone else's work it makes more sense to collaborate.

Yes there will be freeloaders. I for example might never contribute anything constructive to the RepRap project. However, I hope that with hardware we see the same benefits as we do with software. Even with freeloaders giving nothing back, the product made as a result of collaboration is orders of magnitude beyond what is made with a purely competitive attitude.

Are Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds billionaires like Bill Gates?
No.

Is linux better than MS Windows?
Well, one of those runs TV boxes, CT scanners, nuclear power stations, mobile phones and basically the entire internet. The other lets grandma email you pictures of cats.

jac]]> jac General Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:29:57 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258718#msg-258718 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258718#msg-258718
johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about improving this one? All the means
> required are here, you "just" have to show your
> ideals actually work better than the
> commercial-centric approach.
>
> No point trying, as you already stated that reprap
> is mainly shop keepers

johnrpm: I think you are being wilfully naive. The comment about most being shopkeepers was almost certainly referring to those participating in this thread there are obviously the large majority who are not. I am not a shopkeeper but might have to become one if the community cannot see any other way to acknowledge innovation and development work. Others here are also not shop keepers but interested parties just starting out. The reason there are many shop keepers on this thread is because it is relevant to those that plan to be part of the RepRap economy. Until utopia is realised one has to interact with the economy. If that economy is sustainable then the growth of RepRap will be maximised.

> To achieve this, you'd likely have to get rid
> of all the shops and their owners, first. The sole
> purpose of running a shop is to make money.
> Regardless wether it's open, closed, mixed, shaked
> or stirred source hardware.
>
> Who'd be left after such an exodus?

johnrpm: Again I thinkk you have taken this out of context. I read this to mean that many of those who had projects on the wiki (or perhaps commenting on the forums as well) had commercial interests, this may be 0.1 to 1% of the active RepRap owner base so there would be lots of people left, all those that do not earn anything from it and hence would be volunteers and donators only, all those that respect their own time enough to give it value would just have been chased away. As mentioned by others most of the popular designs are commercialised, sometimes by the developers and sometimes by other enteprising people. This is what allows for the growth of RepRap, mass production is very, very much faster than DIY manufacture until you have hundreds of thousands of people who can source vitamins faster than a manufacturer. It is counter productive to force everyone to become a purchasing agent so that it is a DIY purchase of 5 stepper motors instead of having one purchasing agent with a manufacturing team that buys 1000 motors and retails them.

> Now I know why the WEALTH WITHOUT MONEY loggo was dropped.

johnrpm: I was not around in those days so please explain to me why it happened, I am curious. I have suspicions that the concept was a bit too radical for mainstream capitalists to be comfortable with and the repeated and regular controversy was counterproductive. From what I have heard most of those who said it was not viable have left and gone on to other things or opened up shops which keeps proving the point that the pure open source hardware ideal has not and cannot work yet.

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > My estimate is, you're one of very few. No
> > objection with this, I'd like to do development,
> > only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to
> > do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10%
> > RepRap. My choice was the former.
>
> Well this confirms I am naive, I thought this was
> a place to share ideas and create something, not a
> collection of business people, I suppose I had
> better look
> for a community that fits my naive ideals.

johnrpm: Here you re not being naive, it is exactly such a place. The real and pressing issue is indeed how to make sure the ideas remain shared so something can be created. You need to move to the place you are most comfortable with so you can gain the most personal reward for your time. I and others have a interest in making the RepRap concept/community a place where we can feel comfortable with sharing out ideas while seeing that it will keep growing and not stagnating due to a forced brain drain. Instead of leaving the community or trying to force others to do something our way we are hoping to find a consensus or a middle ground that can achieve the long term goals of RepRap and still keep the majority (especially the productive part) of the community comfortable.

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I said before, I am more than happy to share
> with fellow tinkeres and experimenters, but not
> with someone who just wants to make money.
> therefore, this may be a naive idea, but why not
> have an area of the wiki for NC, clearly stated as
> such, developers can choose to post their work
> in the gpl or nc area.
> I am the first to admit that I have not thought
> this through fully, and it may not work.
>
> P.S, some people like to post ideas to stop
> patents, others just don't want their ideas used
> commercially.

johnrpm: From this it looks like you are having exactly the same dilemma as all the others who would like to limit the abuse of their ideas. That is exactly what this thread is discussing and you are unlikely to find a better platform to air your views. The wiki already has a place on the development pages to specify the licence model. The only problem is that there is a portion of the community that believes only GPL should be allowed in that variable field, almost as if it should not be an editable.

VDX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... my first impression at the beginning was, that
> Adrian was much too 'liberal' with OS vs.
> comercialisation ... but now I have the same view
> - it's a sort of 'breeding ecology', when a
> critical limit is reached and the interest won't
> decay too fast.
>
> So with the mainstream-hype and the growing
> interest around 3D-printing (and all the maturing
> concepts) there is (and even wasn't any) no chance
> for a closed OS- or 'pure RepRap'-comunity ... the
> decentral and open structure of the 'team' and the
> forums was one of the first decision, that leads
> to our actual situation.
>
> Other, more 'focussed' communities (like
> fab@home), didn't get this momentum and interest
> and starved away after some years 8-)

VDX: I believe that either accidentally or intentionally Adrian set the stage for a evolving concept/system that has done things that he was not expecting. The original ideals may have been simpler and the current and future direction has been unexpected at times. I think that it will be a while before he wants to admit to what his higgen goals may or may not have been. Perhaps it was just the most elaborate pyramid scheme in history to date, the only difference is that in this one you enable all your levels to buy out from the puramid and get value for their investment if they work to completion of their printer. It is radical in may ways that were not possible before and similar models may not be easy to find in future. The community involvement has been essential to the growth but so has the proliferation of producers.

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doing more replicable designs is much more
> promising than being a licence nazi. There is no
> need for a shop if you can make a copy on the
> kitchen desk in an hour. There's no need for
> dedicated RepRap shops when it's a snap to collect
> all the required parts at the local hardware
> store. There's no need for kits if people just
> have to click through a link list in the wiki.
> Lots of opportunities to tone down commercial
> activities in this community.

Markus: I think you are in the small group who push to realise the RepRap ideal of making them at home more than most. Yet you are also in that group who is criticised for wanting to earn a living from it. Those who buy from the copy shops do not reward development, they reward capital and marketing skills. You share all your source and all who want to can copy it as desired. Your software is all open source because that model is a good one yet people like to say you are not open source just because you are pro earning a living alongside making the most open designs that are available.

I take my hat off to you and know your suffering even though I am not a RepRap manufacturer at this time. I have lots of ideas unpublished but they are my pearls while I still hold them. If the LRC model works I will share more. I have shared lots of my ideas under GPL (and in the forums) and will share more but some ideas are worth fighting for.

Jasper1984 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Kalle: earlier you talked about the 'me','we' and
> 'they'. You already talked about the latter being
> something to become part of the 'we'. However, i
> still feel there is some view as them being
> adversaries of some sort. I do not think so,
> largely a matter of education and change of
> culture/scene.

Jasper1984: The 'they' are those that do not provide some lasting input to the RepRap community but gain something from it. Copy shops should not be totally vilified as they do put more printers in the field which grows interest and breeding capacity but they generally do not give back in development or idea sharing, instead they guard any new developments they make pretty closely to maintain their commercial advantage, as a business should. The only failing was that they had no barriers put on their source of designs so they have no commercial reason to compensate the developer or the community. In effect they assist only as a side effect.

> For instance the idea of 'takers' and 'breeders'.
> Say in the future you have some society with
> plenty. If you dont take control of the genepool,
> 'breeders' will eventually take over, and (barring
> insanely unlikely new physics)no-matter what
> technology we will get, the breeders will
> eventually make everything dog-eat-dog again due
> to lack of resources.(Due to exponential growth,
> it is always 'soon') There is simply no good
> outcome possible without birth control and
> gene-pool control. In the long term (10k year)
> some acceptable way of doing both is needed.

Jasper1984: The barrier to entry in breeding has been the cost of feeding yourself and your family. If this is completely removed then the 'breeders' will be advantaged.

> The gift economy we're vaguely alluring too isnt
> communism. And the communisms that failed were
> specific beasts. In particular freedom of speech
> was muzzled, and the whole thing was forced into
> operating as a large entity, instead of the
> smaller communities. (largely due to the
> P
> aris Commune, which was easily defeated due
> to its lack of organization) This is 100 years
> ago, technology has progressed, and even if we
> have to do things by hand, we can look it up on
> the internet how to do it, we dont have to emulate
> our father. We dont try to 'seize the means of
> production', but instead we try to make our own,
> show that things can be run that way.(and of
> course the reprap project is far from alone in
> this) We still have to figure the larger scale
> organization problem, but we're not near there
> yet.

Jasper1984: I agree a gift economy is not communism. However I stand by my statement that a forced gift economy is worse than communism.

> > Back to business models: Say someone has a nice
> design and hides all his designs to get an
> advantage, he might find that it doesnt matter for
> most, and others will go to a competitor. Many
> designs can just be eyed and replicated, copyright
> doesnt protect against that, you basically need a
> patent, which is either expensive or not
> applicable.(and even more closed than closed
> source; agressive about it..) Often the problem
> isnt even designing stuff, it is getting
> customers, and being closed source wont help
> there.

Jasper1984: If I had to hazard a guess I think well over 90% of all home 3D printers are mass produced, of the remainder perhaps less than 10% had the open source or the licence model scrutinised in any way. Most people do not care either way so having a restrictive licence will not affect most people, it is the few who want to do the right thing by making their rights clear who are being pressurised by an even smaller minority who are championing the rights of a vanishingly small portion who insists on freedoms that are not required, are not sustainable, are not morally defensible.

> Maybe this issue shouldnt be approached in the
> abstract so much. If you have a particular
> business model, what does it matter if it is open
> source, and if it is disadvantageous, how do you
> deal/cope with it?

Jasper1984: I quite agree, action is required, I did this with creating the LRC licence model to test. If it gets tested and points our way to a better system it will have served its purpose. The idea that only one licence model is allowed is where we are getting stuck especially if it has to be GPL which is known not to work.

My thoughts keep coming back to Ayn Rand novels I read years ago, 'The Fountainhead' and 'Atlas Shrugged' come to mind, they are rather radical and somewhat slow reading but can make one think about these matters. The basic tenet is that if one does not respect individual efforts then those efforts will be withdrawn. Being older now this seems so obvious but when I was young and naive and not having worked I was not aware that all effort was to be valued.]]> KalleP General Fri, 25 Oct 2013 03:12:06 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258604#msg-258604 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258604#msg-258604 iquizzle General Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:46:36 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258600#msg-258600 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258600#msg-258600 thejollygrimreaper General Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:43:09 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258571#msg-258571 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258571#msg-258571 can turn people into 'just business' people, but it rather far from has to.. And 'shops' is also a way of 'replication' of the reprap, it doesnt have to be people printing the parts for new people and getting the vitamins to make a second printer for a friend.

And i dont really care about the self-replicating part, just about increasing ability without increasing dependence too much, and that naturally leads to seeking printable designs.

The only think that bothers me with the shops is that it might be duplication of effort, (imagined)long toes and perhaps oppertunity loss.. (to not say it again.)]]> Jasper1984 General Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:37:21 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258488#msg-258488 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258488#msg-258488 How about improving this one? All the means required are here, you "just" have to show your ideals actually work better than the commercial-centric approach.

No point trying, as you already stated that reprap is mainly shop keepers

To achieve this, you'd likely have to get rid of all the shops and their owners, first. The sole purpose of running a shop is to make money. Regardless wether it's open, closed, mixed, shaked or stirred source hardware.

Who'd be left after such an exodus?

Now I know why the WEALTH WITHOUT MONEY loggo was dropped.]]> johnrpm General Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:55:03 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258395#msg-258395 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258395#msg-258395
So with the mainstream-hype and the growing interest around 3D-printing (and all the maturing concepts) there is (and even wasn't any) no chance for a closed OS- or 'pure RepRap'-comunity ... the decentral and open structure of the 'team' and the forums was one of the first decision, that leads to our actual situation.

Other, more 'focussed' communities (like fab@home), didn't get this momentum and interest and starved away after some years 8-)]]> VDX General Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:16:03 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258319#msg-258319 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258319#msg-258319 -------------------------------------------------------
> My estimate is, you're one of very few. No
> objection with this, I'd like to do development,
> only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to
> do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10%
> RepRap. My choice was the former.
>
> Well this confirms I am naive, I thought this was
> a place to share ideas and create something, not a
> collection of business people, I suppose I had
> better look
> for a community that fits my naive ideals.

if the people who are around selling components for these printers through their online stores weren't around we would very likely be still using the old ptfe and brass barrel hot-ends most of us started with, and our print quality certainly wouldn't rival/exceed some commercial closed source 3d printers,

the reality is the reprap movement needs some of these shops just as much as these shops needs the reprap movement, nothing about that is going to change and if anything only get worse especially with the western world economy in the state it is in.

the reprap movement has when you sit back and have a good long hard look at it gone down some very interesting yet parallel paths, eg higher and higher print quality , more ability to self replicate , ease of construction and cost reduction
given the progress made in the last 5 years and where we are now in terms of hardware software and firmware , a lot of thanks should go to the owners of some of these stores as if it weren't for them and their cash-flow to meet high MOQ's there is no way we would be this far ahead.

the irony here is that the found himself has his own online store http://www.reprappro.com/

reprap is about build self replicating printers not eliminating capitalism .....]]> thejollygrimreaper General Thu, 24 Oct 2013 04:46:43 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258292#msg-258292 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258292#msg-258292

Quote

I suppose I had better look for a community that fits my naive ideals.

How about improving this one? All the means required are here, you "just" have to show your ideals actually work better than the commercial-centric approach.]]> Traumflug General Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:30:22 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258286#msg-258286 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258286#msg-258286 My estimate is, you're one of very few. No objection with this, I'd like to do development, only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10% RepRap. My choice was the former.

Well this confirms I am naive, I thought this was a place to share ideas and create something, not a collection of business people, I suppose I had better look
for a community that fits my naive ideals.]]> johnrpm General Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:15:29 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258217#msg-258217 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258217#msg-258217
Maybe if you have a business that already earns you a living. You cant eat that. I dont think it is desirable to have it as a wholly 'next to income source' affair.

@Kalle: earlier you talked about the 'me','we' and 'they'. You already talked about the latter being something to become part of the 'we'. However, i still feel there is some view as them being adversaries of some sort. I do not think so, largely a matter of education and change of culture/scene.

For instance the idea of 'takers' and 'breeders'. Say in the future you have some society with plenty. If you dont take control of the genepool, 'breeders' will eventually take over, and (barring insanely unlikely new physics)no-matter what technology we will get, the breeders will eventually make everything dog-eat-dog again due to lack of resources.(Due to exponential growth, it is always 'soon') There is simply no good outcome possible without birth control and gene-pool control. In the long term (10k year) some acceptable way of doing both is needed.

More generally it looks to me like a no-win situation trying to make things work so that 'takers cant take', and things have to evolve towards productive people. They basically need to be convinced, and their environment has promote acting in nice ways.. And we see a wide range of behaviors in different places in the world, there is room to do this.

Challenging the idea that useful actions require a job challenges how our societies work. Especially if that causes people to lose their jobs, or if suddenly, things you had to pay for, like designs, suddenly appear for free. It shows how 'jobs' are largely constructs people make up to earn a living, which effectively controls them, not some kind of 'division of labor' thing. People just offering stuff for free helps the community and ecosystem along, at least some of the companies make some kind of living for a person.

The gift economy we're vaguely alluring too isnt communism. And the communisms that failed were specific beasts. In particular freedom of speech was muzzled, and the whole thing was forced into operating as a large entity, instead of the smaller communities. (largely due to the Paris Commune, which was easily defeated due to its lack of organization) This is 100 years ago, technology has progressed, and even if we have to do things by hand, we can look it up on the internet how to do it, we dont have to emulate our father. We dont try to 'seize the means of production', but instead we try to make our own, show that things can be run that way.(and of course the reprap project is far from alone in this) We still have to figure the larger scale organization problem, but we're not near there yet.

Back to business models: Say someone has a nice design and hides all his designs to get an advantage, he might find that it doesnt matter for most, and others will go to a competitor. Many designs can just be eyed and replicated, copyright doesnt protect against that, you basically need a patent, which is either expensive or not applicable.(and even more closed than closed source; agressive about it..) Often the problem isnt even designing stuff, it is getting customers, and being closed source wont help there.

Maybe this issue shouldnt be approached in the abstract so much. If you have a particular business model, what does it matter if it is open source, and if it is disadvantageous, how do you deal/cope with it?]]> Jasper1984 General Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:59:31 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258216#msg-258216 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258216#msg-258216

Quote

is it just me who is not running a shop?

My estimate is, you're one of very few. No objection with this, I'd like to do development, only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10% RepRap. My choice was the former.

If you look at all the recent printer models, there's almost everywhere a shop behind it. Designs sold commercially are way more widespread than those not. That's why I think there are much better ways to encourage community development than to try to pick out and flame away a few developers which diverge slightly from the open source ideal in the try to better match the real world. If you want to build one of my designs, go ahead, I'll even help you, like I helped many which didn't buy a single part here.

Doing more replicable designs is much more promising than being a licence nazi. There is no need for a shop if you can make a copy on the kitchen desk in an hour. There's no need for dedicated RepRap shops when it's a snap to collect all the required parts at the local hardware store. There's no need for kits if people just have to click through a link list in the wiki. Lots of opportunities to tone down commercial activities in this community.]]> Traumflug General Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:57:59 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258161#msg-258161 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258161#msg-258161
Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote

As I said before, I am more than happy to
> share with fellow tinkeres and experimenters, but
> not with someone who just wants to make
> money.

>
> To achieve this, you'd likely have to get rid of
> all the shops and their owners, first. The sole
> purpose of running a shop is to make money.
> Regardless wether it's open, closed, mixed, shaked
> or stirred source hardware.
>
> Who'd be left after such an exodus?
>
> Also, sharing sources is an invitation to the
> money-makers and copy-shops, so you'd also have to
> go entirely closed source as well. A NC-clause
> would (try to) achieve exactly the goal stated
> above, but remarkably, you apparently don't want
> this either.
>
> No offense. I just start to enjoy the discussion.]]> johnrpm General Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:02:26 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258151#msg-258151 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258151#msg-258151

Quote

As I said before, I am more than happy to share with fellow tinkeres and experimenters, but not with someone who just wants to make money.

To achieve this, you'd likely have to get rid of all the shops and their owners, first. The sole purpose of running a shop is to make money. Regardless wether it's open, closed, mixed, shaked or stirred source hardware.

Who'd be left after such an exodus?

Also, sharing sources is an invitation to the money-makers and copy-shops, so you'd also have to go entirely closed source as well. A NC-clause would (try to) achieve exactly the goal stated above, but remarkably, you apparently don't want this either.

No offense. I just start to enjoy the discussion.]]> Traumflug General Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:35:37 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258122#msg-258122 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258122#msg-258122 therefore, this may be a naive idea, but why not have an area of the wiki for NC, clearly stated as such, developers can choose to post their work
in the gpl or nc area.
I am the first to admit that I have not thought this through fully, and it may not work.

P.S, some people like to post ideas to stop patents, others just don't want their ideas used commercially.]]> johnrpm General Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:07:34 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258089#msg-258089 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258089#msg-258089 -------------------------------------------------------
> Ladies and gentlemen,
>
> As you can see from my post count I am new to
> reprap.org

jac: Welcome, I like the fact that you have read much of the thread before commenting and have added a new voice to the discussion. I am also still in the part collections stage but have good prospects, other priorities intrude sometimes.

> It may be worth noting that, whilst it may feel
> like this is a close community forum, many people
> who may be interested in reprap will also read the
> threads. Hostility and aggression such as has been
> displayed over the last five pages does not
> present a good image to newcomers and may well
> help to discourage new developers.

I think you may be right and some will be put off, I personally believe most people will not bother to read the open/licensed threads so it kind of protects itself from passing strangers. However if you have a clever way of hiding the dirty laundry until we get it all clean and smelling fresh I would genuinely like to hear. I leave some controversial things unsaid that need saying because this is a public forum and expect others do as well sometimes. That said these thoughts need to be discussed. The RepRap project is valuable enough to keep people interested in spite of the difficulties so I think it is proper to find solutions to the problems that may be hindering the progress. Just turning our backs on the issues will not change things for the better, it merely results in entrenched stagnation.

> The free distribution of ideas that could
> otherwise be monetised in a more traditional sense
> has been an issue for Open Source projects for
> decades. A number of solutions have been found for
> software, many of which could work for hardware.
> Corporate sponsorship of projects, bounties, sale
> of anciliary services (like support) and straight
> up requests for donations have kept many projects
> going. It is particularly difficult for new or
> small projects, but there are still options.
> Crowdfunding is a new one that provides a lot of
> potential for hardware, where the costs can be
> shared by many enthusiasts and then the results
> released for free. And don't forget that many
> small Open Source software projects are used as
> offerings for CVs to get a related job.

jac: None of these are likely to remunerate a design developer who has published under an unrestricted GPL licence.

> People are certainly free to offer there own ideas
> under whatever licence they want. Any options for

jac: It seems that in the Open Hardware community they are not free to do so without censure.

> The last point I'd like to make (in my admittedly
> somewhat over-long inaugural post) is that it
> isn't just money you have to gain from a bright
> idea. You're also gaining (and quite possibly
> building off) the ideas of everyone else in the
> community who has released them for free. Many
> people would think that should be payment enough.

jac: Notice you use the word payment in a way to negate the act of payment. Incidentally do you personally think it should be payment enough?

Ideas are funny things. They are available to many people but most make no use of them. As I like ideas I grab them when they come to me and work with them. This work is the value in the idea, not the stray idea floating in the Akashic record or the group consciousness. If now my work is trivialised even to the extreme of calling it without value then I have no reason to share my nurtured idea without some return. I can simply become one of the masses of takers and use what I can and work out myself what I cannot. This is not the way to develop fast. Generally a good new idea is of some value, as such it should be afforded respect so more good ideas arrive.

The objection to GPL disclosure is to prevent other commercial players from making the profits from your labours instead of you, not the preventing the benefiting of individuals.

However RepRap is not a machine it is a concept. It is a concept that is not yet fully formed and never will be. One part of the concept relates to sharing of ideas. The forcing of people not to share ideas is not in line with the RepRap concept yet this is exactly what some will propose simply because it looks like such a simple idea to force labour (idea nurturing) without compensation.

Remember communism had similar goals but also the benefit of at least receiving a minimum back according to ones needs. A forced GPL disclosure is worse than communism which we know does not work in the long run. Communism is an idea that can only work in groups that share the same goals and once a group is bigger than a small commune or family their goals have to be divergent (unless the speakers drone conformist propaganda all day and the people partially forget). One of my goals if to further RepRap for intellectual reasons (ideological and humanitarian reasons are also valid) and one sided communism will not bring the goals of total strangers in line with my goal of furthering RepRap so I would be remiss in promoting that solution.

Now imagine instead a means that could move us to a utopia where people are nice to each other. Is making people into takers going to get us there or is making people into reciprocators going to get us there? I think the latter has a better chance of breeding people that will give. To this end I believe we need to teach and encourage people to give for what they receive so they will become used to giving. If everyone is a well programmed taker then there will be societal collapse.

The hardware and software discussions are safe from much of the controversy so venturing into the philosophical threads has it's dangers. Sometimes they border on what might be considered political comment on tamer forums and be sanctioned. The RepRap concept however is more than the machine and as such needs to consider the philosophical issues as well.]]> KalleP General Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:28:34 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258073#msg-258073 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,258073#msg-258073 > On the subject of NC, there is little uncertainty,
> and common agreement. All Open Source Hardware
> organizations support the principle of freedom of
> use, including commercial use.

Bobc: That is just the ones that you know to exist now so saying it will remain so always for some fundamental reason is not supportable and pointless using some consensus opinion to describe 'natural' laws.

> I also disagree on the general characterisation
> that software projects are cheap to develop, and
> hardware ones are expensive. Software projects do
> cost money to develop and run. There is also
> confusion between the cost of development, and the
> cost of manufacture. Small hardware projects need
> not be expensive to design and prototype.

Bobc; You need to address the reason for this discussion and not the wallpaper. The development costs may sometimes be greater in time for software but most often it is free time the developer did not have to trade for food or rent and then they get by with secondary benefits. In the cases when it is not free the developers try to crowd fund or beg for donations which is not an option open to everyone and much software has a cost component to the distribution or documentation that is used to recover some costs from the users by becoming a manufacturer. This usually needs an organisation and less often these days with BitTorrent and PrintOnDemand books but it drives the developer to spend less time developing because he has to become a publisher and/or distributor.

The reason for this discussion is to find a way to remunerate the developers for developing, not to drive them into publishing, manufacturing, marketing, investment seeking or other activities they are ill suited for.

> Manufacturing and distribution is obviously quite
> different between software and hardware. That is
> actually where you need commercial partners, who
> will manufacture and can make a profit by
> providing that service.

Bobc: After a few enquiring requests from at least 3 people you have each time failed to respond to requests for how you would propose a way to fund a developer of RepRap designs so the project could grow faster and the developers would stay with the project. I have stated that we need a pre-utopian mechanism so we can strive towards utopia which is a noble goal. Many people have proposed ideas but none of them will work with an open source licence model because payment is not forthcoming if the results are published first and crowd funding is not something that will work with a private developer who does not want the stress of delivery times. The bounty system has some merit but also does not prevent abuse of the designs by others who reap the profits and give nothing back.

If I want a commercial partner then I have to use a LRC or -NC licence or go closed source or they will not invest as anyone else has the same design with an unrestricted open source licence.

You have a very strange way of systematically shooting down other proposals without proposing a better solution. You push an ideological view (actually many of them, as if you have a list) that is merely some group consensus as if it is a ethical imperative. You insist on absolutes which cannot be achieved and are sometimes even undesirable. In effect your techniques border on systematic propaganda and I struggle to remain civil because it comes across as a veiled troll on so many levels. I want to offer you the benefit of the doubt (and usually do) but your ignoring of legitimate questions just to bring in irrelevant new hurdles makes me wary.]]> KalleP General Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:41:39 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,257960#msg-257960 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,257960#msg-257960 -------------------------------------------------------
> thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > define "small hardware projects"
>
> Yeah, that's a fair question. I would break it
> down into 2 questions, what could one design with
> a median budget, and what would one want to
> design?
>
> The answer depends of course, but let's say your
> budget for hobby activities is $3000. You already
> have a PC, and use free design software. You have
> access to basic workshop hand tools, but nothing
> fancy like lathe, mill etc. If you need to build
> say 2 prototypes, then the target cost would need
> to be $750, assuming a design takes 6 months to
> complete. That's enough to design and test a basic
> 3d printer. If the design cycle was 12 months,
> then you could spend up to $1500 per prototype.
>
> If you got together with 3 friends, you might have
> a budget of $12,000 per year, which could do quite
> a lot.
>
> Confining the scope to typical consumers, the most
> expensive things people buy are a house, followed
> by a car. People certainly do design their own
> houses, and occasionally self build. People also
> make kit cars, or do customisation. Conventional
> construction is pretty standard, but you could
> prototype novel techniques such as concrete
> printing. You probably don't need to build a whole
> house. Designing a car is somewhat more ambitious,
> if for example you want to design a new type of
> engine. That would require some proper machine
> tools, material costs, and facilities. There are
> Open Source car projects.
>
> If you wanted to set your sights higher, to
> industrial scale projects, such as a power
> station, I think that would be too expensive, even
> with a ZX80. There is certainly scope for advances
> in power generation, considering Peak Oil and
> global warming. That sort of project would surely
> be bigger than one person could manage anyway, so
> you would need to collaborate.
>
> Other projects involving novel technology such as
> metal printing, are a bit borderline, I think.
> Handling of high energies, large items, or below
> micro-scale are all quite expensive to do, usually
> requiring specialist facilities. You can get a
> $600 Open Source PCR machine though
> [openpcr.org]
>
> So I think a "small project" could include the
> majority of domestic products, and some low end
> industrial products.

I know those figures are just examples however they are quite a way off the mark depending on what is being developed,

one of the biggest problems particularly is that the average user isn't exposed as much to what goes on behind the scenes and what the real cost of development really is and exactly what some developers do behind the scenes, hence don't understand why nc licenses are chosen

my main reason for the NC license on my hotend is simply because i don't want some clone shop making them and not supporting them or worse producing duds i've put more money into the project than i should have to have that happen, eg look at the clone situation with the jheads the drawings are up on the wiki for the world to see and the clone shops don't even look at them and produce bad clones giving the jhead a bad name,

in saying that though i do have the drawings for my hotend up the wiki so just about any clone shop could clone them at any point but it's not as likely as the prusa nozzle or the E3D hotend getting cloned as my hotend doesn't have the same kind of following as the others and is built for a slightly different market]]> thejollygrimreaper General Wed, 23 Oct 2013 05:06:29 -0400 https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,257957#msg-257957 Re: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?1,249120,257957#msg-257957

Quote

is it too hard to just say "I don't support Open Source?"

I do support open (source) hardware.

Quote

I also disagree on the general characterisation that software projects are cheap to develop, and hardware ones are expensive.

Nobody said this. Manufacturing costs make the difference and they can't be discussed way.]]> Traumflug General Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:54:01 -0400