Open sourcelie deleted, shame on you?

This bit?

"Maybe I'm just completely missing the point, but if the open S/H community wants to grow, maybe there needs to be other considerations too."

He was talking about protecting the design without patents.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:42PM by VDX.

Which is not in, "the last paragraph starting as a mechanical engineer."

You're just back-peddling and trying to distract away from your conflicting stance between today and yesterday. Which is fine. Maybe now that you have been thinking about this more you better understand the motivation to why someone might delay a source release.

No the whole post was summarised in my last post and this is what I answered. Have you read the post?

The point is the same. Is it right to trade on open source when the design is not. Also:

Do you think reprap is about 1500 dollar printers?

Like b9creator, his findings are going o be released in 4 months. Imagine the leaps that could be made if he were to summarise his findings and list his resin supplier. Not going to happen as open source begins when he has made enough for his 5 months work. Same as sublime etc.

Bukobot is different as he is showing off his design in public. Old design though.

It seems my joking digs have made you venomous. Hope your laser cut man can heal the wounds.


Anyway you are in the closed source group out of choice as you admitted in pm. You are heeding the make it so cheap no one will rip it off advice.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:42PM by VDX.

You sure are a slippery and weaselly guy.

>Do you think reprap is about 1500 dollar printers?
No, but someone can price something however they want. What does a price point decision have to do with anything?

>Like b9creator, his findings are going o be released in 4 months.
The b9creator guy can decide how he wants to release the non-derivative files he created. They are his files. It is not up to YOU or anyone else to decide.

>Anyway you are in the closed source group out of choice as you admitted in pm. You are heeding the make it so cheap no one will rip it off advice.

Is this what you're referring to? "In closing I want to thank you for bringing attention to the issue of "delayed until shipping" opensource. It's very clear now that the reprap community has no issue with it."

So anyone ok with delaying a source release until shipping is in the "closed source group?" You really do have a black and white worldview.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2012 09:14PM by billyzelsnack.

This is not a dig but your ability to read a paragraph is quite poor along with your debating skills.

The question wasn't the price but the point, is reprap aiming to price people out of the market or is it the everyday man option. It isn't 2 years ago when makerbot was the only real game in town, there are now real 499 built options.

Read the whole b9creator paragraph and you will see the point.


The point in the PM was the reason for not going open source in your campaign was nothing to do with what the previous deleted thread was about ,but you being worried about the backlash in releasing your files when you had made your money.

And yes if you are not open source then by definition you are closed source.

Weasel?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:43PM by VDX.

With my admittedly limited knowledge of open source hardware, and as a newcomer to the fascinating world of 3D printing, I'm just glad that people haven't been able to patent this and patent that.

Patents are what kill innovation IMO. Especially at a pre-consumer stage of development.

Think of the delay as a short term patent.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:43PM by VDX.

gerards1111 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think of the delay as a short term patent.
thats bull look at the wallace despite brook holding back the printrbot files we still had an equivalent design soon after the kickstarter launched if it was like a patent the wallace creator would have been sued

It wasn't meant as fact? You have however illustrated another side to reprap.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:44PM by VDX.

gerards1111 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It wasn't meant as fact? You have however
> illustrated another side to reprap.


what side have i illustrated?

The " we will appropriate that for ourselves" mentality. I'm sure when Adrian produces a Wallace it will take pride of place on the front page.

I didn't understand why printrbot wasn't on the front page. It seems though he isn't one of the chosen few.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:44PM by VDX.

uggg,

i think people get your point but also i think you are trying to make a point in the wrong place. you are going to rub allot of people the wrong way.

i can see you want try to do something for the good of open source. but i also think you may be doing yourself more harm than good.

i like this community allot, i also believe in what it stands for. by no means dose that mean it is perfect it would be great if everyone would share and be more open.

but by no means is that the reality of things, its people your dealing with. there are going to be people who give allot and or take allot. and yes money changes allot of things too.

if you want to know more about how things get onto the front page there is a forum thread on that too.

---

[mike-mack.blogspot.com]

In your opinion has crowd sourcing made reprap less open and has it been corrupted by the quick buck since when you registered?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:45PM by VDX.

oh it has changed allot it started trying to do something no one has tried before, to managing several different printers, i find there is less and less on R&D and more and more on support.

yes i have seen changes, but for the most part people here i think still believe in what they are doing for the greater good.

---

[mike-mack.blogspot.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

Just saying.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2012 12:09AM by rantenki.

the funny part is that i think that wiki would apply to me allot of the time

---

[mike-mack.blogspot.com]

... you should 'think big'

Adrian started the RepRap-project by open publishing all the basic sources of Darwin ... but explicitly allowed to start own business with it to get a growing basis. If I remember correct, he called this a sort of 'viral marketing' ...

Now the idea is out in the wild and evolving/breeding with even shorter timespans to the next optimizing step.

So what you're intense discussing here, is the (maybe) delaying in specific, small encircled areas, while out there the 'darwinism' of starting and duying of ideas, concepts and startups/companies is taking place

So what's the point? - clarifying the "open hardware"-regulations? ... to what? - any individual has his own idea or position to this, and in many countries you even can't claim legal issues, that are valid for others ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

I have made so far at least 8 Prusa as kits, I use the standard iteration 2 that uses LM8UU bearings and Greg's hinged extruder, all files are referenced in the documentation I send to each buyer as to who created them. And I supply all of the documentation on a CD along with photo's of a similar printer, all files in .stl format along with copies of the installers for Sprinter, Pronterface, Repsnapper, Netfabb basic, slic3r, and skeinforge.

But now that there are enough other printers in New Zealand where we only have small population I'm stopping making them as I don't have the time.

I was able to get all the files I needed online from various places as everyone had published them under Open Source. My point is the files are available, yes there are clones and if you delay while you ship some so what it helps you to iron out any problems that the early adopters might find and it's still open as anyone can make one.

I re drew several parts using Solidworks that I wanted to adapt slightly to fit a local variation of a part and I made the drawings with a ruler and micrometer it wasn't hard to do but if it had been patented I wouldn't have been able to.

So I guess what I'm saying is don't cry over spilt milk andif it ain't broke why try and fix it.

When I started my apprenticeship as a carpenter and old timer gave me some excellent advice, he said

"You die if you worry and guess what if you don't worry you still get to die. So don't waste time worrying"

I work on that principal and the KISS theory

---

__________________________________________________________________________
Experimenting in 3D in New Zealand

gerards1111 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like b9creator, his findings are going o be
> released in 4 months. Imagine the leaps that could
> be made if he were to summarise his findings and
> list his resin supplier. Not going to happen as
> open source begins when he has made enough for his
> 5 months work.

Wow... You do know that over the last 5 months I've openly discussed and summarized everything I've tried, including what does and does not work, [tech.groups.yahoo.com] with anyone that cared to ask. It's all there in the archives. And I continue to answer every question I can about how my printer works. As for open source resin, that's already posted here: [3dprinter.wikidot.com]
You may imagine all the "leaps" you want, but it takes time and dedication to innovate, not wishful thinking.
Best,
MikeJ

And I commend you for the design. So it would be possible in your opinion to produce a version of your machine using what has been posted?

What is your thought on the pico projector project, miicraft

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2012 05:52AM by gerards1111.

If the commercial aspect of a Reprap kit upsets, then simply don't go there! Build it from raw components and improve it yourself. There are plenty of genuinely 'open' plans currently available to make your own 3d printer without getting involved in 'semi closed' designs. I too am glad that people haven't patented everything.

I love open source - i didn't buy a $1500 printer - I copied Adrian's open source Extruder and hot end, took some open source electronics, and looked at the 'Isaac' Alibre Cad (a CNC routable mendel chassis) and made one myself - I've never done anything like that before...

Total cost of parts was £300. It took many hours (mostly reading), but: It has never broken down, because I read, read, and read some more - looking at other peoples' experiences, and asking questions on the forum - all of which was FREEEEE. (cheers to all - Adrian, Nophead, Nudel, Richrap, Fleming bros etc)

In the time that I have been working on Reprap, I have noticed something:
All the changes now appear to be just tweaks to the original Mendel (maybe not so much the Darwin) - ie. slightly different shape plastics/chassis, new electronics with an extra ports for heated beds/fans, a tweak or two to the extruder (I really don't mean to belittle anyone's hard work btw!) - what I am saying is that The hotends, electronics, extruders, and chassis components are 'pretty much' the same as they have been for ages, because the project has already evolved into one which works, and the open source for this is out there.

As Dissidence says, There definitely appears to be more 'support' and less 'R&D' on the forum; because now, we 'fine tune', and improve speed, quality and costs.

The truth is: A working concept will always attract people wishing to make some cash from it. You have a choice: You can either buy into that, or not - but you do have a choice!
At the end of the day, it all increases awareness of Reprap, and will help with parts availability!

I like your inherited advice NelsonRap
"You die if you worry, and guess what? if you don't worry you still get to die. So don't waste time worrying"

Talking of wasting time, This rant has been going on for hours, and seems to have got rather unnecessary, bitter and mean.

Imagine what we could have achieved if we had spent this time applying ourselves to designing/making 3d printers???!

Lucas you are right. The point has been made and in my opinion is valid.

Never heard of the design you are talking about. Back to spending my time on researching upgrades to my mendel.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:45PM by VDX.

try flemingcnc.com

I don't think that the chassis is the best in the world though - the tensioned X belt pulls the Z axis bearings away from the Z smooth rods due to its design.
It does however solve a problem for those who have a CNC router, a bit of time to work out the toolpaths, and want a 3d printer to enjoy!

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2012 05:14PM by Lucastar.

Polygonhell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UGH do we really have to do this?

Yes we do. Yes it hurts, but its a good thing for the community to revisit these topics and rehash them now and again, even if just for the benefit of the newbs to the concepts involved. Who knows, maybe we will even come up with something interesting and new out of it (I know, unlikely)

> I agree you should not claim to be open source if
> you do not intend to release files.
> I disagree that there is some requirement that
> they should be released before the product is, and
> someone above called out several reasons for
> that.

Not just that, but look at the GPL itself, one of the most ideological licenses out there. There is no requirement or agreement to provide source code "up front", or to the public. However, it must be offered to customers who recieve the product. Not even just given, but offered if they request it, possibly for a modest copying fee (these days I would say thats a pretty archaic to actually claim to need a copying fee, nobody uses disks anymore)

So I would say, Open Source, in the context of a product for sale, means that any designs and plans, source code required to make a fully functional version AS DELIVERED should be available to the customer at the time of delivery. The license provided to the customer for those docs must not prevent them from being altered and redistributed to others.

This does tend to mean that designs become publicly open and available for free, but it doesn't mean they have to be PUBLIC on day 1...just available to customers.

Of course, there is some gray area that we can debate... where are we if my only design doc was a sketch on a napkin and I otherwise just built it from that and my own mental models? Its unlikely for anything as complicated as a 3d printer (and I would call shenanigans on anyone who tried to make such a claim) but.... its worth considering that things can be produced from otherwise inadequet design docs. Where does that leave us? I don't know.

> But really what's the goal here? is it to advance
> the state of the art in printer design, because
> OpenSource doesn't do that.

It helps though, it gives people just starting out a starting point. Its much easier to start with a working design and tweak it than to start from scratch.

What it does do is even the playing field. It stops people from purposfully designing products to ensure vendor lock in. It means that 10 years from now, when the community has moved on, and someone gets their hands on an old piece of hardware with the intention of using it, that they can still find the info they need to keep it working.

Does this advance design? No.... but it does get more eyes on designs, and that can help a lot. Just look at the iterative process that got us to the current prusa mendel. Its iterative, its the work of multiple people. It embodies everything that Open Source was intended to.

> A friend of mine is researcher in Xray
> Crystallography, he complains constantly that the
> problem with research is that no one publishes
> what doesn't work forcing everyone to make the
> same mistakes over and over.

This is true, but, I think a different topic really. It also spills over into many fields.

> My personal viewpoint is based on that, I don't
> care about the Source (as long as people aren't
> patenting everything left and right), I have no
> intention of printing someone else's design
> anyway, I'm more interested in the why? and what
> did and didn't work than I am the specifics of a
> design.

Right but, why does that require reinventing the wheel? I mean if you think you can improve on the frame or some axis etc, then more power to you but, if your interest is in extruders, then why start with the frame and axis?

>Those are the things that allow rapid
> evolution and none of that is a part of the
> OpenSource release.

I disagree entirely, getting more eyes on a design and getting people working on parts of it is evolution. Look at the prusa mendel. What extruder does it use? I see several designs and variations out there... thats evolution. Multiple paths being taken by multiple people, on otherwise similar platforms.

> Sites like this where people openly discuss ideas
> and their development process are IMO far more
> valuable to the evolution of reprap than any open
> source release, coming here and attacking some of
> the sites biggest contributors is counter
> productive IMO.

I partially agree, but I also think the two work together. Regardless, there is something to be said (and I don't follow the actual issue/criticism here, so don't take this as criticism of any individual) for truthfulness. If someone doesn't want to release an open source product, then don't....but... don't claim to either. Thats just dishonest advertising. Open source does mean something, and you may or may not support what it stands for, but that doesn't give anyone license to use it dishonestly.

There is also something to be said for admitting that you are where you are because you are standing on the shoulders of others who came before you, and being the shoulders on which the next person climbs. In the end, thats really what Open source means to me. We would all be rubbing sticks for fire and eating berries from bushes if not for the shoulders we stand on.

> You talked about Cliques in the other thread, it's
> what happens in any community, go try and commit
> changes to the Linux Kernel, or LLVM, or whatever,
> getting your stuff accepted in those communities
> is as much about playing politics as it is merit.
> Open Source is just not the ideal you seem so
> attached to.

Can't argue there. Developers can be cliquqy primadonas just like everyone else. Though, I do think there is value in recognizing that and trying to avoid contibuting to it. Probably can't completely avoid it, but, its not actually helpful.

Quote

A maxim of open source software is "publish early and often", that includes alphas, betas, everything, not just "finished" designs.

I like that, and as mentioned by others, I think it's more interesting to understand the why's and how's and the choices that were made than just releasing some source files from nowhere once the design is completed.
There is a discussion about that around open-design (openp2pdesign.org), but basically it's like that, to be truly open you must open the process not just the result... (I understand that you can prefer to share only final things that works, but failures are goods too).

On the "open source lie", my only concern is that many recent machines lacks a lot of informations, especially about suppliers.
I have a personal example with the eMaker Huxley, I really like this printer (I'm using one everyday and gave another to my brother). So much that it was a very good example for me, trying to keep all the littles ideas that I appreciated in it and trying to see how I could use them in my folding reprap. Unfortunately it was hard to find what were the reference of some parts (pneumatic fitting), where to buy some others (ptfe tubing 2mm inner 3mm outer), etc. (that's why I created the Bowden page).
As if some informations were deliberately omitted (you can rebuild a machine from the kit, but good luck to source it yourself).
I finally found everything, but why not share the knowledge from the start ? Maybe I should have asked, but I mean if only it was on a spreadsheet like the original Mendel or clearly indicated in the wiki. While the Reprappro-Huxley/Mendel have now one of the best documentation/sources-files, it's still more about the assembly and miss a BOM or a real "where to get it?"...
(contrary to the widely spread Prusa, for the buyers guide, or the newly Mendel90 for the BOM, two models that I tend to recommend these days).

That's also what I'm trying to do with the Foldarap (at least I try, as I would like to see others doing the same), even if it's not yet working (grrr almost ^^)

---

about // liberapay // flickr // wiki // thingiverse - github

My thought exactly, opening the process is more informative than having a finished machine. The failures, revisions etc.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:46PM by VDX.

... it's depending on the individual capabilities and interests of the inventors and users/readers/followers, if blogging the development or documenting after finishing is better.

I've tried to share the basics of my pastedispenser, lasercutter-heads, mini-CNC-lathe and delta/tripod - but didn't get the 'critical mass', so all the tools/infos are working for me in my basement, but haven't spread enough to start evolving on their own by followers (or I didn't get the feedback).

The time I've spent in the forums and blogs concerning this themes could be some hundred hours, that could have much better be invested in the optimisation of the tools.

So now I'm developing my other tools/systems (UV-resin-printing, Selective-Laser-Sintering, 3D-scanning, ...) mostly without blogging/posting them ... and maybe, when it's working reliable and is simple enough (or DIY-able enough), so others can follow or redo the steps, then I can/will post-document them ... or maybe not ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

I can't believe I am jumping back into this one, but I feel its time for some good ol' boy Kansas wisdom.

Alrighty, I have now seen about 4987 comments go by and the crux of all of this is jerards's desire to convince people that this this issue is indeed a problem. I have seen about 4987 comments from folks who say this is not a problem. And around and around we go. Heck, we even started another whole track to go around in circles on with this new thread.

In all these comments, and all these discussions, I have yet to see one important question asked or answered.

What is the solution, sir?

The solution offered by myself and countless others is for you, Jerards, to simply produce a product that fits your ideas on Open Source. In a PM with me, I asked the same and you said, "maybe some time, I will". Yeah... ...no you won't. You are a "talker" who complains about the "doers".

So, again, now that we are all painfully, excruciatingly, aware of this issue now, I feel we can all check off the box for Step One, "State the problem". We are now dead-smack in the middle of step two --"how to fix it".

How do you fix it?
What is your solution?
For the Love of God, what is your solution?

Something I learned in the Army was, "Don't bitch about a problem, unless you can provide a viable solution to said problem."

I think we covered the bitching about the problem enough. How to fix it?