Licences of some 3D models : why they don't respect the GPL ?

Hello,

This message is not a troll or a denigration of people that not are not doing open source or open hardware things, it's only to understand .

I'm newbie and would like to bought an open source 3D printer, and I discovered these two :

* Microdelta [reprap.org] under CC-BY-NC-SA licence

* P3Steel [reprap.org] under CC-BY-NC-SA licence

Finally I didn't bought one of them because their licences weren't open source (because of NC) and bought one that was clearly under GPL.

But I would like to know why there are not under GPL licence ?

* Microdelta is indicated to be based on Rostock [reprap.org] that is under GPL

* P3Steel [www.thingiverse.com] is indicated to be remixed from Prusa i3 Improved for laser cut [www.thingiverse.com] that is under GPL

GPL is viral so i thought so these two models should be under GPL licence ? It's an error maybe ? Or there is too much modification, and so it could not be viral ?

Thanks for your attention,

Pepe

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2016 09:14AM by gfabre.

I'm not too sure where this topic belongs, so I'm moving it to General - the "Administration, Announcements, Policy" if for forums related topics.


As for my opinion on the subject : people are being ignorant or careless here. I don't think there's much bad will in these licensing behaviour, but perhaps I'm just optimistic.

---

Most of my technical comments should be correct, but is THIS one ?
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, always double check what people write.

Thanks DeuxVis for having moved the message.[

Quote
DeuxVis
As for my opinion on the subject : people are being ignorant or careless here. I don't think there's much bad will in these licensing behaviour, but perhaps I'm just optimistic.

I think too, the licences are very complicated, and the confusion with open source licence and CC commons with NC are very commons.

It's important to realise that GPL and other licenses derive from copyright law. In general, hardware designs are not covered by copyright law. Copyright is designed to protect artistic and creative works, e.g. music, novels, paintings, sculpture. Works described as "utility" items are not copyright, but may possibly be protected by patents.

There is a very loose gentlemen's agreement that GPL in the context of Open Hardware also applies to the "spirit of the design", but this is completely unfounded legally, and really a rather dangerous road to go down. If copyright applied to hardware designs as easily as it did to software, it would be a disaster. There is a very good reason that the bar for getting a patent on a physical design is rather higher than copyright.

I don't think Johann Rostock invented the linear delta, and even if he did, he would have to hold a patent to protect it. If someone creates their own DXF files from scratch for a printer that looks very similar to another then they have not infringed any copyright.

As for the other part, why use a non-open license, it comes down to laziness and greed. People like to take but not give back.

It's important to realise that most businesses rely on exclusivity in order to stay in business. It's difficult to compete solely on quality of product or customer service. Some companies manage it such as Arduino and Sparkfun, but it is harder work.

Inevitably most designers with any sort of commercial interests (whether personal or company) choose non-open licenses for their work. Examples of those include major "Reprap" contributors here such as Traumflug and dc42, so it would be hypocritical to call out other people for not following open source principles.

---

What is Open Source?
What is Open Source Hardware?
Open Source in a nutshell: the Four Freedoms
CC BY-NC is not an Open Source license

Thanks a lot for your reply bobc.

If I understand well you message, can I say that :

* GPL and CC-BY-SA are not adapted to the models of 3D printers, and don't protect the authors/creators/makers if they want to follow the spirit of the GPL because everyone can easily take their ideas without getting back to the community ?

* so we also maybe can think that a a 3D printer under CC-BY-SA-NC is also no protected, so eveyrone could make a remixe of them and publish it under GPL or CC-BY-SA licence ?

* a licence as CERN Open Hardware Licence [www.ohwr.org] would be more adapted for the creators/authors/makers that want to follow the spirit of the GPL licence with hardware ?

* as user, if we want to support the spirit of the open source, we have to help the companies that publish their printers under open source licence, and avoid the companies that publish their printers under non open source licence (as CC-BY-SA-NC) ?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2016 04:37PM by gfabre.

Quote
gfabre
[...] the spirit of the open source [...]

This declares "Open Source" as kind of a religion and that's what I try to avoid. There's a reason why there are so many CC license variations and one should take advantage of this.

For software, NC or not NC doesn't matter, because there's no business opportunity in making copies. It's also copyrightable, so GPL or a BSD license are generally good choices.

For hardware there is such a business opportunity, so one has to make a decision. If I were CERN and funded by other means, I'd choose a license without NC. CERN uses Open Source licenses mostly to enhance communications and has neither an interest in selling something nor an interest in making copies in excess of the ones they need for them selfs.

If substantially reasoning of my work is the point to pay the bills and getting food onto the table, choosing a license with NC is the better idea. Trumpeting big the Open Source horn, just to hope than nobody else takes over the business is a dumb idea. Still many do, because so many customers firmly believe in the Open Source religion without reflecting it.

Regarding the fundamental idea of Open Source, NC or not NC makes almost no distinction. Both have sources available, both allow to make derivates for private use, both allow to learn how a design was made and how it works. If you look up older statements of Richard Stallman, these are pretty much the points why he "invented" Copyleft: freedom to learn, freedom to modify. Commercial aspects are barely mentioned.

If you want to support the ideas behind Open Source, better watch out for projects not holding their promises. Like those which claim to be open, but provide no sources at all. Or those claiming to make copies, but actually ship something entirely different. There are quite a number of them, makers of hotends like J-Head or E3D can tell the stories.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY