FWIW, if I'm not mistaken, there's at least one scad to stl converter. If you can take it to stl then you can import it back to something like Sketchup or some other design environment that has stl support, so that subsequent modifications can be made. Failing that...? Print the thing as is and reverse engineer it or design it from scratch yourself. IMNSHO...

regarding the side issue...

Bottom line is that the designs are IP, and IP is NOT the property of all., whether anyone wants to accept that truth or not. Some is freely shareable, some is bread and butter for the author of a given design, either in the design itself (artistic is an easy example) or in paradigm or use of years of training. There *is a tendency within the open source community to acquire the the technical and/or artistic knowhow of others without recompense, whether some will admit it or not (in my experience, those who don't acknowledge the practice are often those who use it in exactly that way). Freely sharing source for a design and having someone else with a larger pool of capital available then use that design to profit can be a turn off for the creative individuals who produce said designs.

Open source was never meant to be a one way street, and it can be very easy to forget that the people behind these projects are investing a great deal of time and often personal cash to accommodate the efforts. Their own livelihood may (and likely does) depend on the IP they themselves create. As one who has had others take credit for my work in the past, I am well aware of the negative attitude that can generate in myself, and as such can see how it would affect other people's willingness to share low level info on the things they bring to the table.

Personally, I'm very grateful for the gross display of idealism and willingness to share what has been shared. The rest, well, I can live with it.

To be honest, I think the people who are creating the bad name are the few people who don't get the concept of free IP (aka "open source") and cause hassle for those who do. Since those people are unwilling to share IP it would be no great loss if they got bored and went somewhere else.

What is a shame is people who do freely contribute IP or use freely contributed IP who get then get abuse for following free IP principles. That really does give open source a bad name.

If people want to keep their source closed, that is fine, whether they hope to make money from it, or just wish to have bragging rights for showing how clever they are. But mixing the principle of closed source with those of open source is just muddying the water, and leads to unproductive arguments. I often think that people attacking the practice of open source are actually people who just dislike open source on principle. "Concern trolls", I think they are called.

Bob, with all due respect, I disagree with you fundamentally. You do no service to the open source community with your insulting stance.

xiando Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob, with all due respect, I disagree with you
> fundamentally. You do no service to the open
> source community with your insulting stance.

I agree and anything else I say would be personal insults to him so I will refrain.

I will say that the people like him do OpenSource a very big disservice and I am glad he is in the minority, or is he?

What's offensive about what bobc wrote, other than rightly stating that you don't understand open-source?

The point is that open-source benefits everyone, and by open-sourcing your own work, you encourage others to do so, thus bringing benefit to yourself, as well. Intellectual property is an entirely imaginary concept that only works if others accept that it exists, so why would you get mad when other people don't care about IP? Are you surprised? Piracy is one of the hallmarks of the internet, and so is open-source.

Acumen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's offensive about what bobc wrote, other than
> rightly stating that you don't understand
> open-source?
>
> The point is that open-source benefits everyone,
> and by open-sourcing your own work, you encourage
> others to do so, thus bringing benefit to
> yourself, as well. Intellectual property is an
> entirely imaginary concept that only works if
> others accept that it exists, so why would you get
> mad when other people don't care about IP? Are
> you surprised? Piracy is one of the hallmarks of
> the internet, and so is open-source.

So, you are confirming that they are both one in the same?

Sounds to me like there are too many greedy bastards out there in general.

To me Open Source is about everyone helping each other but that is not what I have seen for the most part. Basically people want the source so they can run off to make something to make a name for themselves OR to make money off the original idea. Screw both of those and if you took a poll around the world you would see the majority wouldn't like either one of those. My European friends I argue these points until we no longer bring them up because I will never see their way and they will not mine (product of rugged individualism and the other being a drone or a subject where nothing is really yours to begin with (not all in Europe are like this but the very nature of the EU stings of it)).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2012 03:11PM by Dark Alchemist.

About thingverse, I think there is also a difference between the 3d files sources, and other kind of sources in the open source community. Some parts of the community resources are GPL-ed and fall into that, hence the one modifying some of that is obliged to put up the new source. Not sure how the 3d files fit into this.

One can make a 3d file thats even un-related to reprap, and using a commercial program, etc, so (unlike gpl-follower cases), in these cases there is no "obligation" not even morally to put the source up. If we try to look at the big picture, i think actually there more sources there than "should" be, and i am refering to sources that werent "obliged" to be there in the first place. At least if we compare to the similar parts of the web. So i think the reason why in majority cases there are sources up, its because ppls really do believe in being "open" more than in other communities.

BTW: about "waive" or "waiver", if i am not mistaking the root of word comes from that sign you make with your hand when you tell someone goodbye over a certain distance. In this case i think its your later claims.

***

About MBI, that was one of the promoters of open source and hardware, so anybody who cares about that has the right to feel down, even if just for that. Moreover, with the "open" attitude they attracted other open source contributors which now can feel "used" or double crossed. They got from the community at least what they have given, they got stepper extruder which was first on reprap while they had initial gen3 DC extruder, they got build platform (there is post about it), their replicator has now upper x-y movement (lesser moments of inertia on object mass) which was first used somewhere else, in contrast to their cartesian setup in cupcake. The 3d scanner was from an idea from another place, etc. Its actually interesting how all things like that happened. Besides discussing certain points, plenty of ideas went back and forth, but only they put them in commercial value. In the end its just what it is and doesnt matter why a certain person feels a certain way about it, one thing is sure, we cant deny them the right to feel that way. Whatever that is. The exprimation of feelings however should be tempered. But i think only time and experience in getting disappointed gives that. So in other words, maybe some of all attitudes in both sides can be directed to age as much as to passion. Even this doesnt matter either way, no direct relevance to the big picture. The big picture is that MBI and thingverse DID got support from the community, probably more than the other way around. At least from where i am looking it appears to be so. I didnt knew about Zach and other things, but that doesnt feel right either, the "Bre" guy starts to look more and more opportunistic and goes bad to worse each day. I guess things do catch up. And dont think that if i am not swearing like others, i dont have a contra attitude to these things. I just dont think that i matter. I couldnt change most ppls opinion if i would talk face to face for a week - so no point trying that on forum.

When, and if significant parts of the community will no longer recommend MBI products, we will see what happens.

Once their move is clear, ball will be soon in this other side of the court.

MattMoses Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thingiverse is not perfect, and yes it is run by a
> for-profit, but what specifically about it is so
> terrible?

Thingiverse (aka MakerBot Industries) now has a web-site that collects open-source ideas and a business that sells closed-source products.

They have put themselves in a situation, that by its nature, puts them in constant conflict between ethical behavior and their own self interest.

Two ways to view this development:

At its best, this kind is behavior is clumsy and uncharitable.

At its worst, this kind of behavior is an unlawful, and unethical.

---

FabberForge - Printing Happiness

[www.fabberforge.com]

I am following a discussion on Thingiverse about all of this and you know they are turning (I think they are trying to turn and in they I am referring to people with vested interests in MBI or what we americans would call stooges or plants/shills) against Zach. They are now calling him a troll and demanding that he apologize for causing all of this commotion when there is nothing wrong with MBI. I choked when I read a few of those messages.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Acumen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What's offensive about what bobc wrote, other
> than
> > rightly stating that you don't understand
> > open-source?
> >
> > The point is that open-source benefits
> everyone,
> > and by open-sourcing your own work, you
> encourage
> > others to do so, thus bringing benefit to
> > yourself, as well. Intellectual property is an
> > entirely imaginary concept that only works if
> > others accept that it exists, so why would you
> get
> > mad when other people don't care about IP? Are
> > you surprised? Piracy is one of the hallmarks
> of
> > the internet, and so is open-source.
>
> So, you are confirming that they are both one in
> the same?
>
> Sounds to me like there are too many greedy
> bastards out there in general.
>
> To me Open Source is about everyone helping each
> other but that is not what I have seen for the
> most part. Basically people want the source so
> they can run off to make something to make a name
> for themselves OR to make money off the original
> idea. Screw both of those and if you took a poll
> around the world you would see the majority
> wouldn't like either one of those. My European
> friends I argue these points until we no longer
> bring them up because I will never see their way
> and they will not mine (product of rugged
> individualism and the other being a drone or a
> subject where nothing is really yours to begin
> with (not all in Europe are like this but the very
> nature of the EU stings of it)).

You confirm exactly what I said. You don't like the idea that ideas should be free. What you are advocating is a sort of closed-source philanthropy. I would say your stance is typically American, but everyone should read what Richard Stallman says here [www.gnu.org]. He is also American, so you need not be ashamed that adopting Stallman's "European" (aka "socialist"?) principles makes you un-American.

If you don't like the way Open Source works, please go somewhere else, but don't tell us that Open Source should be your mistaken idea of what it should be.

Look buddy I am not here to design something so you can take it and print up a bunch of copies and make money off of me without giving me some. Now if you take what I give and print it for your own personal use then bravo. I mean that is why there is a CC license that says no commercial use share and share alike.

So, don't go off on me with your socialistic attitudes as that isn't going to fly since socialism isn't about taking someone elses ideas and hardwork and making a profit from it, or is it?

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am following a discussion on Thingiverse about
> all of this and you know they are turning (I think
> they are trying to turn and in they I am referring
> to people with vested interests in MBI or what we
> americans would call stooges or plants/shills)
> against Zach. They are now calling him a troll
> and demanding that he apologize for causing all of
> this commotion when there is nothing wrong with
> MBI. I choked when I read a few of those
> messages.

What's the link to that specific discussion where people are calling Zach a troll?

I have gotten so many Discus messages that I just delete them after I read them but I see many here are among the ones posting.

[www.thingiverse.com]

That isn't the post but there are a few among the 130 that has called Prusa and I do believe Zach was the last one but Discus is throwing so much email my way I can't stand it. Sometimes 5 in a minute (not sure I like the move to Discus).

Do a search for troll and see what pops up and hopefully nothing has been removed.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look buddy I am not here to design something so
> you can take it and print up a bunch of copies and
> make money off of me without giving me some. Now
> if you take what I give and print it for your own
> personal use then bravo. I mean that is why there
> is a CC license that says no commercial use share
> and share alike.
>
> So, don't go off on me with your socialistic
> attitudes as that isn't going to fly since
> socialism isn't about taking someone elses ideas
> and hardwork and making a profit from it, or is
> it?

Right, so you confirm again what I said, you object to Open Source on principle. No-one is forcing you to give away your work, but if you place non-commercial restrictions on it, then it is not Open Source.

I am baffled why anyone would think it is insulting or doing a disservice to the Open Source Hardware community, by reminding them what the Open Source principles are. You can read them here [www.oshwa.org] it also worth reading the FAQ, in particular

Quote

Why aren’t non-commercial restrictions compatible with open source hardware?

There are a few reasons.

If you place a non-commercial restriction on your hardware design, other people don’t have the same freedom to use the design in the ways that you can. That means, for example, that if you and someone else both release designs with non-commercial licenses, neither of you can make and sell hardware that builds on both of your designs. Rather than contributing to a commons of hardware designs for everyone to build on, you’re limiting others to a very narrow range of possible uses for your design.

In particular, because making hardware invariably involves money, it’s very difficult to make use of a hardware design without involving some commercial activity. For example, say a group of friends wanted to get together and order ten copies of a hardware design – something that’s often much cheaper than each person ordering their own copy. If one person places the order and the others pay him back for their share, they’d probably be violating a non-commercial restriction. Or say someone wants to charge people to take a workshop in which they make and keep a copy of your hardware design – that’s also commercial activity. In general, there are just very few ways for someone to use a hardware design without involving some sort of commercial activity.

You can see a list of organisations who have "signed up" to the declaration here [freedomdefined.org]. Ironically, two of the signatories are from Makerbot Industries. It's unfortunate when even the signatories don't seem to understand the principles.

That is why I put a CC of "no commercial - share alike" on all of my work. You abide by that or else and I suspect Thingiverse will eventually not.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Post your STL files to thingiverse and link to the source code in a github or bitbucket repository with an open source license of your choosing.

---

sticker printing | custom stickers

printingray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Post your STL files to thingiverse and link to the
> source code in a github or bitbucket repository
> with an open source license of your choosing.
That just doesn't seem right to me. It might be as what is right and wrong and what people think constitutes them has shifted over the years.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

try [fabster.com] its an open free community which is independant of a printing company.

Physibles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> try [fabster.com] its an open free community
> which is independant of a printing company.


Your account has been activated

Please sign-in to continue

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Fabster's Terms and Conditions say that to download their content you must "download and install our free download and conversion utility".

After reading the details about that I completely lost interest.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2013 04:57AM by fac13.

I registered and will see if they change that policy or not.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

fact13

we will remove that from the T&C

To let you know we pay lawyers to write our T&C, we give them a description of our needs and they write it up. They always try an over protect us, this is the case here. We are not lawyers ourselves so we are at their mercy to protect us from illegal material whilst protecting the end user too, mistakes happen and this is one of them, thanks for pointing it out

Regards

Fabster.com

T&C updated !

Thanks for registering Dark Alchemist, we see ourselves as not only an alternative to thingiverse but a fair playing field for all, we are not owned by a 3d printing company or manufacturer so everyone is free to contribute.

I'm sorry, I don't see how fabster.com is a replacement or alternative to thingiverse in any shape or form.

Thingiverse is a repository of (mostly) 3d printable objects. Anyone can share their designs for others to download for _free_, so users can make the same thing. Source files are included. Think github.

Fabster.com is a store and links to other stores where people buy things. Source files are not included, or at least I can't see no download button. Think amazon mixed with shapeways.

It seems the only reason fabster.com is here (actually, not here, because he/she is not a registered users) is for shameless self promotion and solicitation of designs he/she wants to profit from.

lajos: What about 3d Hacker?

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

@Dark Alchemist:

Only time will tell if any of these sites will gain traction and attract a critical mass of users, but in my opinion they are not the right approach. Accept or hate thingiverse, they did a lot of things right:

1. a standalone site with the sole purpose of a public repository where users can share their stuff
2. it's free to upload, free to download
3. some basic social features like comments, remixes, likes
4. easy to use and not an eye sore

Now of course there are the issues with the TOS, lack of open source and the uncertainty of what will happen to it, which is why an alternative would be nice.

But to make an alternative, the four points from above have to be met. Beyond that it's all icing on the cake, like versioning for example.

The alternative can't be a store with the model repository as a subsection. I don't find myself looking for lm8uus when I search for a princess bracelet model to print for my daughter.

A site that sells prints is an alternative to shapeways and the like, not to thingiverse. I already have a printer, so those are not for me.

It seems that many of these sites started with a power point presentation, first page "we'll be so bloody rich!". Nothing wrong with making money of course, but that's not how thingiverse will be replaced.

As I have said Thingiverse (before it became Makerverse) I loved it. It was exciting and helpful and that is what I am still looking for because the modern Thingiverse (Makerverse) is not it anymore.

You make very valid points and I just do not see anyone living up to all of those points which saddens me.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

There is also Cubehero and bld3r and FAB Fabbers.

For awhile there was a site called physibleexchange.com, but now it looks like it has turned into an unrelated blog. Anyone know what happened to that one?

Marcus has been trying to get something going called homeprototype.org. You can read about it here on the Object Repositories subforum.

And Sublime was working on Tangible Bytes.

It would be helpful to start a wiki page to keep track of all the different sites out there... with reviews and comparisons and so on. What are the pros and cons of these new sites? Are they easy to use? Are they attached to a company? Do you need to use github? Etc? The wiki page could be structured like the Printing Material Suppliers list.

Here's a start at an impartial alphabetical list:

3dhacker
bld3r
Cubehero
FAB Fabbers
Fabster
Githubiverse
Grab Cad
Homeprototypes
Pirate Bay Physibles
Shapeways
Tangible Bytes
Thingiverse

Here's an option: Marcus and/or Sublime: what do you think about an Indiegogo campaign? It would be: Marcus/Sublime will raise XX thousand euro. Then he will hire a software developer to write the tricky bits of homeprototype/tangiblebytes. Then he will run the site and everyone will be happy.

Here's another option: People could talk to Wil from Cubehero. He has posted here before basically asking people what they want from his site. If a flood of new users went over there and asked for things, he might be happy to oblige...

lajos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Dark Alchemist:
> 1. a standalone site with the sole purpose of a
> public repository where users can share their
> stuff
> 2. it's free to upload, free to download
> 3. some basic social features like comments,
> remixes, likes
> 4. easy to use and not an eye sore


Iajos this is exactly what our site does, its a standalone public repository that allows people to share their 3d files, we are the same people behind the 3d Printing and Physibles facebook group. Its free to upload and free to download, with comments and likes.

Regards
Fabster.com

lajos we are NOT a shop front, we dont sell anything! more about us here:

[3dprintingindustry.com]