Incoherent Open Source Hardware Releases AAAAAARRRGHHH!!!!

The Infuriating Haphazard Release of OPEN SOURCE PROJECT X - Based On Actual Events

An announcement is made by Project X's creators, "OPEN SOURCE Project X has been released, download the design files or buy a kit today!"

You, the industrious Maker lunge at the chance to... well... MAKE!

A quick read of preliminary documentation reveals that OPEN SOURCE Project X is made from Printed-Parts, Laser Cut Parts, Custom Machined Parts, and Vitamins.

Well well! You are in luck! You have a 3D printer, a laser cutter, and a lack of reasonable fear of fire!

You will have this thing built in no time!

Let's see here...

Printed Parts:
-Some but not all of the printed parts (STLs) can be found on Thingiverse.
-The missing printed parts can be found on Project X's github
-Project X's Github does not host the same STLs that Thingiverse does... Uh... moving on...

LaserCut Parts:
-The Laser Cut Parts (DXF files) are not on Thingiverse
-GitHub is hosting the LaserCut parts... for the previous generation of Project X...
-Uh... these will work with this generation?... These don't look like the pictures...

Custom Machined Parts:
-It is apparent that there are a few important custom machined parts being employed in OPEN SOURCE Project X
-No Schematic Drawings.
-No definitive descriptions on how one would make them, their shape or what they are made of.
-These bits don't look too complicated, but they are not for sale anywhere...

B.O.M.
-What's a B.O.M.?

Build Instructions
-These are the instructions for the previous generation of Open Source Project X... which were never finished/great to begin with...

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the Million Dollar Question, Intrepid Reader: IS OPEN SOURCE PROJECT X ACTUALLY OPEN SOURCE?

My Answer: HELL NO!

What Are Your Thoughts?:
1. Honestly, if you can't find all the design files for a piece of hardware in one place is that design actually open-source?
2. If there is no B.O.M, is that design actually open-source?
3. If the design uses custom part x, which is available nowhere, and there is no schematic (details) for part x... is that design actually open-source?

---

FabberForge - Printing Happiness

[www.fabberforge.com]

You can't expect everyone to have their s*** together.

And well, just because someone designed or built something does not mean they are professional or competent.

I recently had a graphic job with a self-proclaimed automotive design company. I have never worked with such idiots. The graphic designer of your company should not be more mechanically knowledgeable than your 'engineers'. 100% failure in every design attempt and catastrophic dyno failure of engines and components, and still proclaims his product is AWSOME.......

Imagine watching a so called engineer struggling with the most basic concept/design of a planetary gear system for 3 months. At 2 months I told him exactly what was wrong with the assembly, and it still took another month for him to figure it out.

On top of that, the owner was out of the country and upon his return, he claims my correct solution to the assembly as his own, because he looked it up on 'how stuff works.com'.........

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2013 02:50AM by Dirty Steve.

I feel your frustration!

I think that in the open source hardware arena, everyone is still trying to find their feet. Open Source software has a fairly well established set of operating principles, and really has been a tremendous success, when you consider products like Linux. The advantage with software is that the source code is basically the whole design, and the manufacturing stage is trivial - compile and digital copy.

With hardware almost the opposite is true. You can build and ship hardware without ever having a design file, and in the days of craftsmen this was how it was done. Each piece was unique. It is only when division of labour and industrial production come in, that it is necessary to have some design specification to try to reduce manufacturing to the goal of making "exact copies" with unskilled labour or machines.

With hardware, because the manufacturing stage is non-trivial, people need to recoup costs involved. This tends to become the priority, rather than creating a complete set of design files. I think there will always be this inherent conflict. Using the label "open source" sets up expectations, and "open hardware" frequently disappoints.

In the grander scheme of thing to satisfy calling your project "open source" you generally have to make source available it available to anyone who wants it it really depends on the author, websites like github and thingiverse make this easier on authors ,but to a point,

the big expectation is that there is a BOM and assembly instructions in ten different languages and formats, when really this is a added extra that the author or someone else has gone to the trouble to do,

i have my hotends as opensource but i chose not to make the drawings for them available for download on thingiverse or github, instead available by request, i'm quite frequently shocked at some of the replies i've gotten when there isn't a solidworks file for it .....

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

From an engineering point of view, in order to say you have published the design then there should be at least a BOM, giving part type/number, and a drawing for each custom part. Assembly guide in one language would be nice, but as an alternative an assembly drawing is pretty essential. There should also be clear baselines, e.g. Mk1, Mk2. If people can't build the same spec then it is not usefully published.

"Open source" is really about allowing (and encouraging) others to use and modify your design. That has two aspects
1) legal. there should be a license that allows anyone to use and modify with the only restriction being to share modifications
2) practical. the design files should be easily available on a web site.

A big part of open source software is community driven support and development, that is really the goal. "Open Source" is not just a certificate to hang on the wall.

Of course, if people don't really want to encourage use/modification but just quite like the kudos of having a neat design people need to beg for, then that is fine. If you are not really committed to open source then you won't do the above things. Your IP, your rules.

But like certain meat products, if it says "open source" on the outside it should really be "open source" on the inside, and not a half hearted lip service. If the design is "publicly available", that is really not the same thing as open source. These people are misleading themselves, as well as misleading every one else.

@bobc hit it n the head!

Open-source Hardware is not just the absence of trying to contain the design. It is an active (or at least one time) release of information which truly enables other to produce that hardware.

Maybe someday some entity/organization may exist which gives a "stamp of approval" to designs which are actually pass the "smell test" of being open source.

I believe your expetations of people and the real world are far too high......

So you would consider Open Source Project X to be Open Source?

So you believe that to be open source all you need to do is not actively stop the spread of your design?

I wouldn't. I can't make it.

Even Open Source software often has a period of time that goes by before the source code is released. Have patients.

Fair enough

It just irritates me that folks use Open Source as a banner while they have not provided the needed info to actually build the product in question.

No particular case in point. I just seem to find this all over the place.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2013 03:54PM by Idolcrasher.

I understand your frustration, but there are many sites for different printers that are nothing but BS, attempting to market a printer that isn't even fully built or tested and never go anywhere, often by people that have never built a working printer or even worked with a 3D printer before.

A fair point.

I guess all I can personally do to combat this, is to make sure that anything I release as open sources is actually a viable machine with all information for building it available.

I think the main part is if someone releases everything they used to create their project it is open source. If it is not all you require to build said object that is your problem as it was obviously enough for them to make it so there is clearly no need for more information except in the case of someone that is unable figure it out themselves. I personally think that is kind of a good thing because it helps eliminate those that are not capable of building it in the first place. The point of opensource is not to give the brain dead the ability to prosper but rather give the ability of those with at least half a brain to follow in your foot steps. In no way does it mean that they need to do half of the builders job by giving them the BOM. Even in software you will find lots of programs with no info on how to compile them, just the source and you have to have some clue on how to compile it yourself or you simply don't use it. So with that said if you do not like the way someone has organized there build simply don't build it or even look at it again.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

If I released the 3D files for the plastic faring of a motorcyle; that motor cycle's design is not open source.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2013 05:08PM by Idolcrasher.

Intentions don't hold up in court, but I think intentions define how "Open Source" a design is.

If a design is truly opensource, you can tell that the designer intended for others to be able to reproduce the design.

Since intentions are more or less not quantifiable; it is my opinion that all designs for machine made objects, schematics for hand made objects, and a B.O.M. for vitamins are required for you to "know" that the design is truly open source.

Otherwise, it is a cash grab directed at selling kits.

Open source at its core is about sharing ideas with a central premise that ideas are not something one should be able to own or control. That's it.

You're confusing the term "well documented" with "open source".

Admittedly yes. I also think that plenty of folks out there are confusing Open-Source with marketing strategy

@Sublime Where does this sense of self importance come from that you want to label the nameless masses brainless? I am a Naval Academy Graduate and a Space Systems engineer, and even I attempt to recognize that we are all human beings in the same race called life...

I am sensing a strong sentiment of judgement against those whom you deem "below you"...

Idolcrasher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Sublime Where does this sense of self importance
> come from that you want to label the nameless
> masses brainless? I am a Naval Academy Graduate
> and a Space Systems engineer, and even I attempt
> to recognize that we are all human beings in the
> same race called life...

You took it as me saying that you were brainless which means you must feel that you fall in that category. I never implied that my remark was directed at you. That is to say if you feel you fit in that category than fine but otherwise you should feel like you are the other side which is smart enough to figure it out. In the end projects that require skills require people with those skills to complete them. But commercialism says different is says sell it to everyone even if they can not tie their own shoe laces.

But in the end what xiando said is the final word. Opensource is about the source not hand holding and documentation.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

Its an open forum my man. No such thing as a final word.

Welcome to the largest problem with open source. Just about every person who releases an open source project does not do any of the hard work. What is the hard work? Clear and understandable documentation and presentation of everything required to complete the project from beginning to end. Another reason this happens so often is because there has not been a suitable hardware version of github created. It is something that the world needs. I would envision it as a cross between github and thingiverse but without the skill + capital to make it, I don't know when it is going to happen.

@Sublime

A lot of your sentiments I have read in other posts leads me to believe that you think you are hot stuff. You often talk about how if other people can't build a machine, it is because they are inferior to you.

What makes you so special?

What did you cure? Who did you heal? Where did you serve? Where did you study?

Frankly, I think you are not very valuable. I think you know it too, and it makes you insecure.

Idolcrasher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Sublime
>
> A lot of your sentiments I have read in other
> posts leads me to believe that you think you are
> hot stuff. You often talk about how if other
> people can't build a machine, it is because they
> are inferior to you.
>
> What makes you so special?
>
> What did you cure? Who did you heal? Where did
> you serve? Where did you study?
>
> Frankly, I think you are not very valuable. I
> think you know it too, and it makes you insecure.

Feel however you like that is your business. But as I have said before when people bitch about the Wiki. It was good enough for a lot of people to build machines with even less info then they have available now. So if it does not work for you than the only difference is the person reading the wiki not the info. I was one of those people that used the very little info available to build a machine form junk and I never thought "why is it so organized" or "they should have done more for me". All I ever thought was thank goodness that they spent the time to even post what they did to the extent they did as it was helpful. I never go out of my way like you do to bitch about everything. Instead I just don't use the stuff I do not like and yes when asked I will bitch kind of like you do, But I do not go out of my way to bitch and complain because someone did not GIVE me exactly what I think it should be. Instead I actually put in the effort and do it myself so I get exactly what I want.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

Idolcrasher,

Technical forums were never meant to substitute for personal investment in education. They were meant to augment that educational investment by providing a place for those of us who did to field questions, bounce ideas, etc, but not to spell it out in minute detail to those who don't want to have to "pay their dues" but want the reward that comes from that investment.


I'm in 100% agreement with Sublime.

@Xiando

I am not advocating not spending the appropriate time learning how these machines work.

If you look at the fictional example at the top, I am advocating that designers try to release the design files needed to build the machine in question.

I don't need step by step instructions, or even a B.O.M. really (though it would be good for new folks)

One does however require the STLs and DXFs. If those are not provided, one might as well build a different machine.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2013 08:18PM by Idolcrasher.

"one might as well build a different machine."

Seems like good advice.