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!). [www.youtube.com]. 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.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2013 03:53AM by Simba.

Its been known for a while that most of the future inovation in reprap will have to be in software. Something that we dont need yet but I forsee needing soon is a multi-axis slicer. currently we are limited to @2 1/2-3 axis but very soon 4-6 axis printers will become the norm. I already have a couple of designs for a increased axis printer that i just dont build because there is no slicer to drive it and I havent had the free time to do it myself.

I think that there are several thoughts on freedom of ideas.

I find it a shame that the "values" of the maker movement need to come into question -- but you're right, they do. Several years ago, when I first started exploring hackerspaces, there was never any talk of money. People were actively pursuing projects for the sheer excitement and satisfaction of getting hands-on and building something new or one-of-a-kind, or even making something that already existed, simply because they could.

More and more, when I talk about a project idea or discuss something I'm working on, people want to know the bottom line. When I tell them that I have no intentions of selling anything and furthermore, that if it works well, I'll give it away to open source -- they look at me like I'm crazy. I have a job, I don't need another one. The best way to make a hobby feel like work is to sell it. Please take that message to heart, because I've seen countless examples of it.

3D printers have taken it to the next level. Everybody and their mothers are now trying to make money selling printers and accessories. This is fine, except that money and 3d printing have become so frequently wrapped up together that everybody is forgetting why they started making things in the first place. As good an idea as it is, I hate crowdfunding for what it's doing to 3D printing... or more to the point, I hate crowdfunding for putting price tags on the inside of my hackerspace.

I do open source, because I want to live to see the day where industries are struggling to keep up with hobbyists -- not the other way around.

I doubt there are executives sitting around in board rooms thinking "we are making loads of money, but how do give away our designs to the community?"

Equally, while doing open source, I don't sit around thinking "freely sharing and improving ideas is great, but how do I help people to make money out of it?"

The traditional business model involves selling stuff you create and have an exclusive right to. The Open Source principle involves not retaining exclusive rights to what you create.

If you can't figure out a business model which doesn't involve retaining exclusive rights, then Open Source is probably not for you. You certainly have to think outside of the box, there are few examples to go on.

Either way, the fact there are people somewhere not making money from Open Source is not really a problem the Open Source community needs to address.

I think this is a good example of where open source does fail. For example, If we had a money-pool and could fund a full time freelancer or employee then we could commission an slicer for 6 axis printers, and not have to wait

You are over-thinking things, Simba. On the reprap forums there are dozens of successful business operators and their philisophies on how much info to release cover the spectrum, from "completely open" to "as closed as we can possibly be without chasing away all our customers". You want to share things? Great! You don't? Fine. People are going to complain no matter what you do. Just do something.

You might enjoy reading Don Lancaster's opinions on the value of patents for small tech companies. For young folk who have never heard of Lancaster, he wrote a column called "Hardware Hacker" back in the 1990's and most of what he wrote is still completely relevant to the contemporary maker movement. In this column from 1994 he hits pretty much every 3D printing method in use today and has this to say about them:

Quote
Don Lancaster
Most of the systems we’ll look at are outrageously expensive. A house and two cars. But there is no reason the whole kit and kaboodle of them could not be replaced with about $175 worth of hacker parts, bunches of time, and a lot of imagination. So there are some incredible new opportunities here.

1994, people. Anyway, I digress. Lancaster's thoughts on patents are well summarized in this column: The Case Against Patents.

By the way, for the non-business owners among us, please don't forget the Dirty Steve guide to what you can print:

Quote
Dirty Steve
A. Make ANYTHING you want to
B. DON'T SELL IT OR POST IT ONLINE

And finally,

Quote
RBisping
Its been known for a while that most of the future inovation in reprap will have to be in software.

What on earth do you mean by this? Here are several recent hardware innovations in RepRap: Morgan, Simpson, Wally, Heated Piezo for Jetting Wax.

Under US copyright law one does not lose the right by not pursuing action against those that violate the right. Under trademark law it's different and one may lose the right to use the mark unless they enforce the legality of the mark. Trademark and copyright are two different issues.

Simba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think this is a good example of where open
> source does fail. For example, If we had a
> money-pool and could fund a full time freelancer
> or employee then we could commission an slicer for
> 6 axis printers, and not have to wait

You think Open Source has failed because it has not produced what you want? You don't understand what Open Source means. Open Source is about what you give to the community, you can't expect other people to provide things for you.

There is nothing stopping you setting up the fund, getting donations, commissioning the work, and making it available. If that is what you want, just do it. What are you waiting for? Someone else to do it for you?

The problem with all this is people.

Broadly speaking, humans are where they are because in every generation a very small percentage was focused and greedy and pursued some opportunity to make himself (usually men) much better off than the rest. The vast majority struggled along on his coat tails.

Some people, generally a very small percentage, are psychopaths. Not the murdering kind, just the "get rich at any cost type". They convince the rest of us to turn a blind eye to the way they take advantage of our labour by convincing us that we could be just as successful as they are if only we worked a bit harder or a bit longer every day.

So it's not surprising that many people see something and wonder how they can use it to improve their wealth.

It's a very few enlightened individuals who have come to understand that wealth is being satisfied with what you have, and, from that standpoint, being willing to share with others. And, generally speaking, they are people who don't need the extra money to put food on the table.

Having said all that there is an awful lot of humanity's time wasted on open-source stuff that would never be done if it was properly valued. Even open-source stuff has an opportunity cost. Could you do something more useful with the time you spend on pet project X?

...R

Thanks for the awesome info Matt, and good feedbacks from everyone else too.

I spent about $40,000 so far on reprap projects, hiring people to help me make new electronics and materials, because I love the innovation of this field, but don't have the time or knowledge to do it myself. I have a 9-5 job too : ). My hope is, by providing a unified project leadership (as a company) that I can set up clear goals and deliverables at a more rapid pace. I'm not sure how the average open source project works (there is hardly a guidebook), but I think it would have been slower and less organized without the upfront spending and leadership. I've tried to keep everything as open as possible by get feedbacking from this community, so I consider it a reprap project with GPL, etc.. One of these projects is decapede, another is the 5-amp board (A stepstick replacement with an onboard arduino controller). I hope when the project is near completion that it can pay for itself and that others will carry the torch in testing, making firmware, new revisions, etc.

The community clearly has a lot to offer and what I've done here is a sort of hybrid of commercialization and "opening" it up to commentary and then to make revisions later. I think any project, even open source, needs strong leadership. A good example was the Lyman extruder (Desktop fabrication contest). The contest provided provided leadership, bragging rights (ego fulfillment), and a little bit of financial reward. More importantly, it provided a clear direction, and challenge.

Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2013 02:55PM by Simba.

MattMoses Wrote:
What on earth do you mean by this? Here are several recent hardware innovations in RepRap: Morgan, Simpson, Wally, Heated Piezo for Jetting Wax.

And there're many innovations outside Reprap that the owner choose not to keep them secret too.

Sooner or later, most of the jobs are belong to robots. Why postpone it
Human should spend time on meaningful things, not just wasting most time of their life just to feeding themself.
When someone can have any physical thing they need, life will be quite boring. What they will do ? Seek meaning of life, do something useful or just try to destroy the whole world.

Mankind should have the basic right to live. we shouldn't live on scarcity and competition because there'll always be losers who suffer. Don't you think we actually have ability to produce basic food, housing, drugs and clothing enough for all humanity NOW ? IP is not make sense in some ways because it prevent this to happened. IP expired in 5-10 years soulnd good to me, that's reasonable for the owner to make profits, or even retired, but not holding back the world too much at this age.

I definitely looking for Star Trek age LOL.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2013 06:29AM by Buytaert.

And to make money from open source company, it's very doable. And my ideal world would be we, the reprap community, works as a one big company and the real competition will be shift to close source business.

We can make money by revenue sharing model. The profits from fund raising, from sales can be distributed to all individuals who have committed to the specific machines, design, etc. One who is more responsible, more productive, more innovate, the more money.

Is that supposed to be the beginning concept of company ?
The world have gone too far, the one who get most money always don't have to works.
Good ideas are misuse too much LOL.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2013 08:29AM by Buytaert.

---

_________________________
Back in the 90's, one estimate said that there could be about 100 BILLION DOLLARS, for every single person on Earth. So, let's built robots to do most of our jobs.

Hi Guys,
I like this thread, it's interesting to read the different thoughts on IP.
I think patents are important and i do think that anyone including a company should have the right to protect that property for 20 years. I think the problem lies in that a patent can be used in a manner that is unethical and the legal system tends to side with the person with the most money. To be realistic though, why would anyone put years of research and money into something just to have the Chinese get rich producing it and selling it on Ebay at a 10th of the price. Something might be easy to produce but it could have taken 10 years of research to get the object to that point, why shouldn't the inventor get to buy a nice house or the company get to rake in millions.
If patents did not exist we probably would not have the internet or the PC's we are using now and the maker community would not exist. Many of the components that make everything technology based in our lives took millions to develop, no-one would have bothered if there was no payback. Secondly, the world gets to freely use any patent that expires or is not maintained through the payment of annuities and it is much better to get something after 20 years than have an inventor taking his ideas to the grave and no-one gets it.
I think the community could work around patents if they get in the way. If you read the claims of a US patent there is usually something you can do to avoid infringing that patent. That's how the big companies do it. Also, you can make any patented product at home as long as you do not distribute or sell it or the plans to make it.
We live in a world now where we want everything now and if there is a patent involved then the cost tends to increase, that's why i love the maker community. Everyone does a tiny bit and the whole project moves a huge amount. People drop out, but then another 10 are waiting to pick up where it stopped. It might hit a low point but then it picks up again.
If anyone feels that their idea needs protecting i would recommend protecting it but just try not to rob the world and get rich. Sell the idea at a reasonable cost and not at a huge profit. That way everyone wins. On the same note, if the product is open source and if you can afford it then try to buy from the creator rather than someone who took the idea and started mass producing for profit. The system can work, but everyone has to do their bit. Buying responsibly is part of that. I started out by buying a DIY kit from India, now i am trying to piece together a new machine and i bought my gen7 board from Traumflug who created it. This way he gets the reward for something he made. I wish i had got involved with the community before i bought the full kit, it would have influenced where i got the components from. If we work together we can all help this movement.
Keep creating guys, this truly is an awesome community.
Mike

I guess the problem is that we are all so ingrained in the use of money to enable cooperation, that we struggle to think of any other method. This may be more a feature of Western culture that tend promotes individualism over community. Before money, there was barter, but that is so long ago no one remembers it.

But there is a modern form we are all familiar with. We do favours to friends or neighbours, and generally expect a favour in return, although not necessarily. People also give time or goods to charity or other community organisations and expect a "return" not in a monetary sense but in the form of a better community.

So the currency of Open Source is IP: Open Source is not free IP, you "pay" for it with IP in return, if you add modifications. Clearly, in order to eat we need to earn money, that is how modern society works. But Open Source does not address how to turn IP into cash: there are already vast and well established traditional business models of how to do that.

What Open Source does is create the ground rules for a "market" where the currency is not money, but IP.

Quote
Simba
I spent about $40,000 so far on reprap projects,
[...]
I hope when the project is near completion that it can pay for itself

How is that any different from a regular business model? You make a $ investment, you expect $ back. Open Source is irrelevant here. I guess if I billed for my time at my usual rate I have spent $1000s on Open Source as well. But I don't expect any of that money back. I do expect that if anyone improves/adapts the stuff I have done they "pay" for it by returning IP back.

I have to say that once you understand Open Source, asking how to make money from it seems nonsensical. It's like saying "I spend a lot of time volunteering for a local charity. But how do I make money out of that?" You are simply not expected to. A completely different question is "I run a business. How can I help a local charity?"

If you expect a $ return, you provide goods and services and charge for them. That is just simple business theory. The only caveat with selling stuff based on Open Source designs is that you have to rely on providing better service, lower cost, better quality, more friendly website etc and not rely on exclusivity of access to IP, because anyone can sell exactly the same stuff you are making.

In reality there is no struggle between making money and Open Source, any more than there is a conflict between making money and giving to charity.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2013 08:38AM by bobc.

Quote
bobc
Open Source is not free IP, you "pay" for it with IP in return, if you add modifications.

If this would actually happen, I'd happily invest even more in open source.

It doesn't, though. Whereever you look, open source projects are driven by a very small number of contributors, often a single person, always a thousand or more times fewer than users. People barely see a difference between FOSS and commercial freeware. "It's free" (as in beer) is all they notice. See for example the success of Eagle (free, closed source) over KiCAD and gEDA (both open source), three comparable PCB layout packages.

Three centuries after the invention of FOSS most users rarely care to report issues, much less they fix them and provide the patch. A lot more likely they use another package, even if it costs money. If you're in luck, and only then, they point their finger to the maintainer (like "can you fix this for me?").

Accordingly it's no surprise open source is almost always connected to some commercial business model. That's the only way a hacker can contribute at all, because he has also to survive in the real world.

Charity organisation not doing open source, like the Red Cross, are all commercial, too. They collect donations, send you an invoice after you've ordered their services and they pay their employees. The distinction to for-profit organisations, distributed profit, is only a small, sometimes very small, percentage of revenue.

That said, I recognize you are one of the few who act by their word and contribute without asking for euros. Thanks.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug
Three centuries after the invention of FOSS most users rarely care to report issues, much less they fix them and provide the patch. A lot more likely they use another package, even if it costs money. If you're in luck, and only then, they point their finger to the maintainer (like "can you fix this for me?").

That would be three decades rather than three centuries wouldn't it?

I would like to respectfully point out that a very minute ratio of end users are programmers. So you cannot expect them to submit patches. I wouldn't know how either. I contribute a lot of time to an open source project, but I'm no coder - so I help in other ways. But I too have noticed that very few people are willing to contribute.

Quote

That would be three decades rather than three centuries wouldn't it?

Yes.

Quote

I would like to respectfully point out that a very minute ratio of end users are programmers.

No need to be a programmer to report issues/bug, but this is --pardon-- a typical excuse.

Example: a few weeks ago a bug in Pronterface was fixed which prohibited to use Pronterface at all with any electronics running bootloaders from the Gen7 Arduino IDE Support package. Pronterface wasn't patient enough and tried to reconnect over and over again, never establishing a connection. The bug was introduced 9 month(!) earlier and it took these 9 months until the first person trying it cared to tell us. And likely a lot of people tried, because I recommended to use Pronterface all the time.

These are low points. A conlusion might be: what a maintainer doesn't check himselfs, doesn't get checked at all. Another conclusion might be: being open source is of zero help other than for marketing/advertising purposes.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

The reason people don't contribute to open source software is that it has engendered a platform for people to be rude and immature toward each other. People who don't do programming for a living fear contribution because they don't know good coding practice -- and too often, that is grounds for the maintainers to act like the football jocks they never were.

Everyone is aware of it. There are plenty of articles like this one calling people out for doing it. Nobody is going to put work into something if it means they're going to be unappreciated and ridiculed for trying to help. Facts of life.

If you publish something open source, you're already guilty by association -- compliments of the open source maintainers and contributors around the world who still get off on belittling people.

I think what keeps reprap alive is its speed of innovation.

Commercial enterprises will have a hard job in the field as long as this speed is high, as investments have no time to pay off.

The speed of innovation will decrease, if developers cease free (i.e. without contracts) cooperation. Open source is a way to achieve high levels of free cooperation. Commercial secrets inhibit free cooperation.

When reprap dies, the field will become an ordinary market. The big will swallow the small and kill the rest. In the end all 3D printers will be build in China (where else?) and we all will buy them.

So, give up Open Source, open the door for commercial interests and who will you expect to enter? Do you really believe that anybody will talk about ReprapPro, Mendel90, Ultimaker, Tantillus, E3D, J-Head etc. within 3 years then? They will vanish without a trace.

There is no future for reprap relying on commercial secrets. Only Open Source can keep the innovation faster than the developers of big enterprises could do.

But I guess the greedy nature of human beings will prevail over reprap. It otherwise would have been the first revolution not betrayed by its protagonists ...

Uhm, @KilleKalle, there's no exclusiveness, projects can be both, commercial and open source. For examples, see all the projects you mention, they're all commercial.

Finding a well accepted way to embed commercial interests into open source might be a good way to speed up development even more. Well, maybe we have it already, if with some hiccups, like the existence of RepRap copy shops.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Traumflug Wrote:

>
> Finding a well accepted way to embed commercial
> interests into open source might be a good way to
> speed up development even more. Well, maybe we
> have it already, if with some hiccups, like the
> existence of RepRap copy shops.

Any idea how we can start that?

I feel like I can admit to you guys that I've kept good ideas secret at times. I keep secrets from people who offer to help because 1) The added risk of adding a contributor (and associated pains) is too much, i.e. letting them in on shaping the creative influence, a meme, etc is almost like a marriage and who need to know who you are getting involved with 2) I don't want to cut them a piece of the pie if they are only saving us a little bit of time.

There are other times when I willingly give away "fake" intelligence, for example to certain world-wide manufacturers, intentionally seeding the idea that they could steal the idea to get rich and be first themselves as a manufacturer. All I wanted out of the interaction was for them to make the product available, not caring if they make a fortune or career out of it. Kinda rings true of what open source stands for I think. But when I did drop these eggs, they were not golden eggs but the non-organic, non cage-free kind of eggs, if you get my meaning. If there is a golden egg idea (i.e. micro arc-reactor) I want to keep that as my baby, until I can fully develop it. I'm not sure, why, its just a creative instinct. You don't give birth to children only to give your children away, its just an instinct.

Maybe science can prove (With MRI scans or something) that we hone our creative energies around an idea, and protect and nurture it in a way that activates the same areas as child rearing??
these things happen every day in research labs and universities. And if we could somehow solve the game theory of open source innovation I suspect we could be moving 100 times faster. So HOW do we get people to be willing to drop their greatest ideas and rather than setting aside their ego, satify it, maybe?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2013 05:44PM by Simba.

Quote

So HOW do we get people to be willing to drop their greatest ideas and rather than setting aside their ego, satify it, maybe?

Maybe by developer rooms where source is only open inside the room.

The thing about submitting issues is that it feels selfish too. But really it isnt. The main thing you have to do is put a good effort in finding existing issues so the developpers time doesnt get wasted with similar complaints, and you have to put effort in describing the issue, version numbers etcetera. Also go to the latest release version. The same goes for suggestions in my opinion.(I feel less and less bad for making suggestions i will probably never implement myself, as long as i dont waste time that wouldnt have been wasted otherwise) Note that many projects seem to have a bad issue system and often have the threshhold of logging in.(This isnt central to this discussion, maybe start a new thread if you want to reply to this? This is why comments should be in trees haha)

Some of the talk about money here seems to imply that money is fairly evenly distributed. It isnt, and investment comes from bigger/richer parties, who try to impose their will.(Makerbot being instance) I.e. they try steer to/impose/create a particular culture, or simply dont invest when they sense the person isnt willing. Of course people say 'thats right, it is their money that is invested', or they may even call it democratic for it, but i dont value money-democracy so much.

I cannot say the way that works is always unfair, but it impedes any cultural change, and gives a lot of power into moneyed interests. But those arent necessarily good for human wellbeing as they're fine with silly charades of status and luxeries while simultatiously paying poor salaries/denying health care. I am not saying we are completely innocent in that regard either though. But i also dont think individual giving is going to fix it, getting rid of consumer society is.

People seem to refer open source as communities. So maybe 'our' alternative is 'community society'. However, how socially active are we, really? And how do we support each other? We can have discussions about things, and that is a kind of support sure. But not on a personal level. People have their strengths and weaknesses, but afaik unpaid, un'universitied' 'community' open source doesnt play to strength and doesnt cover/learn with weaknesses. Picking a project which will have a use, sticking with a project, popularizing, creating awareness, stoking enthousiasm, documenting making sure users can pick it up quickly are all skills. They're usually not found in a person simultaniously. Or maybe a better example is skills needed to join an existing project; learning existing stuff, communicating, sticking around are important there.

Maybe to make this culture bigger we need to socialize around it more. There are hackerspaces around, maybe we should go there. Besides, Replabs will need fewer vitamins sooner than repraps will.

Quote
Simba
Any idea how we can start that?

Usually I propose open source with dual non-commercial / commercial fee based licence. This way you get a number of good things:

- People see what you're doing and can build upon that. Just like with GPL'd open source.
- People can and do build their copy for free.
- People contribute. Yes, they do, because not everybody wants to start a new business for each topic he touches.
- Copy shops are out of the picture, so it's your business.

One of the few problems is: how much has a design to differ to make it a different project. So far I solve this by asking people to give their project an entirely different name. This works.

A bigger problem is, many open source addicts frown upon -NC licences. That's a real threat. They consider you to be a jerk for just this, no matter how good the design is.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

This is something I have thought long and hard about over the past few years. Here is a little of what I have come up with.

Your ideas are worthless by themselves. So many people hold onto their ideas in the same way people let clasic cars rot in their driveway; planning to "restore it one day". Think an idea is valuable on it's own? Try to get someone to pay you for your idea and nothing else. Seriously, go around and try to sell your idea and see what happens. I have $.02 right here. An idea is powerful but only when there is action behind it. Do you think that you only get a single allotment of ideas and once they run out your brain is spent? The reality is that you may be wasting huge amounts of time and energy holding onto your ideas; so much so you are stifling your new ones. Do you have enough time to fulfill these ideas today, this week, this month, this year, this lifetime? Have you even spent time searching online to see if your idea is really that original, chances are that if thought of it so has someone else. I have learned that the hard way by waiting on to many of my own ideas and they expired.

There are ideas that one should keep; those that one will have time to truly bring to fruition. To know that though, you need to take a real assessment of yourself and your resources. The rest of your ideas do nothing but distract you, it is better to toss them to the wind then let them rot in your mind.

I have been working this out myself as I plan my future. I have had to focus on one idea and one alone to go forward. I have a handful I am saving in hopes that one day I gain the human and financial capital to realize them before I run out of time. The rest I have started to outline and share in hopes someone is inspired and grows them. I would like to think that if someone does use my ideas that they cite me as a source, shares a bit of the glory and a bit of the profits. I also understand that that may be a bit unrealistic.

As to the original posts thoughts on IP. This is something I have spent a lot of time thinking about as well. You are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. One of my ideas is to write a book in the next year that touches a bit on that topic but doesn't focus on it. Similar problems have presented themselves in the past but mankind has seen nothing like the scale of the events to come.


Simba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Traumflug Wrote:
>
> >
> > Finding a well accepted way to embed commercial
> > interests into open source might be a good way
> to
> > speed up development even more. Well, maybe we
> > have it already, if with some hiccups, like the
> > existence of RepRap copy shops.
>
> Any idea how we can start that?
>
> I feel like I can admit to you guys that I've kept
> good ideas secret at times. I keep secrets from
> people who offer to help because 1) The added risk
> of adding a contributor (and associated pains) is
> too much, i.e. letting them in on shaping the
> creative influence, a meme, etc is almost like a
> marriage and who need to know who you are getting
> involved with 2) I don't want to cut them a piece
> of the pie if they are only saving us a little bit
> of time.
>
> There are other times when I willingly give away
> "fake" intelligence, for example to certain
> world-wide manufacturers, intentionally seeding
> the idea that they could steal the idea to get
> rich and be first themselves as a manufacturer.
> All I wanted out of the interaction was for them
> to make the product available, not caring if they
> make a fortune or career out of it. Kinda rings
> true of what open source stands for I think. But
> when I did drop these eggs, they were not golden
> eggs but the non-organic, non cage-free kind of
> eggs, if you get my meaning. If there is a
> golden egg idea (i.e. micro arc-reactor) I want to
> keep that as my baby, until I can fully develop
> it. I'm not sure, why, its just a creative
> instinct. You don't give birth to children only
> to give your children away, its just an instinct.
>
> Maybe science can prove (With MRI scans or
> something) that we hone our creative energies
> around an idea, and protect and nurture it in a
> way that activates the same areas as child
> rearing??
> these things happen every day in research labs and
> universities. And if we could somehow solve the
> game theory of open source innovation I suspect we
> could be moving 100 times faster. So HOW do we
> get people to be willing to drop their greatest
> ideas and rather than setting aside their ego,
> satify it, maybe?

Ideas ARE worthless, and emergent, and I think it is ridiculous to think you can own them. Many people came to me with a great idea and I said "Wonderful, now how to you plan to execute in a way that will bring the product to market successfully, have it be user friendly, and in a cost efficient manner?" By the time it is built, the product is completely different than you originally expected. Call this "reduction to practice." That's why patenting only the idea is discouraged these days, they suggest you reduce it to practice first.

The example of 20 people went to patent the telegraph the same year Bell came up with the idea.

This thread has led me to realize one amazing thing. People aren't gungho about their ideas to satify their need for significance like I once thought. An Idea is really like a child. It needs to be nutured, and grown, and invested in, and cared for by multiple people, then allowed to evolve and grow on its own, to inspire other children ideas. I realize now that is more of a parental instinct to protect ideas as your own, just like you don't want a TV and who knows what raising your children.

In my household there is an ongoing joke of often (at least daily) saying to my wife, "I had a new idea." That's the part where she can just stop listening and I talk AT her for 5 minutes.

billyzelsnack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my household there is an ongoing joke of often
> (at least daily) saying to my wife, "I had a new
> idea." That's the part where she can just stop
> listening and I talk AT her for 5 minutes.

Oh that's funny, that's how I am with all my friends in addition, my significant/other is always listening to me and tunes out after an amazing 15-20 minutes (unless there is drama or ego involved) hah. Us scientists manage to never avoid drama

Quote
Traumflug
No need to be a programmer to report issues/bug, but this is --pardon-- a typical excuse.

I'm not sure how to take this. I just answered specifically to your point:

Quote
Traumflug
much less they fix them and provide the patch.

Also many open source projects have poor documentation, and don't communicate well how and where to report bugs.

Quote
iquizzle
The reason people don't contribute to open source software is that it has engendered a platform for people to be rude and immature toward each other. People who don't do programming for a living fear contribution because they don't know good coding practice -- and too often, that is grounds for the maintainers to act like the football jocks they never were.

I've read about some horror stories, but this has not been my personal experience. The developers for the project I contribute to are very welcoming of contributions from people with any experience/knowledge level. I don't code but I've seen their forum interactions over the years.

And to say that OSS has engendered a platform to be rude and immature is a gross generalization. People remain people, and there are assholes everywhere, not only in open source projects. But I do admit there are a few people (some here, not on this topic though) who think that if you can't code, you're nothing.