An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP

If you are developing an all metal hot end, and license it NC, does that mean you are planning to sell them yourself? If not, does it mean that your design is only for those with the tools and expertise to make it themselves? If I don't have a mill or a lathe, the only way I can try your design is to persuade somebody to make one for me for free since no one but you is allowed to sell it to me, correct?

If you make something that works really well, or is exactly what I need, I would be annoyed if you made it NC while not planning to sell it yourself, because it is like an FU to everyone who could benefit from it, but don't have the ability to make their own.

This is an excellent discussion, here's my take on it:

The strength of the open source community is the free sharing of innovation, and the freedom to build on those shared ideas. There is no need to start from scratch - you can quickly learn from others failures and successes. By doing this you are gaining great value from the Community's IP.

Now if you build on the open source community's ideas and produce a product then I think you have a real obligation to the community. What is that obligation? Good question - the community is built on sharing ideas - so share your idea... Even taking and using/printing someone's freely given design gives some obligation to the community, even if it is just being thankful.

Now if you work on your own, not building on the community's work then you have no moral obligation to the community, you can patent your work. I have no problem with that, good fortune to you. That's not greed, that's honest work and self protection.

But if you patent a work based in part on open source then you are also taking for your own some work done by others. In this case there would be great obligation to the community, and many won't like it.

The worst case are patent trolls - I remember was how a company (was it Rambus?) sat in on the standards meetings, and then quietly patented the ideas and tried to make all the others pay. This is both moral/ethical question that goes to the core of human nature.

What about someone that takes another's ideas and just produces a bunch of copies to sell, without contributing anything? Doesn't seem fair does it, they should find a way to contribute something to the community.

I'm currently working on a 3D printer design - so I say thank you to all that have contributed their time and ideas here, they have made my life easier and better.

IanJohnson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are developing an all metal hot end, and
> license it NC, does that mean you are planning to
> sell them yourself? If not, does it mean that
> your design is only for those with the tools and
> expertise to make it themselves? If I don't have
> a mill or a lathe, the only way I can try your
> design is to persuade somebody to make one for me
> for free since no one but you is allowed to sell
> it to me, correct?


An NC restriction is so the user won't make and sell the product. You are free to have someone make you the parts for your own use. The NC license, like most others, are basically handshake agreements. They are enforcable only if the owner of the IP has the means to pursue an infringement claim. Even then, most that would be infringing would be what is known as "judgement proof" in that you could sue them and win but they have little to no assets from which to award a judgement. Others that weren't judgement proof may be beyond the jurisdiction and you're only recourse would be to stop the distribution in a particular country as one of the previous posters has been doing.

vegasloki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An NC restriction is so the user won't make and
> sell the product. You are free to have someone
> make you the parts for your own use.

But you can't pay someone else to make it for you, which is the point.

Quote
bobc
They are enforceable only if the owner of the IP has the means to pursue an infringement claim.

No, not even that. If we are talking about an all metal hot end, an NC license is not enforceable at all, period. Regarding the functional characteristics of a piece of hardware NC licenses provide no protection whatsoever. If you want to protect that aspect of your design you need a patent. Period.

If you make an artsy sculpture and put an NC license on it and someone else rips it off and starts selling it, then yes, indeed, the NC license is "enforceable" in this case.

If protecting a hardware design was as easy as slapping an "NC" on it, no one would bother with patents.

iquizzle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> miso Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You can't use GPL software to make your
> own closed source one.
>
>
> You most certainly can. You just can't distribute
> closed source software that contains GPLed code --
> which goes back to what vegasloki said.

I though that "make your own closed source one" part would imply distribution. Otherwise how can you close source from yourself? But I'l try to be more clear next time. I don't see how it goes back to what vegasloki said. IMO its still restriction on use, and according to Traumflugs post, I'm not the only one with that opinion.

A common misconception about Open Source is that it is (or should be) a more relaxed form of Closed Source. I.e. you want to retain overall rights and control (in particular the right to profit from it) but you want make it free (as in beer) for private users and other non-profits.

Open Source is actually designed from the opposite end : it is a more restricted form of Public Domain. That is, it is for people who want to give away their rights to the public commons. The problem with using Public Domain is that it allows other people to claim exclusive rights to the IP and prevent others using it, or making modifications to the IP which should be re-shared but instead restricted. Open Source tries to make sure that people who want to place IP into the public domain can do so and have that IP remain in the public domain.

Open Source creates a way to get the benefit of Public Domain without it's disadvantages. As it happens, it uses the laws of Copyright to achieve that, but that is only because there are no "Laws of Commons" which can be applied.

Another misconception is that Open Source is non-commercial, non-profit, or anti-capitalist or whatever. In fact, Open Source specifically allows any commercial use; the public domain includes companies who make products, employ people, create profits. Companies do also contribute something to the community. Open Source gets the label "communist", but in this case being community minded is not the same being anti-capitalist. You can be in favour of Open Source as well as being pro-commerce.

Now, I am not saying the question "how do I make a living and support Open Source projects" is not invalid, or a pertinent one. I guess there would be a quite a lot of people who would love to work for a company that creates Open Source projects, possibly me included. Many people would prefer to support an ethical company instead of one that exploits child labour in foreign sweatshops in order to bring you their latest high-tech toys.

The problem is how to do that, if you can't use Open Source to protect your profits. Since Open Source is in the public domain, anyone can undercut you, or even provide it for free. There are some companies that may provide a model of how to do it, for example, Sparkfun, RepRapPro, because although some users will build their own, most users will pay for the convenience of a kit or assembled version, in the same way that most people buy bread rather than make it from flour.

How sustainable that model is, I am not sure, because at some level of volume, the big players can come in and outcompete you. I suspect that Open Source will always need to be subsided by other means.

Quote
IanJohnson
If you are developing an all metal hot end, and license it NC, does that mean you are planning to sell them yourself?

Yes. This, or planning to ask for a fee to allow others to sell it, or both. Putting a NC on something you don't plan to sell makes no sense.

Quote
bobc
But you can't pay someone else to make it for you, which is the point.

Certainly you can (or better: you're allowed to). Paying somebody to make something isn't a commercial use because you sell nothing, make no profit. It's also no commercial use of the maker, because he doesn't offer the product, but manufacturing services.

- - -

Admittedly I get more and more the feeling there's a requirement for a open source hardware license with a number of variants similar to the Creative Common variants. The CERN OHL one doesn't cut it, because they don't have commercial use in the picture; for them, open source is simply a way to improve business-to-business communications.

They have a mailing list: [www.ohwr.org] Let's see what they say.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

@MattMoses

Quote
MattMoses
So, trying to decide between NC or not NC for a hardware design is kind of a moot point - it doesn't matter either way because the CC license doesn't have any "legal teeth" when it comes to protecting the functional aspects of a hardware design.

I thought this was obvious so I did not think to mention it. As Traumflug already stated, any copy shop can go ahead and sell copies of an NC hardware design and the developer of said design will not even attempt to bring the copy shop to court because a) they won't have the time/money for this, and b) because the developer trusts the community to respect their work and it's intended use (NC). So far, the RepRap community seems to respect the licences that the developers release their work under, so the fact that the CC licences have no "legal teeth" with regards to hardware is irrelevant. The RepRap community is an amalgamation of developers who respect and support each other in their work. I think that if people in RepRap ever started to disrespect the intended use of a design (ie. NC) then developers would stop working within RepRap because the community will have lost it's morals/direction.

@bobc

Quote
bobc
Open Source is a formally defined thing, it is not just a woolly concept that you or I might want it to be. All Open Source licenses allow "for any use". It is one of the defining features of Open Source that distinguishes it from Closed Source! No Open Source organisation will ratify a license as OS if it includes a "restriction on use" clause.

I think you are overlooking key details in the distinction between "Open Source Software" and "Open Source Hardware". This distinction was articulated in the links I included in my last post, but I guess you did not care to view those pages as you clearly do not take this distinction into account. Put simply, the difference is in the costs and profits involved in development. The freedoms of Open Source are meant to be "Free as in free speech, not free beer".

Open Source Software development does not require expensive infrastructure as it can be done on your PC typing into notepad (almost everyone has a PC already, and every PC has notepad!)... In addition, OSS designs are documents that can very easily be shared over the internet as users can utilize your design though their PC. This only significant capital input involved in OSS development is the developers time.

On the other hand, OSH development requires a very expensive prototyping process. If you don't happen to have a machine shop with multiple hundred-thousand dollar CNC machines, you have to pay your Chinese manufactures a ridiculous amount of money for them to make you small sample. I didn't have access to a high-tech machine shop so I ended up paying about 1000USD for samples of just 2 iterations of my hot end design! Mind you, I made some small mistakes along the way, but when you are working with hardware, small mistakes tend to cost a lot of money. After the cost of buying filament to test my design, I will likely end up spending even more on prototyping.

This prototyping cost, in addition to the months I spent working on the design, is a large investment for any middle class person to make. To be honest, if after I finish testing my prototype I were to release the design under a GPL licence and allow copy shops to block me out, I would be in serious financial trouble and would not be able to afford to do any more hot end development. Consequently, to sustain my work on hot end development, I will have to release my design under an NC licence and sell it at a price that allows me a profit to gradually make back my initial investment and fund my future development work. This is the only way that OSH development can be accessible to people who don't have money/time to burn.


@IanJohnson

Lol, no need to worry! Of course I will be selling these myself If I was only going to release the design, I would certainly release it under a GPL licence. Because I will have my hot ends professionally manufactured, an NC licence makes sense for several reasons, many of which I explained above.

Another reason is that I have a strong relationship with my Chinese manufacturer and managed to get a very good price for the machined parts. While the prototyping process was VERY costly, the advantage of working with a high tech factory is that they can manufacture parts at an affordable price using advanced machining and polishing methods that standard copy shops would not be capable of. For example, my design has a Stainless Steel nozzle that requires internal polishing to prevent PLA from plugging up at the transition zone. For only a slightly higher price than using conventional mechanical polishing methods, my manufacturer can machine the internal pathway using Wire EDM process which will be used to Electropolish the internal pathway of the nozzle. Electropolishing is one of the most advanced metal polishing processes in the world and is far superior to any mechanical polishing method (ie. reaming, burnishing, lapping, etc...). I'm probably getting too technical here but my point is that this is an example of where copy shop production would be a problem. A copy shop may offer a slightly lower price, but their version of my hot end design would not compare in performance. This is just one of the many problems that can arise when you have the same design being manufactured to different standards.

In the end, developer produced designs tend to have better value, quality, customer support, etc. because unlike copy shops which are focused on making a profit for their own benefit, developers work to see their ideas benefit the community.

Eric

Quote
bobc
Open Source specifically allows any commercial use

That's your definition of "open source". Where is this written down?

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Please see the Licenses and Hardware section of the Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Statement of Principles and Definition v1.0:

Quote
OSHW Definition 1.0
In promoting Open Hardware, it is important to make it clear to designers the extent to which their licenses actually can control their designs. Under U.S. law, and law in many other places, copyright does not apply to electronic designs. Patents do. The result is that an Open Hardware license can in general be used to restrict the plans but not the manufactured devices or even restatements of the same design that are not textual copies of the original. The applicable section of copyright law is 17.102(b), which says:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Quote
RP Iron Man
I think that if people in RepRap ever started to disrespect the intended use of a design (ie. NC) then developers would stop working within RepRap because the community will have lost it's morals/direction.

You have this completely backwards. Developers come to RepRap to get ideas, advice, free technical support, and more.

When "people in RepRap" lose their "morals/direction" they don't stick around. Because they're too busy putting together their Kickstarter campaign and running their new company.

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
bobc
But you can't pay someone else to make
> it for you, which is the point.

>
> Certainly you can (or better: you're allowed to).
> Paying somebody to make something isn't a
> commercial use because you sell nothing, make no
> profit. It's also no commercial use of the maker,
> because he doesn't offer the product, but
> manufacturing services.

That doesn't make any sense! It is in fact completely contradictory. It was stated before "you can't make it and sell it". Now you are saying actually you can "make it and sell it". So which is it?

Clearly either selling a product or "offering manufacturing services" is a commercial activity, which is prohibited by NC.

This is one of the reasons NC is so bad, not even people using it can define it coherently.

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
bobc
Open Source specifically allows any
> commercial use

>
> That's your definition of "open source".
> Where is this written down?

Nope, it is not mine but everyones. Surely I don't need to tell you how to use google!

It would really help in a discussion about Open Source, if people had actually read and understood an Open Source definition. They all say pretty much the same thing.

The discussion seems to revolve around how one can be a vegetarian, but still eat meat at the weekends.

RP Iron Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @bobc
>
>

Quote
bobc
> Open Source is a formally defined thing, it is not
> just a woolly concept that you or I might want it
> to be. All Open Source licenses allow "for any
> use". It is one of the defining features of Open
> Source that distinguishes it from Closed Source!
> No Open Source organisation will ratify a license
> as OS if it includes a "restriction on use"
> clause.
>

> I think you are overlooking key details in the
> distinction between "Open Source Software" and
> "Open Source Hardware". This distinction was
> articulated in the links I included in my last
> post, but I guess you did not care to view those
> pages as you clearly do not take this distinction
> into account. Put simply, the difference is in the
> costs and profits involved in development. The
> freedoms of Open Source are meant to be "Free as
> in free speech, not free beer".

No I am not overlooking that, but what you are overlooking is that both Open Source Software and Open Source Hardware by definition allow "any use, including commercial". If you are doing NC, you are not supporting Open Source, they are mutually incompatible.

Now, you may not like the OSS/OSH definition, and you are entitled not to use it, but you can't simply redefine it to suit yourself!

I don't want to be harsh, but thems the facts. I can understand there is a bunch of cost-related reasons why you don't want to use OS licensing; OS is not designed to protect commercial enterprise, even of the "non-profit giving back to the community while making an honest living" variety.

OS is designed to protect people you want to give their IP to the public domain, and are willing to give up exclusive commercial rights.

There are a bunch of reasons why NC or ND clauses are problematic and generally bad for open cooperation that OS promotes. There are very good reasons why all Open Source organisations reject NC or ND clauses, and believe me they have spent a lot of time thinking about it. It's not just a whim.

If you make it NC, "bad people" will still copy it. It does mean that "good people" who respect your NC won't work on it. NC projects generally become dead ends.

Developing OSH presents challenges, not least of which is the fact OSS is based on Copyright law which generally does not apply to hardware. OSH development incurs costs, but I do not believe that makes it a special case justifying to tear up the Open Source licence. You either have to make OS work within the limits of Open Source, or not use it.

Perhaps, for reference it would be useful to include an Open Source Hardware definition.

This is from Open Source Hardware Association [www.oshwa.org]

Quote

The distribution terms of Open Source Hardware must comply with the following criteria:

1. Documentation
The hardware must be released with documentation including design files, and must allow modification and distribution of the design files. Where documentation is not furnished with the physical product, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining this documentation for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The documentation must include design files in the preferred format for making changes, for example the native file format of a CAD program. Deliberately obfuscated design files are not allowed. Intermediate forms analogous to compiled computer code — such as printer-ready copper artwork from a CAD program — are not allowed as substitutes. The license may require that the design files are provided in fully-documented, open format(s).

2. Scope
The documentation for the hardware must clearly specify what portion of the design, if not all, is being released under the license.

3. Necessary Software
If the licensed design requires software, embedded or otherwise, to operate properly and fulfill its essential functions, then the license may require that one of the following conditions are met:
a) The interfaces are sufficiently documented such that it could reasonably be considered straightforward to write open source software that allows the device to operate properly and fulfill its essential functions. For example, this may include the use of detailed signal timing diagrams or pseudocode to clearly illustrate the interface in operation.
b) The necessary software is released under an OSI-approved open source license.

4. Derived Works
The license shall allow modifications and derived works, and shall allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original work. The license shall allow for the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of products created from the design files, the design files themselves, and derivatives thereof.

5. Free redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the project documentation. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. The license shall not require any royalty or fee related to the sale of derived works.

6. Attribution
The license may require derived documents, and copyright notices associated with devices, to provide attribution to the licensors when distributing design files, manufactured products, and/or derivatives thereof. The license may require that this information be accessible to the end-user using the device normally, but shall not specify a specific format of display. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original design.

7. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work (including manufactured hardware) in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it must not restrict the hardware from being used in a business, or from being used in nuclear research.

9. Distribution of License
The rights granted by the license must apply to all to whom the work is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

10. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights granted by the license must not depend on the licensed work being part of a particular product. If a portion is extracted from a work and used or distributed within the terms of the license, all parties to whom that work is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted for the original work.

11. License Must Not Restrict Other Hardware or Software
The license must not place restrictions on other items that are aggregated with the licensed work but not derivative of it. For example, the license must not insist that all other hardware sold with the licensed item be open source, nor that only open source software be used external to the device.

12. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology, specific part or component, material, or style of interface or use thereof.

In particular clauses 4,5,7 and 8 are relevant.

Open Source Software licenses are pretty similar, with the addition that due to a quirk of IP law Copyright applies to software, so the OSS licenses can be more tightly worded.

Google reveals 170 million hits for "open source non commercial use", it's fair to say it's a frequently asked question. The answer is invariably that an Open Source license does not restrict commercial use.

Quote

Now you are saying actually you can "make it and sell it".

I don't. You recognize one can make something without selling it? Also, if you go to a shop and ask them to machine something, you are the maker, not the machining shop.

Quote

"offering manufacturing services" is a commercial activity, which is prohibited by NC

It isn't. It isn't like licencing something NC brings the whole (commercial) world to a standstill. Manufacturing services aren't even touched by the licence of a design.

Quote

Open Source specifically allows any commercial use
[...]
it is not mine but everyones.

An interesting definition of "everyone". Up in the thread you see a number of people who are not part of this "everyone".

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

@MattMoses

Quote
MattMoses
You have this completely backwards. Developers come to RepRap to get ideas, advice, free technical support, and more.

When "people in RepRap" lose their "morals/direction" they don't stick around. Because they're too busy putting together their Kickstarter campaign and running their new company.

You seem to missing half of the picture. Yes, developers come to RepRap to GET ideas, advice, free technical support, and more, but in order for these developers to GET these things, there have to be other developers who are GIVING ideas, advice, free technical support, and more. The reason that the RepRap community does not reflect an unruly Hobbesian "state of nature" is because people GIVE and much as they GET. To protect the developers who are very active in giving and to encourage more people to give, we have things like attribution, NC licences, share alike clauses, etc...If these things did not exist, there would be no way to ensure that developers get as much as they give and you would find that the developers who do give will be taken advantage of. At this point, the RepRap community will have turned foul.

You need to understand that a community is only as Good as it's morals. RepRap is NOT inherently Good. It is only Good because of it's morals! As I mentioned above, if the RepRap community were to lose it's respect for the developers who give, then these developers will inevitably leave the community as RepRap would no longer be an ideal worth fighting for.

BTW, this discussion had nothing to do with people who leave RepRap to start a Kickstarter campaign. I agree that many Kickstarter projects are full of fluff and are clearly just aimed at creating hype/making a lot of profit for personal ends, but that is a different scenario. I was illustrating a scenario in which developers leave RepRap because RepRap turns foul, NOT a scenario in which developers forget their morals and choose the "get-rich-quick" scheme over the RepRap ideals.

Eric

miso Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> iquizzle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > miso Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > You can't use GPL software to make
> your
> > own closed source one.
> >
> >
> > You most certainly can. You just can't
> distribute
> > closed source software that contains GPLed code
> --
> > which goes back to what vegasloki said.
>
> I though that "make your own closed source one"
> part would imply distribution. Otherwise how can
> you close source from yourself? But I'l try to be
> more clear next time. I don't see how it goes back
> to what vegasloki said. IMO its still restriction
> on use, and according to Traumflugs post, I'm not
> the only one with that opinion.


vegasloki's point was that GPL places restrictions specifically on distribution. He's right. You're free to download GPL code, modify it and not open source the code. You can use the modified code (in any way that does not entail distribution) all you want without having to open source it. But once you start distributing the software, you must open source. This, straight from the GPL v3 license:

"if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code."

I think we're saying the same things, except that your definition of "use" is different than mine. Starting to sound too much like lawyers..

Quote

Perhaps, for reference it would be useful to include an Open Source Hardware definition.

Excellent idea! I wasn't even aware of this associaton, much less of their definition.

The possible reasons why this definition doesn't work for everyone is exactly the topic here. Calling everything which doesn't match these criteria "closed source" or "not open" is a vast oversimplification, because you can't really call published sources "closed". Doing this simplification leaves no room between public domain and totally hidden, which clearly neither reflects reality nor the intentions of many RepRap developers.

Arduino, for example, doesn't match above criteria either. In opposite to clauses 4. and 8., they restrict derivates with their trademark.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But you can't pay someone else to make it for you,
> which is the point.

Yes, you can have someone make you one for your use. My license to use the work can't be enforced through a third party.

miso Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I though that "make your own closed source one"
> part would imply distribution. Otherwise how can
> you close source from yourself? But I'l try to be
> more clear next time. I don't see how it goes back
> to what vegasloki said. IMO its still restriction
> on use, and according to Traumflugs post, I'm not
> the only one with that opinion.

That doesn't mean that opinion is correct at least in terms of GPL licensed work. From the GPL FAQ... (emphasis mine)

Quote

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

Google is a good example of using open source privately as software that runs thier data centers is open source.

Quote
bobc
Perhaps, for reference it would be useful to include an Open Source Hardware definition.

Quote
Traumflug
The possible reasons why this definition doesn't work for everyone is exactly the topic here. Calling everything which doesn't match these criteria "closed source" or "not open" is a vast oversimplification, because you can't really call published sources "closed". Doing this simplification leaves no room between public domain and totally hidden, which clearly neither reflects reality nor the intentions of many RepRap developers.

Arduino, for example, doesn't match above criteria either. In opposite to clauses 4. and 8., they restrict derivates with their trademark.

@bobc

There is a reason why this definition you found does not work for everyone. This OSH definition sounds a lot like it was written by OSS guys or maybe hardware guys who have not tried to develop a hot end or circuit board or other piece of inaccessible hardware. Notice that even Arduino is not Open Source by this definition, yet it is known as one of the leaders in open source hardware. Yes, this works for software, and yes, this works for the kind of hardware that anyone can put together in their garage, but developing hot ends, circuit boards, and more advanced hardware requires infrastructure that is outside the grasp of the average person and is the kind of thing that is seldom done by DIY practices. Thus, as I discussed in my previous post, it is not the kind of thing that can be realistically developed under these terms.

Either we need another definition to cover "advanced/inaccessible OSH" or we need to recognize that OSH is not a Boolean definition. RepRap is an "Open Source" hardware project yet it does not abide by the definition you stated, and with good reason. Naturally, RepRap Open Source development has evolved into a different definition because that is what allowed RepRap to maintain it's ideals! There is no point in holding people to morals that cannot be realistically applied to their environment as it does more harm than good. If your ideas are to be believed, then RepRappers would be attacking developers like Traumflug, Lazlo (Arcol), etc... for going against open source ideals even though these developers have contributed significantly to the RepRap project.

Your ideas of how OSH should be treated would destroy RepRap, and consequently people need to recognize that these ideas cannot be directly applied to this type of OSH development.

Eric

Quote

NC projects generally become dead ends.

Here are a number of Gen7 derivates:

[reprap.org]
[reprap.org]
[reprap.org]
[reprap.org]

My impression is, it's more important to make a design easily copyable than to allow commercial use. Because tinkerers don't want to sell the design unmodified anyways.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

@vegasloki: Yes, that kind of use is allowed by GPL. Its just both licenses (GPL, NC) put some restrictions, or conditions that one has to obey. on use.

You can use NC protected material as long you stay noncommercial.
You can use GPL protected material, in your software, as long as you wont distribute it, or if you do, you have to distribute complete source.

That especially comes up with libraries. Lets say there is GPL protected video codec library, that you want to use in your closed source video player (that you wish to distribute to public). You can't use it without violating GPL, that library is useless for you. I would say that in that respect both licenses are similar, just conditions are little different. Many people would say so they are essentially the same, because the fact that you have to publish source definitely shakes traditional commercial model of selling software.
I think so its like iquizzle, said we use different definitions of "use".

In the past, I have freely shared my ideas, (such as they are worth), because I am talking to fellow tinkerers and
experimenters, not for the benefit of some business, I have read as much of the documents as I can swallow and
it seems that CC allows for NC, if that is your choice, so be it.
I am greatfull to arduino for making my life easier by creating their boards, I cant be bothered to build one, so am more than happy to pay the modest price, which also may ensure further development and advances.
If I bought a clone this would not happen perhaps.

I do respect BOBC's point of view, but am struggling to see how givers would keep giving if takers just take.

---

Random Precision

miso Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think so its like iquizzle, said we use
> different definitions of "use".

The issue is that your interpretation of the term use isn't what the GPL considers use. GPL explicitly defines use as private use whereas you are trying to change that to encompass use as having to do with distribution. You are transfering an interpretation to the GPL that does not exist in the license. The term use has been defined that way since the FSF/GNU/GPL was invented.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the goals of the community and the open source movement - to be - in this order:

(1) To create a more giving, less taking environment...
(2) That collectively fast tracks the rate of innovation by collaborating...
(3) To solve the problems facing society

All of these goals are very close to my heart. In fact, since being ripped off by an investor in my first venture - a pick and place machinery company - I have been looking for a better way for innovators to get their ideas to market. People all have different qualities and I don't believe that we all need to become hard nosed business people just to get a fair return from the value that we all create.

In the same way that companies on grow by producing surplus profits to grow, the 'giving' as opposed to 'taking' percentage of society can only grow if people can see that giving provides a better life than taking.

Maybe I am missing something, but to me, open source - with any of the licences - seems to play into the hands of the takers and damagingly let's them take the surplus that should be reinvested in the giver's ecosystem.

Instead, if RepRap had a number of member owned production units with profits returned to those who add value and help prove concepts, then the community would probably be at the centre of many more people's lives.

My take on the Open Hardware Licence mailing list:

Quote

Hello open hardware fellows,

let me try to talk about this topic, which I found to be a pretty tricky one and in the hope I don't forget an important part.

I'm a developer in (and an admin of) the RepRap community, well known for bringing 3D printers to the masses. A great, big and reasonable healthy community.

RepRap has come to a point where many shops do business by mostly or solely just copying and selling existing designs. That's a multi-million dollar business these days, I count about 50 such shops worldwide and a new one about weekly.

Undoubtly, this is great for consumers. It's also great for those who develop as a hobby and make their living with another job and/or are one of many employees. It's still fine for those developers running their own shop (which happen do be quite a number).

But there's yet another group: pure developers. Those talented engineers and craftsmen, often self-employed, brilliant at designing something, but poor as a salesman. Of course, they need to bring food onto their table, too.

These pure developers struggle quite a bit with licencing their design with something like the current OHL. Because developing hardware costs not only substantial amounts of time, it also costs substantial amounts of money. We all know this. And there is no reliable way to get rewarded for these costs if everything is OHL'd and as such, quasi in the public domain.

To deal with this, they could also open a shop for their own products. But this needs time, typically a lot of time, which is lost for more development. And doing both, developing and selling is a substantial disadvantage over those who concentrate on just the selling.

It's said developers have a huge advantage over copy shops because there's their name on the design. Maybe the advantage is no longer as big if a design shows up in dozens of shops, none of them mentioning the name of the developer, or some shops even tack their own name onto the design (sort of rebranding). People simply forget who did the hard work.


To find better solutions, a few RepRappers are currently evaluating two things. One is a system to collect funding before the work. Like a number of people pledging a few euros each for fixing a bug or getting some detail improved. The developer bringing in the improvement gets the money. [bountysource.com] is an example of a site offering such a service.

[forums.reprap.org]


The other one is --now, please don't get upset-- to introduce/promote an open hardware licence with a non-commercial clause. Such a clause means: everybody can look at and learn from the sources, everybody can modify the design, everybody can make a copy, everybody can ask a machining shop to make a copy, everybody can make a derivate, all with one restriction: only the licence holder can _sell_ copies. Also those who make a contract separate from the licence, like a fee-based contract, of course.

Our discussion: [forums.reprap.org]

A licence similar to this is the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA which some RepRap developers use for the lack of a better one already:

[creativecommons.org]


We're aware this restricts freedom. But doesn't the GPL gently restrict freedom of software, too, and is very successful with this? The MIT/BSD licence has fewer clauses, more freedom and ... has a "market" share of perhaps of 10% of all open source projects while 70% is GPL'd or LGPL'd (my estimate).

In the same vein I could very well imagine preferring a non-commercial OHL could enhance, outright fuel open hardware development. Because technology doesn't advance on its own, it needs developers. And because a non-commercial clause doesn't hide anything, it just reduces merchantability for the favour of developers.


What do you think?


Markus

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
vegasloki
GPL explicitly defines use as private use

Where? GPLv3 section TERMS AND CONDITIONS subsection "0. Definitions." defines:

• This License
• Copyright
• modify
• covered work
• propagate
• convey
• interactive user interface

Then follows section explains what source code is. In whole document there is no string "private use", while term "use" is routinely used throughout in many phrases like:

• fair use
• common use
• use for publicity purposes
• use of some trade names
• greatest possible use to the public
• use the GNU General Public License
• enable use of the work

I would say so term "use" is used in broad sense there, and many of those phrases make no sense with "private use" substituted for "use". Like "Private use for publicity purposes", "private use of some trade names".