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

Quote
Iquizzle
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."

Let's say that there was a large domestic appliance or office equipment manufacturer or retailer that saw that 3D printer technology had developed to the point where they were being widely used to create everyday items in the home. Suppose that they saw that demand was taking off in a big way and decided to mass produce them. If they incorporated all of the open source hardware and software designs into their product, then would it be accurate to say that their obligation under GPL would be to publish the designs for the hardware and software that went into their product? If so, what value would they be adding as the little or none of the development would have been funded by them?

How would this help the developers to make a living...to encourage more people to put their time, effort and money into development? Wouldn't the profits just go to the investors and senior management within the company? With the company's existing household brand name, volume manufacturing facilities, supply chains, distribution channels and access to finance, how would those in the Rep Rap community who had contributed the real value get repaid some of the return for the value that they had added?

In my opinion, this scenario could only be avoided if one or both of the following were achieved:

(1) The Rep Rap project's vision whereby consumers could print off fully assembled printers for their non-technical friends quickly and efficiently, at minimal raw material cost, but they had to obtain the STL files from a Rep Rap repository that made a small charge to fund bounties past and present.

(2) 'not receiving any share of revenue for value added' became a non issue because the developers had built or somehow otherwise obtained the technology to become largely self sufficient in the accommodation, food, energy, transport, clothing, education and healthcare that they and their families needed using freely available materials and resources.

My knowledge of the licences is either not deep enough or I am missing something. I can see that they may be helping to fast track development of the know-how to deliver (2) in the very long term - 25 to 50 years?

On the other hand, the Rep Rap community can probably out compete any company with the number of dedicated and knowledgeable developers that it has in it, so wouldn't it make sense for it to put out one or more of it's own crowd funded "best of breed" printers to fund bounties to attract more development input?

If this opportunity was there, I know where I would go to both buy components/kit or offer my best ideas/developments.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2013 10:35PM by Senake.

I can't answer most of your questions, because you are essentially asking why people contribute open source software and hardware. Everybody has their own reasons. I personally think you can't reasonably expect to make any money off of open source unless you are specifically setting up a business plan to do so. You can't just throw stuff out into the wild under an open source license and hope someone pays you someday. This would be incredibly naive.

I can answer this question:
"would it be accurate to say that their obligation under GPL would be to publish the designs for the hardware and software that went into their product?"

If they are selling something, then GPL-containing software is being distributed. As per the GPL license, they are bound to open source their code.

Quote

You can't just throw stuff out into the wild under an open source license and hope someone pays you someday.

I think paths to avoid exactly this is part of the topic here. Instead of "throwing stuff into the wild" there should be ways to satisfy all participants. Either by funding development before it happens or by giving a marketing advantage to the developers or --like CERN does-- by funding development from public sources.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

I haven't seen this before...

[openbuildspartstore.com]

It's called the Fair Share Program and it appears it's meant for the suppliers and manufacturers of Open Hardware to contribute 5% of the proceeds back into the community.

From the FAQ...

Quote

The Fair Share Program is a method of giving back to the Open Source Community in a simple, uncomplicated fashion. The idea is to voluntarily give 5% of the profits back to the community as a whole. Fair Share is based on the honor system that gives the choice of how to give back to the community. Find a worthy Open Source organization or just help move a project along through a financial contribution. The choice is yours.

When you see the Fair Share Program Logo on websites and literature, you will know that they are a contributor to the success of the Open Source Community through voluntary financial contributions to the Open Source Projects of their choice.

The existing licences are not up to the task, something new is needed and this discussion will help refine it. Morals are the only way to police a crowd licensing system. Found this thread a bit late so am replying to a number of posts all in one.

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Traumflug Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 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.
>
> Well yes, that's because an NC clause is not Open
> Source. It is just Closed Source with a published
> design. It's the same as any traditional business
> model.
>
Bob, your response borders on the 'frown' people that Traumflug is talking about.

The NC (should be LC for licensed commercial) clause is VERY different to closed source. You get to see the source and understand how things work, examine it for bugs and even correct them if you care, add features if you need and check for conformance to standards or correct use of cryptographic formulas.

Unless you can acknowledge the difference why should any developer acknowledge you and offer you a glimpse into their source code.

> It is a pity that some people can't get past the
> "what's in it for me?" thing and appreciate that
> Open Source is about giving, not taking.

I would also like to know how you can pay your bills with your version of Open Source. I understand that you would prefer people to donate their time but this is only applicable if it is their free time. The real problem with driving a projects like RepRap (or any other) with just free time is that you will seldom get the volume and quality of time spent on the project compared to having paid and guided time from selected individuals working on needed parts rather than interesting parts.


vegasloki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Bob, If you don't like the licence don't download it, pretend you never saw the open source and count your pennies and see if you can negotiate a commercial licence with the developer.

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RP Iron Man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > @bobc
> > First of all, I do not see how an NC clause is
> NOT
> > Open Source. Think about the words: "Open
> Source"
> > for a second. Open Source precisely describes a
> > project where the "source" (ie. drawings, code,
> > etc...) is "open" (ie. published in a place
> that
> > is easily accessible to the public). Open
> Source
> > does not mean you have to allow everyone to
> sell
> > your design without them contributing to the
> > development!
>
> Yes it does, because it is in the definition of
> Open Source. I have thought about this for quite a
> bit longer than a second, I've also read the
> licenses and the background to why and how the
> licenses were created.
>
> 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.
>
> It's like saying you are vegetarian but
> occasionally eat meat as being the same as being
> vegetarian. It is not, by definition, even if the
> meat is free range and humanely killed. The type
> of NC license you describe already exists: it is
> called Shareware. You publish the sources, and
> stipulate it is free for personal use, but users
> should pay for a licence if used for commercial
> purposes.

Bob, I understand you are frustrated by the complexity of things but that is life. Open Source licences do not allow for just any use, they all restrict you in some way otherwise they have no reason for existing (often they restrict you hiding your changes). Anonymous public disclosure is as unrestricted as one can reasonably get, a formal public domain disclosure under your name is second best. Open Source if far from either of these or else it would not need pages of text, please do not keep trying to equate them so forcibly.

If you want to make things clearer in your mind just change the wording of the title around a bit and you can rest easier without having to attack the convoluted wording. Look at the nasty NC licence instead as Licensed for commercial use with unlimited free personal use and disclosure of designs for public perusal to establish fitness for purpose and it will be identical in spirit but will read as a public disclosure tacked onto a commercial licence instead of a commercial restriction tacked onto a open source disclosure. I agree with you that the wording is abysmal for the purposes of growth in the open hardware world but it is all we have at this time.

I am a Lacto-Vegetarian, this means that I am a vegetarian but also partake of milk products, this is a clause tacked onto my Vegetarian habbits, it is not that I am a lapsed vegetarian when I drink milk or eat cheese, it is a specific concious thing I have chosen and when it matters I will be specific about it, much like the NC in CC-BY-NC.

MattMoses Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

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.

Matt, the world uses patents because governments (and their legal systems) have agreed to assist with enforcing the rights of those who disclose in the interests of innovation. Patents are only enforced in the areas where they are granted so my South African patent is worthless in the USA or China unless I spend much more money to get more encompassing international patents. The patent holder has to be prepared to have even more money ready to try and enforce the patent if it is infringed and few individuals have survived this avenue. The NC (should be LC for a more positive spin and a indication that licensing is an option) option is the next best thing and as you say it is only as good as a handshake. Well, sometimes a handshake is worth more than a trip to a lawyer. The NC clause is global but only applies to the invested community. A immoral person does not care and there is nothing that can be done to make them care if the community also does not care and will support him.

This whole discussion thread is looking for a way to have a moral way for developers to get compensation for sharing their ideas. It is not about wording in the current ineffectual patent and CC and GPL and OSH licence documents. The problem is that without some centralised guidance few people will feel that it is necessary for developers to be compensated because they are stupid enough to publish they and should be taken advantage of. Fighting over the documents does not remove the need for guidance from someone/thing who/that wants to see the long term goals achieved. We have here perhaps 0.5% (a guess) of the forum whichis a small segment of the RepRap community which is a tiny section of the world trying to decide if it is moral to circumvent a licence because it does not cover the intent in the wording. I am inclined to make up my own licence except even less people will understand where it is coming from because it is not proposed by a independant organisation.

MattMoses Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to protect the functional
> characteristics of a hardware design, your only
> options are patent or trade secret.
>
> 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.
>
> (If I'm wrong about this and someone more expert
> can correct me, please do so! )

Matt, you are correct, that is why this discussion exists, because a working licence model does not exist these near fits are attempted to be put into use and cause confusion and general irritation.

cfellows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regardless of the politics, I would like to take
> the opportunity to express a huge thanks to
> everyone who has contributed their time and effort
> to the reprap open source community, particularly
> those who helped develop and contributed to the
> software as well as those who selflessly made
> their design stl and cad files available. I think
> you have made an immeasurable contribution to the
> maker community. I, for one, am extremely
> grateful.

Chuck, thank you for that. You are not alone but you are gracious enough to say it publicly. I will second your sentiment and say thank you. I have leant a lot and will be using some of the skills in time and have offered some of my ideas already in exchange.

Senake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As the crowd funding sites and mainstream commerce
> has shown, if an individual or organisation can
> come up with an innovation or incremental
> development that fulfils a need or want, adds
> value or reduces cost - then consumers are happy
> to pay for it.
>
> If there portal - for profit, not for profit or
> consumer owned that:
>
> (1) incentivised consumers to list their everyday
> needs, less obvious wants and niggling problems.
> (2) allowed everyone to see this information -
> free of charge
> (3) enabled individuals or businesses to list
> offers to fulfil these needs, wants and eradicate
> problems.
> (4) enabled collaboration to create supply chains
> and distribution channels
> (5) that collected monies for consumer purchases
> (6) that distributed a share of those monies
> according to the wishes of everyone who conceived,
> produced and fulfilled the product they had
> bought.
> (7) that had the critical mass to make it the best
> place to buy the best products at the lowest
> prices
> (8) that allowed everyone to see the best
> solutions to date
> (9) that allowed innovators to improve on those
> 'best of breed' solutions and publish their
> improvements
> (10) that allowed consumers to buy - or not buy -
> the improvement
> (11) that turned mainstream competition into
> collaboration
> (12) that focused competition and efforts at just
> the cutting edge - saving time and money -
> reducing risk for investors - minimising waste
>
> ...then we would have a system that served
> everyone better.

Senake, your points 5 and 6 are critical to this working. Kickstarter works because they are a trusted site and collect a lot of people together. They do not promote crowd innovation in any real way, they promote crowd financing very well. The yet to be formed RepRap Foundation (like Linux Foundation) must carry the responsibility of guiding the project towards open innovation and RepRap development and proliferation of self replicators (bacteria) and also monetise what IP they can in making low cost 3D printing that cannot replicate without a host (the Foundation) much like a virus cannot multiply without a host. Cross platform symbiotic relationships is also something that can be promoted from a higher level such as laser cut 3D printers and 3D printer laser cutter parts (lichen).

An answer
I believe there is room for a Handshake Licence. A LRC [reprap.org] (Licence Required for Commercial use) that is just a sentence or two long and says you will compensate where compensation is due and closes with the words that you agree to honour it personally because you believe in high moral standards.

Make the community aware of the licence by making it short enough to be attached in full to all wiki pages and to fit on a T-shirt and be recited at the opening of hacker-space meetings.

This limit of compensation is after all the only thing that has been discussed on 100 plus posts to this and the thread below. Few of us care what happens to our ideas if we get a share of the benefits.

I will be publishing with this licence model in future. It offers me as much protection as any other method and limits rights as little as possible and is as easy to read as possible. I have created a wiki page to document the licence model.

(the other thread going has interesting stuff as well. [forums.reprap.org] )

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2013 06:25AM by KalleP.

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013

Quote
Vegasloki
It's called the Fair Share Program and it appears it's meant for the suppliers and manufacturers of Open Hardware to contribute 5% of the proceeds back into the community.

Thank you for this information and the link to the open build parts store - it looks like a great initiative. To make it market/consumer as opposed to IP rights/legally driven, we just need it to become 'the destination' for 3d printer parts, kits and finished machines. This means having the best performing products and having the volume to offer them at the most competitive prices...one should follow the other. I do also think that open or semi-open book keeping would help.

Well, I see the amount of BS on this thread shows little sign of diminishing, and I am not inclined to wade through it! People can't even quote me properly. I am not responding to things I didn't even say! They are certainly not reading properly...

However, I would like to point out the following, which a lot of people seem to be blithely ignoring:

[reprap.org]

Quote
Adrian Bowyer
My purpose in this post is to say why RepRap is, and always will be, Open Source.

I think if people don't accept that, then they should probably go somewhere else. This is after all the forum dedicated to RepRap.

Unfortunately, it is very hard to help people to find a way forward to an acceptable way to make money out of RepRap or Open Source if they don't understand and accept the basic principles of Open Source. It is pointless even arguing with those people. Open Source is not open for negotiation, and no amount of pretzel twisting around what "open" really means is going to make LRC or any other commercial license an acceptable Open Source license. Just not going to happen, you need to try a different path, otherwise you are just wasting your time.

@KalleP, I suggest you remove your page.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2013 01:36PM by bobc.

Adrian said "Open Source", not "Open Source by the definition of the OSHWA".

@bobc, you have many interesting ideas and valueable comments, but this idea of even the slightest restriction totally dooming "Open Source" is apparently carved in stone. A number of other 3D printer developers (not in this forum) have a similar attitude, still this isn't healthy.

Here's another Adrian Bowyer citation, on the same page:

Quote
Adrian Bowyer
RepRap developers retain the copyright in their own developments, and may wish to enforce licencing with more rigour than I. Go to it, I say.

- - -

What I made from this discussion so far: [reprap.org]

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Unfortunately, it is very hard to help people to find a way forward to an acceptable way to make money out of RepRap or Open Source if they don't understand and accept the basic principles of Open Source

I dont see this discussion as how to make money, but keeping and reinforcing a community, Judging from
the number of attempts to come up with an OH solution by various bodies and people, this is not yet done, it seems that OS is not really fully applicable to OH, hence the debate.

---

Random Precision

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Adrian said "Open Source", not "Open Source by the
> definition of the OSHWA".

Actually I think that *is* the type of definition that he meant, since ALL Open Source licences have the same principles, (CERN OHL, TAPR etc) and judging from his other writings, but I can't speak for him. I suppose we could ask, but I feel we would be wasting his time.

Actually you mentioned TAPR elsewhere, here is a quote from them regarding NC:

Quote

TAPR has deprecated the Noncommercial Hardware License ("NCL") and recommends against its use in new projects.

Experience has shown that the NCL does not provide the benefits it was intended to. The TAPR Open Hardware License ("OHL") is identical to the NCL but does not place any limitation on commercial use of OHL designs. We encourage you to use the Open Hardware License, as it more closely follows the Open Source software philosophy than does the NCL.

I said before, no Open Source licence allows an NC clause, and no Open Source organisation will recognise such a licence as Open Source. So if Adrian said "Open Source" I am sure that is what he meant.

Sure, if a large enough group of meat-eaters can redefine "vegetarian" as being someone who eats meat at the weekends, then we can all be vegetarian and eat meat. It just makes the definition meaningless of course.

You can be Open Source, or closed, but you can't be both. It's as meaningless as being vegetarian but eating a little bit of meat.

If you want to abandon Open Source, that is fine, there are plenty of IP protection mechanisms granted by governments that enable you do that. You don't need to create any new ones, and they won't have any legal or practical meaning anyway.

There are lots of good reasons why NC is considered bad for Open Source, and if anyone wants to they can go and read what they are. But if anyone wants to support Open Source, they won't be doing it by adopting NC.

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfortunately, it is very hard to help people
> to find a way forward to an acceptable way to make
> money out of RepRap or Open Source if they don't
> understand and accept the basic principles of Open
> Source
>
> I dont see this discussion as how to make money,
> but keeping and reinforcing a community, Judging
> from
> the number of attempts to come up with an OH
> solution by various bodies and people, this is not
> yet done, it seems that OS is not really fully
> applicable to OH, hence the debate.

By "make money" I don't mean "make obscene profits", I am referring to any form of financial remuneration for owning IP. You can call that "honest pay for day's work" or "fairly rewarding developers", but it all amounts to the same thing, i.e. rent-seeking for rights to use IP.

All Open Source Software and Hardware bodies have rejected the idea. None have accepted the reason "yes but hardware is different" as being sufficient to make an exception. In fact, it has been found that NC clauses are detrimental, and being non-discriminatory is beneficial.

Did you know that the top 10 contributors to the Linux kernel include Red Hat, Intel, Novell, IBM, Texas Instruments, Broadcom, Nokia, Samsung, Oracle and Google? There is no way they would do that if there was a NC clause in the GPL.

I get that some people think that rejecting NC is just an ideological, purist stance. It is not, it has been found to have significant practical advantages, and a better way to build community projects. On the flip side, attempts to run community NC projects consistently fail.

Open Source really is a radical way of thinking about how IP is owned and used, which most people are not used to, and uncomfortable with. However, it does actually seem to work, and we should understand how to make it work, rather than take the lazy path and bastardize it to turn it back into the closed source model we are familiar with.

Quote
Bobc
You can be Open Source, or closed, but you can't be both. It's as meaningless as being vegetarian but eating a little bit of meat.

If you want to abandon Open Source, that is fine, there are plenty of IP protection mechanisms granted by governments that enable you do that. You don't need to create any new ones, and they won't have any legal or practical meaning anyway.

There are lots of good reasons why NC is considered bad for Open Source, and if anyone wants to they can go and read what they are. But if anyone wants to support Open Source, they won't be doing it by adopting NC.

The issue with existing closed source systems - and the NC licence - is that they are "all or nothing".

Patents - especially after PCT stage - are ridiculously expensive especially for individual innovators trying to get a disruptive innovation to market against the wishes of established suppliers with deeper pockets and more influence. The NC licence - unless I have understood it wrongly - removes all financial incentive for people to get involved with a project. Pure open source also - to me - also just seems to (1) give away innovators value created to those with the best funded marketing and manufacturing (2) provides more starting points for individuals / businesses with a close source mindset to set up revenue generating blocking IP.

On the other hand, a Compopoly type structure where consumers decide on rewards for value add (for innovation conception, research and development - as well as manufacture and distribution) would retain the benefit of creating community and collaboration whilst also allowing commercial activity.

Quote
bobc
Did you know that the top 10 contributors to the Linux kernel include Red Hat, Intel, Novell, IBM, Texas Instruments, Broadcom, Nokia, Samsung, Oracle and Google? There is no way they would do that if there was a NC clause in the GPL.

...but:

(1) would any of those companies have started off (read: donated to society) such a core technology in the first place?
(2) compared to the value that they get back out of Linux with their widespread distribution networks, who puts in more - these giants or individual developers?

Don't get me wrong - I am a huge fan of Google and Samsung's forward thinking projects and products. They add a huge amount of value to millions of people's lives as does Oracle by pushing the boundaries with advanced supply chains and workflows. I just think that we need to let more people who have value to add get to market - something that can only be achieved by (1) making market access free for best practice solutions (2) financially supporting innovators and; (3) aligning investor interests with everyone else's so that there is no motive for them to use their massive wealth to block innovation.

Also...maybe we just need a new word to describe those that only eat meat on weekends. :-)

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2013 11:31PM by Senake.

Quote

Did you know that the top 10 contributors to the Linux kernel include [...]

I really had the hope it was common sense now that open hardware and open software follow partially different mechanisms. Well, apparently not. GPL is a religion and the fact companies like Google, IBM, Novell, TI, etc. are all partially closed source is totally ignored.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

bobc wrote
Open Source really is a radical way of thinking about how IP is owned and used, which most people are not used to, and uncomfortable with. However, it does actually seem to work, and we should understand how to make it work, rather than take the lazy path and bastardize it to turn it back into the closed source model we are familiar with.

Thanks for the explanation, i genuinly am trying to understand all points of view,
in your view, how do we make it work.

---

Random Precision

Senake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> (1) would any of those companies have started off
> (read: donated to society) such a core technology
> in the first place?
> (2) compared to the value that they get back out
> of Linux with their widespread distribution
> networks, who puts in more - these giants or
> individual developers?

Other than Linus and a handful of other devs those companies contributed a great deal to getting Linux into the interrprise and to the point where it is today. Novell and IBM had proprietary solutions at the time that were much more widely deployed than was Linux at the time. They saw the value in the model and invested accordingly. Those players opened the door to help make Linux what it is today in a way that individual developers could not have. Using an entitiy where the developer is paid for thier time to contribute accerates the speed at which the product is developed and adds to the depth of the feature set. I've had a few dot com ventures and during the first boom (late 90s) we used Solaris almost exclusively with a couple of Linux boxes to see how it went. Once Redhat started providing service contracts and wider support we had replaced all the Sun boxes and during the expansion replaced everything with Linux.

The Linux model is a classic example of business working with open source where everyone wins. I don't think a direct parallel is applicable to hardware as there is a substantial manufacturing compenent that software does not have to take into account.

>>bobc wrote
>>Open Source really is a radical way of thinking about how IP is owned and used, which most people are not used to, and uncomfortable with. >>However, it does actually seem to work, and we should understand how to make it work, rather than take the lazy path and bastardize it to turn >>it back into the closed source model we are familiar with.

>Thanks for the explanation, i genuinly am trying to understand all points of view,
>in your view, how do we make it work.

>Random Precision

Actualy it will work without any help. most of the arguments about open and closed are moot. Those projects that close their licence will become dead ends regardless. This doesn't mean that just adding a NC on the license will doom a project but it will (IMO) inhibit development. the only thing that will answer this discussion is time.

snip> and we should understand how to make it work

I hoped that bobc would expand a bit on this as I value his input, I get the feeling that amongst other issues
makerbot going closed source etc, the community has not yet found its place in the world, if people become
dissilusioned we could loose some people who could make a difference, I must admit that I do not feel that
everything in the garden is rosey.

---

Random Precision

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you know that the top 10 contributors to the
> Linux kernel include Red Hat, Intel, Novell, IBM,
> Texas Instruments, Broadcom, Nokia, Samsung,
> Oracle and Google? There is no way they would do
> that if there was a NC clause in the GPL.

Bobc: I wonder it the fact that they would like to see some opposition to Microsoft could have just a bit to do with it?

Bobc: If your comment about people attributing things to you and not reading properly was intended for me I am sorry my comments are not clear. I think it may have been even thought you did not address me as sometimes I have responded to your comments even thought I have quoted your comment and someone else's reply as well because they have responded before I did and leaving them in maintains context. If I have addressed you in my comment my intention has been to reply to your words, you can feel free to respond even if I seem to have made a blunder. I do struggle with the quoting system a bit as I am not exactly sure what the tagging process is. I suppose I should try and read a Phorum quoting guide at some point.

Bobc: A few others have also been curious about how you think development should be funded in the real world. A lot of people also agree with you that ideas should not 'belong' to individuals and I have no strong feelings about this having already stated that hoarding them will cause one to loose them to others who come up with it soon enough. So utopian ideals aside, what is your suggested way for a Open Hardware developer to get funded? Once a good funding model is established a licence model can be built around it.

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013

KalleP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Bobc: I wonder it the fact that they would like to
> see some opposition to Microsoft could have just a
> bit to do with it?

Most of those players weren't interested in the desktop rather the backend and they had hardware, services or applications as a primary product. At the time (late 90s) Microsoft didn't have a large footprint in Internet data centers (even today MS is largely deployed in corporate environments rather than the heavy lifting of the Internet) and the established platforms were AT&T Unix, AIX and Solaris. There were a couple of others (for example BSD) but the OS wasn't driving the deployments. The apps were. Apache, Sendmail, and BIND were driving the adoption of the Internet as the Web was gaining popularity. For all the attempts Linux never made it to the desktop in any great numbers and eventually OSX became the *nix desktop that Linux wished it were.

Quote

Those projects that close their licence will become dead ends regardless.

Notably, Makerbot doubled its printer sales since closing part of the design and is now more successful than the whole RepRap movement. 11'000 printers sold in 2012, 22'000 targeted for 2013, IIRC.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

If you want to sell separately under a different license, and you are the sole author(or have all authors on-board) you can with the GPL. That at least limits the need for CC-nc, but not sure how much.

However you cannot when the other people that contributed to the GPL work dont agree. If you upload to thingiverse, they claim that you give them license to everything. The TOS is very clear about the license you indicates is an additional license for them, that applies to others. This means you cannot take some GPL stuff, change it, and then upload to thingiverse, as you must redistribute under a license the GPL allows,usually same or later version of GPL) and thingiverse does not allow you to do this.

I wonder how it doubled its sales...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2013 10:54AM by Jasper1984.

Makerbot left 90% GPL and kept just a number of new elements closed. I wrote this note regarding the "dead end". If going closed source would mean a dead end, the whole traditional industry would have died already.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

traumflug: while makerbot may have a boost in sales over some period of time and individuals at makerbot may make insane amounts of cash over that period of time, they have already painted themselves into a corner with their software/firmware lockin issue. I am all for as many people buying makerbot's as can be made. but it comes back to something that adrian said, a reprap can make a reprap and a closed source printer can make a reprap, but the closed source printer by definition cant make its self. I know you like the NC clause for your electronics but under the full definition of that it means that anyone who uses NC components are not allowed to sell anything they produce with the NC component. I also understand you are not trying to enforce that part of the NC clause but it is present regardless of your enforcement.

RBisping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> traumflug: while makerbot may have a boost in
> sales over some period of time and individuals at
> makerbot may make insane amounts of cash over that
> period of time, they have already painted
> themselves into a corner with their
> software/firmware lockin issue. I am all for as
> many people buying makerbot's as can be made. but
> it comes back to something that adrian said, a
> reprap can make a reprap and a closed source
> printer can make a reprap, but the closed source
> printer by definition cant make its self. I know
> you like the NC clause for your electronics but
> under the full definition of that it means that
> anyone who uses NC components are not allowed to
> sell anything they produce with the NC component.
> I also understand you are not trying to enforce
> that part of the NC clause but it is present
> regardless of your enforcement.

RBisping: Not speaking for Traumflug here but I have read others trying to make this obvious misunderstanding clear. The Patent, -NC or LRC or any other licence system that is intended to restrict the sale of an idea is not intended to prevent use of the machine. These licence models would not exist if they prevented fair use. It is like saying no company can use a Microsoft product in business dealings because they are closed source and licensed or how does a heated build chamber prevent anyone from making parts in it if the printer is sold by the patent holder. The non-commercial licences are intended to prevent competitors from making the same thing as the developer designed and is selling not from use of the tool. This is horribly obvious if one sits quietly for a moment and thinks about what is intended by the licence model.

General response: The goal of the RepRap project is to make more RepRap printers. This goal is on track (perhaps slowed down here an there by developer resistance and brain drain already) and not hindered by the emergence of copy shops and manufacturers directly. It is hindered by the loss of willing development that has no remuneration. RepRap is 'evolving' all the time (no doubt part of Adrians plan) and will find a way to prevent the brain drain from effecting it. It is kind of silly to think that developers who are developing for RepRap do not have the goals of RepRap at heart. One should rather look at those who are happy to chase developers (by making is socially unacceptable to receive compensation) away from RepRap and ask if they are furthering the interest of RepRap.

Below is my light bulb moment and irrefutable evidence that my (and others) thoughts are correct about compensation.

What has happened here is that the unrewarded development will turn out to be the evolutionary dead end. A bit like a pretty flower with no nectar. The bees learn to avoid that type of flower and no amount of making pretty will help in the end, eventually an alternative project that has nectar will collect the bees. Perhaps Adrian was waiting to see when someone would spot the flaw that he deliberately left in his plan, soon it will be time to ask him and see if he had predicted this.

To ask for hardware designs for free is rather more sinister than communism as there is no reciprocal offer of receiving even to the limit of ones needs, this quid pro quo is needed for all sorts of reasons (Karmic, emotional, ethical, ecological etc.) and it has to be fair or the system will still fail. The present system will automatically move the skills out of the development pool because there is no return. As others have said one day there may be a utopia when people do not need basic living needs and it would be somewhat antisocial to restrict the distribution of ideas if you had all that you needed. The important thing to consider is that in that utopia there is no need for a GPL or CC license so the fact that those licences are promoted means that we are not yet in that utopia or people would publish exclusively anonymously. Starting from that obvious premise we look to see if we want that utopia (or any better place from where we are now) and then what licence model will get us there fastest. The GPL and CC is known to reduce disclosure and drive developers to closed source so slows us down and the resistance to trying -NC and LRC will just delay the time when a better system is discovered. It seems that a certain kind of blindness to the needs of Utopia and RepRap are causing people to restrict the coming of either.

The simple fact is if people are not prepared to work forever for nothing in the hopes they will be fed by manna from heaven then they have no moral (or other) right to ask that of anyone else until they do so themselves. Also developing anything is work for sure or it would not need doing.

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013

Quote

The important thing to consider is that in that utopia there is no need for a GPL or CC license so the fact that those licences are promoted means that we are not yet in that utopia or people would publish exclusively anonymously.

Well excepting retired people, students, plainly rich people and 'slackers'.. But it is kindah still 'wrong' to stick to those, i effect not give the other people a chance.

The problem is the reprap project and making money(well, getting together a decent living) conflict in that customers making printers from printers, or reducing vitamins doesnt yield a sale. And it kindah conflicts with open source in that releasing sources makes copycatting easier.

However some of us dont want to leave those principles, so think of business models that actually pump money into the thing, or popularize existing ones. Like gittip or bountysource.

Some open source projects have multiple companies around them. This ensures if one violates the GPL the others would (help)sue, and developping a new one is expensive, so it effectively stays that way. New companies start open source because they might be baught for having the developpers with knowledge about the whole thing already, and because forking gives a bad rap. 3d designs may lack the complexity for this?(electronics?)

However, i think volunteers smoothe the running of this, sometimes starting new things spontantiously, keeping things going a bit when companies lose interest, and keeping knowledge moving around.(providing answers on how to use software for instance) And the ideals helps running it because it might affect the decisions in companies. So think there is a place for that.

Also: if i could press a button that magically does work, but then the equivalent ammount of workforce is sacked.(but i got nothing in return) I would. I mean, basically people choose to run the system the way they would, *they* make the level of employment a problem, and *they* cant scale work hours or down as needed, they're also the ones tolerating excessive hoarding of resources. It isnt an easy issue, but it is one with which our societies are dealing really badly.

Finally, other than the exceedingly sharp U-turn they made, i am fine with makebot closed-source their own stuff. Not fine with thingiverse TOS.(I actually remember the TOS being more favorable when there was discussion about than it is now...)

I think something else that keeps the waters muddy here is that there is not just a we and me, there is also the they.

As I have said before there would be those people who would be happy to cede their bounties back to the project because they believe in RepRap or utopia but this cannot work now. Currently if one does a GPL one is giving to the we and the they and excluding the me. It should instead be a giving to the we and the me and excluding the they until the they want to be part of the we.

Thinking that before we have a utopia that the they will look out for the me or the we is delusional.

If there was a system in place that the me could help the we and the we would help the me then there would be a lot less conflict between who would like to help the RepRap project.

The bounty systems only work if there is disclosure after the fact or there is no reason for people to pay. If you disclose first so people can see if it is worth the bounty then there is no need for a bounty. NOW if you use a LRC or -NC licence to disclose then the bounty system can be used to cede the licence over to the we for further licensing or convert to a GPL/CC if the cost of development has been recovered.

Again, only those who currently work for nothing can expect it of others, this must be the starting point for the silly give for nothing argument. Retired, retrenched, student workers and donated time are not a valid example of the global workforce, for a system to work it must work for everyone in the general case first and can accommodate any amount of donations second.

Open Source Software is very different from Open Source Hardware for another reason (over the cost of developing). If another person supplies new software development then the author (or community) gains from it for no cost. With hardware having 40 different upgraded features on 27 parts of your RepRap machine available does not help the original developer very much as it COSTS him to implement the upgrades. It certainly helps the community as there is evolutionary improvement but mostly it will assist those that do no development as they have their work done for them.

I wonder which of the following people will think are required for RepRap to evolve:
1: New designs
2: Commercial mass production houses
3: Enthusiasts

Pick any two :-)

Now decide which of the following are required for desktop 3D printing to become cheap
1: New designs
2: Commercial mass production houses
3: Enthusiasts

Pick just one :-)

You will observe that there is no common interest and no need to accommodate each other in any way for the simple reason that they have different goals.

Now one must simply decide which goal one wants to promote and then pick which parties one wants to protect.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2013 10:29AM by KalleP.

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013

Well i think its okay not to share the code with others because its your idea your efforts. You can help people in making something similar but not sharing your idea or code is fair.

---

A patent is there to protect an invention, not simply an idea. click to read more

I just went to see about downloading a copy of linux and saw this not so subtle page. I was planning on buying a CD but they had no stock on the 5 and 10 packs so have to download.

[www.ubuntu.com]

They have a questionnaire on how you want your optional donation to be used.
This and the bounty system could be a start to monetising RepRap development.
With a start those who want things to grow faster would donate. Having some of the IP in the hands of developers or leased/donated to the RepRap foundation would allow them to offer it in exchange for the growth of the project. We would then have a questionnaire on how you want your donations and bounties to be used It would let the paying community decide which ideas or developers are deserving. If the developer dividends started to get interesting for those that have handed their ideas to the RepRap foundation then there would be an influx of new developers who want to get paid for their ideas. Again there is nothing stopping people giving away ideas as GPL or public domain, these monetising ideas are intended to keep valuable ideas inside the RepRap (or other community open hardware) communities without forcing them to the formal manufacturing sector.

Linux is distributed in large part these days by various commercial interests. The 'unpaid' private developers do not mind too much because they all gain from their own and others efforts because they also get everyone elses updates for the cost of a download.

There seems to be a funny resistance to acknowledging the difference between private and commercial use of ideas. The CC-NC does not prevent innovation or design scrutiny or private use it only prevents unfair reward of the designs profits to those that did not do the design (the copy shops that are not prepared to pay even the smallest licensing fees)

Open Source (free as in speech) and Free (as in beer) are not and have never been the same thing, this is why all the various licensing models exist to clarify the differences, not the similarities. Trying to ignore the difference and then complaining because it does not seem to work is futile, we need to accept the difference and then find the best way of using those differences.

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013

> The CC-NC does not prevent innovation

Yes it does. Any NC clause would make it incompatible with all Open Source licenses, so no one will touch it. The issue has been widely discussed in the Open Source community, funding development is not a unique requirement for hardware projects. Everywhere in Open Source they came to the same decision.

You are flogging a dead horse. There are several reasons why NC is bad for Open Source. It was decided a long while ago that NC clauses are not Open Source.

You are deluding yourself if you think companies will pay for "valuable" ideas in RepRap. RepRap is not rocket science, any competent team could build everything from scratch in a few months without needing to borrow anything from RepRap.

Bounties and donations are fine, but you can't add an NC clause because it then won't be Open Source!

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The CC-NC does not prevent innovation
>
> Yes it does. Any NC clause would make it
> incompatible with all Open Source licenses, so no
> one will touch it. The issue has been widely
> discussed in the Open Source community, funding
> development is not a unique requirement for
> hardware projects. Everywhere in Open Source they
> came to the same decision.
>
> You are flogging a dead horse. There are several
> reasons why NC is bad for Open Source. It was
> decided a long while ago that NC clauses are not
> Open Source.
>
> You are deluding yourself if you think companies
> will pay for "valuable" ideas in RepRap. RepRap is
> not rocket science, any competent team could build
> everything from scratch in a few months without
> needing to borrow anything from RepRap.
>
> Bounties and donations are fine, but you can't add
> an NC clause because it then won't be Open Source!


The NC clause doesn't stop people from making their own if they have the tools to do so, it just stops them from legitimately mass producing something for commercial use, not that NC clauses have stopped many people in the past anyway

if anything it can be argued that the NC clause can actually help push development faster since the author can gain access to more resources and money to develop the project further and quicker,

whats bad for opensource projects is a lack of communication and feedback to the author/maintainer that is what really when said and done hurts/hinder opensource projects, the license is almost irrelevant , 9/10 times the people with something against the NC clause in a project usually has a hidden agenda eg to sell it commercially themselves

---

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