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

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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

True, I have never argued otherwise.

> 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,

Yes, that is the argument put forward, but it simply doesn't work. No one is going to pay you royalties. If a company want to sell something, they will just create their own design and sell it. At the same time, you are cut off from Open Source. An NC design can't derive from any Open Source work, nor can any Open Source work derive from an NC project. If an NC project has multiple collaboarators, how would you decide who gets paid royalties?

The whole thing is minefield. It does work to fund development, and it does not work to encourage collaborative development. The Open Source movement has looked at this in detail and rejected it.

Experience shows that NC projects do not attract development funding, but Open Source projects do.

>
> 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

That sounds likes a completely made up figure and a thinly veiled ad homininem attack, which I would find offensive, and is the reverse of reality. IME, 9/10 times people who are arguing against NC do so because they care about Open Source. In contrast, 10/10 people who argue for NC do so because they want to sell it commercially.

I know it seems too hard for some poeple to get their brain around, but you can be in favour of Open Source and making commercial profits.

Quote

It was decided a long while ago that NC clauses are not Open Source.

Please stop writing such nonsense. There is no such decision. There can't be one, because there is no institution which would have the authority to do such a decision for everyone.

Quote

You are flogging a dead horse.

Remarkably, this horse is more alive than ever. I see more and more developers resleasing closed source or under a NC licence these days.

If you don't like this, feel free to compete against them, like in showing up with better designs. It's a free world, even regarding licence choice.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Ladies and gentlemen,

As you can see from my post count I am new to reprap.org and indeed am still in the process of building my very first reprap (a Huxley).

It may be worth noting that, whilst it may feel like this is a close community forum, many people who may be interested in reprap will also read the threads. Hostility and aggression such as has been displayed over the last five pages does not present a good image to newcomers and may well help to discourage new developers.

That said, the last few posters seem to be talking around each other.

For those from a more software focussed background Open Source has a very specific meaning. Certainly the "no commercial use" clauses would not only be considered non-compliant, but also probably non-desirable. The biggest Open Source software projects are massively commercial and that is essential to their survival.

However, though a number of organisations (CERN, TAPRA, OSHWA) have tried to define Open Source for hardware it is clear that the terminology and community are still rather in the early days. With the greater costs and difficulties involved in upgrading and distributing hardware the result will no doubt be very different to software.

The free distribution of ideas that could otherwise be monetised in a more traditional sense has been an issue for Open Source projects for decades. A number of solutions have been found for software, many of which could work for hardware. Corporate sponsorship of projects, bounties, sale of anciliary services (like support) and straight up requests for donations have kept many projects going. It is particularly difficult for new or small projects, but there are still options. Crowdfunding is a new one that provides a lot of potential for hardware, where the costs can be shared by many enthusiasts and then the results released for free. And don't forget that many small Open Source software projects are used as offerings for CVs to get a related job.

People are certainly free to offer there own ideas under whatever licence they want. Any options for sharing are good for the community. Is it a good idea in the long run to exclude commercial entities from participating by a "no commercial use" clause? I don't think so, but we are still very early days in the Open Hardware world and things are still evolving. Certainly for Open Hardware to take off like Open Source software then commercial involvement is essential, though it may be a long time before that happens to any appreciable degree.

The last point I'd like to make (in my admittedly somewhat over-long inaugural post) is that it isn't just money you have to gain from a bright idea. You're also gaining (and quite possibly building off) the ideas of everyone else in the community who has released them for free. Many people would think that should be payment enough.

jac

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

Quote

It was decided a long while ago that NC
> clauses are not Open Source.

>
> Please stop writing such nonsense. There is no
> such decision. There can't be one, because there
> is no institution which would have the authority
> to do such a decision for everyone.

Yeah, there is a lot of nonsense being written. Please will you stop writing your nonsense?

[opensource.org]

Quote

Can Open Source software be used for commercial purposes?

Absolutely. All Open Source software can be used for commercial purpose; the Open Source Definition guarantees this. You can even sell Open Source software.

However, note that commercial is not the same as proprietary. If you receive software under an Open Source license, you can always use that software for commercial purposes, but that doesn't always mean you can place further restrictions on people who receive the software from you. In particular, so-called copyleft-style Open Source licenses require that when you distribute the software, you do so under the same license you received it under.

Can I call my program "Open Source" even if I don't use an approved license?
Please don't do that. If you call it "Open Source" without using an approved license, you will confuse people. This is not merely a theoretical concern — we have seen this confusion happen in the past, and it's part of the reason we have a formal license approval process. See also our page on license proliferation for why this is a problem.

You will find similar text at ALL Open Source organizations, incuding ALL Open Source Hardware organizations.

So yeah, no one has a trademark on the word vegetarian. You can call yourself a vegetarian and eat meat, if you want. But it is nonsense. You could also say you want to support vegetarianism, but to do that you need to eat meat. That is also nonsense.

Not only we flogging a dead horse here, there is a lot of King Canute going on.

>
>

Quote

You are flogging a dead horse.

>
> Remarkably, this horse is more alive than ever. I
> see more and more developers resleasing closed
> source or under a NC licence these days.

Hmm, I don't see anything like that. In fact, I see more and more people releasing as Open Source.

> If you don't like this, feel free to compete
> against them, like in showing up with better
> designs. It's a free world, even regarding licence
> choice.

I am not the one trying to redefine Open Source as something it is not. We are looking to support cooperation, not competition. If YOU don't like Open Source, why don't you do something else?

If you do not agree to Open Source principles, is it too hard to just say "I don't support Open Source?"

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2013 02:35PM by bobc.

jac Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However, though a number of organisations (CERN,
> TAPRA, OSHWA) have tried to define Open Source for
> hardware it is clear that the terminology and
> community are still rather in the early days. With
> the greater costs and difficulties involved in
> upgrading and distributing hardware the result
> will no doubt be very different to software.

On the subject of NC, there is little uncertainty, and common agreement. All Open Source Hardware organizations support the principle of freedom of use, including commercial use.

I also disagree on the general characterisation that software projects are cheap to develop, and hardware ones are expensive. Software projects do cost money to develop and run. There is also confusion between the cost of development, and the cost of manufacture. Small hardware projects need not be expensive to design and prototype.

Manufacturing and distribution is obviously quite different between software and hardware. That is actually where you need commercial partners, who will manufacture and can make a profit by providing that service.

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jac Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > However, though a number of organisations
> (CERN,
> > TAPRA, OSHWA) have tried to define Open Source
> for
> > hardware it is clear that the terminology and
> > community are still rather in the early days.
> With
> > the greater costs and difficulties involved in
> > upgrading and distributing hardware the result
> > will no doubt be very different to software.
>
> On the subject of NC, there is little uncertainty,
> and common agreement. All Open Source Hardware
> organizations support the principle of freedom of
> use, including commercial use.
>
> I also disagree on the general characterisation
> that software projects are cheap to develop, and
> hardware ones are expensive. Software projects do
> cost money to develop and run. There is also
> confusion between the cost of development, and the
> cost of manufacture. Small hardware projects need
> not be expensive to design and prototype.
>
> Manufacturing and distribution is obviously quite
> different between software and hardware. That is
> actually where you need commercial partners, who
> will manufacture and can make a profit by
> providing that service.


define "small hardware projects"

---

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

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> define "small hardware projects"

Yeah, that's a fair question. I would break it down into 2 questions, what could one design with a median budget, and what would one want to design?

The answer depends of course, but let's say your budget for hobby activities is $3000. You already have a PC, and use free design software. You have access to basic workshop hand tools, but nothing fancy like lathe, mill etc. If you need to build say 2 prototypes, then the target cost would need to be $750, assuming a design takes 6 months to complete. That's enough to design and test a basic 3d printer. If the design cycle was 12 months, then you could spend up to $1500 per prototype.

If you got together with 3 friends, you might have a budget of $12,000 per year, which could do quite a lot.

Confining the scope to typical consumers, the most expensive things people buy are a house, followed by a car. People certainly do design their own houses, and occasionally self build. People also make kit cars, or do customisation. Conventional construction is pretty standard, but you could prototype novel techniques such as concrete printing. You probably don't need to build a whole house. Designing a car is somewhat more ambitious, if for example you want to design a new type of engine. That would require some proper machine tools, material costs, and facilities. There are Open Source car projects.

If you wanted to set your sights higher, to industrial scale projects, such as a power station, I think that would be too expensive, even with a ZX80. There is certainly scope for advances in power generation, considering Peak Oil and global warming. That sort of project would surely be bigger than one person could manage anyway, so you would need to collaborate.

Other projects involving novel technology such as metal printing, are a bit borderline, I think. Handling of high energies, large items, or below micro-scale are all quite expensive to do, usually requiring specialist facilities. You can get a $600 Open Source PCR machine though [openpcr.org]

So I think a "small project" could include the majority of domestic products, and some low end industrial products.

Quote

is it too hard to just say "I don't support Open Source?"

I do support open (source) hardware.

Quote

I also disagree on the general characterisation that software projects are cheap to develop, and hardware ones are expensive.

Nobody said this. Manufacturing costs make the difference and they can't be discussed way.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > define "small hardware projects"
>
> Yeah, that's a fair question. I would break it
> down into 2 questions, what could one design with
> a median budget, and what would one want to
> design?
>
> The answer depends of course, but let's say your
> budget for hobby activities is $3000. You already
> have a PC, and use free design software. You have
> access to basic workshop hand tools, but nothing
> fancy like lathe, mill etc. If you need to build
> say 2 prototypes, then the target cost would need
> to be $750, assuming a design takes 6 months to
> complete. That's enough to design and test a basic
> 3d printer. If the design cycle was 12 months,
> then you could spend up to $1500 per prototype.
>
> If you got together with 3 friends, you might have
> a budget of $12,000 per year, which could do quite
> a lot.
>
> Confining the scope to typical consumers, the most
> expensive things people buy are a house, followed
> by a car. People certainly do design their own
> houses, and occasionally self build. People also
> make kit cars, or do customisation. Conventional
> construction is pretty standard, but you could
> prototype novel techniques such as concrete
> printing. You probably don't need to build a whole
> house. Designing a car is somewhat more ambitious,
> if for example you want to design a new type of
> engine. That would require some proper machine
> tools, material costs, and facilities. There are
> Open Source car projects.
>
> If you wanted to set your sights higher, to
> industrial scale projects, such as a power
> station, I think that would be too expensive, even
> with a ZX80. There is certainly scope for advances
> in power generation, considering Peak Oil and
> global warming. That sort of project would surely
> be bigger than one person could manage anyway, so
> you would need to collaborate.
>
> Other projects involving novel technology such as
> metal printing, are a bit borderline, I think.
> Handling of high energies, large items, or below
> micro-scale are all quite expensive to do, usually
> requiring specialist facilities. You can get a
> $600 Open Source PCR machine though
> [openpcr.org]
>
> So I think a "small project" could include the
> majority of domestic products, and some low end
> industrial products.


I know those figures are just examples however they are quite a way off the mark depending on what is being developed,

one of the biggest problems particularly is that the average user isn't exposed as much to what goes on behind the scenes and what the real cost of development really is and exactly what some developers do behind the scenes, hence don't understand why nc licenses are chosen

my main reason for the NC license on my hotend is simply because i don't want some clone shop making them and not supporting them or worse producing duds i've put more money into the project than i should have to have that happen, eg look at the clone situation with the jheads the drawings are up on the wiki for the world to see and the clone shops don't even look at them and produce bad clones giving the jhead a bad name,

in saying that though i do have the drawings for my hotend up the wiki so just about any clone shop could clone them at any point but it's not as likely as the prusa nozzle or the E3D hotend getting cloned as my hotend doesn't have the same kind of following as the others and is built for a slightly different market

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2013 05:08AM by thejollygrimreaper.

---

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

bobc Wrote:
> On the subject of NC, there is little uncertainty,
> and common agreement. All Open Source Hardware
> organizations support the principle of freedom of
> use, including commercial use.

Bobc: That is just the ones that you know to exist now so saying it will remain so always for some fundamental reason is not supportable and pointless using some consensus opinion to describe 'natural' laws.

> I also disagree on the general characterisation
> that software projects are cheap to develop, and
> hardware ones are expensive. Software projects do
> cost money to develop and run. There is also
> confusion between the cost of development, and the
> cost of manufacture. Small hardware projects need
> not be expensive to design and prototype.

Bobc; You need to address the reason for this discussion and not the wallpaper. The development costs may sometimes be greater in time for software but most often it is free time the developer did not have to trade for food or rent and then they get by with secondary benefits. In the cases when it is not free the developers try to crowd fund or beg for donations which is not an option open to everyone and much software has a cost component to the distribution or documentation that is used to recover some costs from the users by becoming a manufacturer. This usually needs an organisation and less often these days with BitTorrent and PrintOnDemand books but it drives the developer to spend less time developing because he has to become a publisher and/or distributor.

The reason for this discussion is to find a way to remunerate the developers for developing, not to drive them into publishing, manufacturing, marketing, investment seeking or other activities they are ill suited for.

> Manufacturing and distribution is obviously quite
> different between software and hardware. That is
> actually where you need commercial partners, who
> will manufacture and can make a profit by
> providing that service.

Bobc: After a few enquiring requests from at least 3 people you have each time failed to respond to requests for how you would propose a way to fund a developer of RepRap designs so the project could grow faster and the developers would stay with the project. I have stated that we need a pre-utopian mechanism so we can strive towards utopia which is a noble goal. Many people have proposed ideas but none of them will work with an open source licence model because payment is not forthcoming if the results are published first and crowd funding is not something that will work with a private developer who does not want the stress of delivery times. The bounty system has some merit but also does not prevent abuse of the designs by others who reap the profits and give nothing back.

If I want a commercial partner then I have to use a LRC or -NC licence or go closed source or they will not invest as anyone else has the same design with an unrestricted open source licence.

You have a very strange way of systematically shooting down other proposals without proposing a better solution. You push an ideological view (actually many of them, as if you have a list) that is merely some group consensus as if it is a ethical imperative. You insist on absolutes which cannot be achieved and are sometimes even undesirable. In effect your techniques border on systematic propaganda and I struggle to remain civil because it comes across as a veiled troll on so many levels. I want to offer you the benefit of the doubt (and usually do) but your ignoring of legitimate questions just to bring in irrelevant new hurdles makes me wary.

---

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

jac Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ladies and gentlemen,
>
> As you can see from my post count I am new to
> reprap.org

jac: Welcome, I like the fact that you have read much of the thread before commenting and have added a new voice to the discussion. I am also still in the part collections stage but have good prospects, other priorities intrude sometimes.

> It may be worth noting that, whilst it may feel
> like this is a close community forum, many people
> who may be interested in reprap will also read the
> threads. Hostility and aggression such as has been
> displayed over the last five pages does not
> present a good image to newcomers and may well
> help to discourage new developers.

I think you may be right and some will be put off, I personally believe most people will not bother to read the open/licensed threads so it kind of protects itself from passing strangers. However if you have a clever way of hiding the dirty laundry until we get it all clean and smelling fresh I would genuinely like to hear. I leave some controversial things unsaid that need saying because this is a public forum and expect others do as well sometimes. That said these thoughts need to be discussed. The RepRap project is valuable enough to keep people interested in spite of the difficulties so I think it is proper to find solutions to the problems that may be hindering the progress. Just turning our backs on the issues will not change things for the better, it merely results in entrenched stagnation.

> The free distribution of ideas that could
> otherwise be monetised in a more traditional sense
> has been an issue for Open Source projects for
> decades. A number of solutions have been found for
> software, many of which could work for hardware.
> Corporate sponsorship of projects, bounties, sale
> of anciliary services (like support) and straight
> up requests for donations have kept many projects
> going. It is particularly difficult for new or
> small projects, but there are still options.
> Crowdfunding is a new one that provides a lot of
> potential for hardware, where the costs can be
> shared by many enthusiasts and then the results
> released for free. And don't forget that many
> small Open Source software projects are used as
> offerings for CVs to get a related job.

jac: None of these are likely to remunerate a design developer who has published under an unrestricted GPL licence.

> People are certainly free to offer there own ideas
> under whatever licence they want. Any options for

jac: It seems that in the Open Hardware community they are not free to do so without censure.

> The last point I'd like to make (in my admittedly
> somewhat over-long inaugural post) is that it
> isn't just money you have to gain from a bright
> idea. You're also gaining (and quite possibly
> building off) the ideas of everyone else in the
> community who has released them for free. Many
> people would think that should be payment enough.

jac: Notice you use the word payment in a way to negate the act of payment. Incidentally do you personally think it should be payment enough?

Ideas are funny things. They are available to many people but most make no use of them. As I like ideas I grab them when they come to me and work with them. This work is the value in the idea, not the stray idea floating in the Akashic record or the group consciousness. If now my work is trivialised even to the extreme of calling it without value then I have no reason to share my nurtured idea without some return. I can simply become one of the masses of takers and use what I can and work out myself what I cannot. This is not the way to develop fast. Generally a good new idea is of some value, as such it should be afforded respect so more good ideas arrive.

The objection to GPL disclosure is to prevent other commercial players from making the profits from your labours instead of you, not the preventing the benefiting of individuals.

However RepRap is not a machine it is a concept. It is a concept that is not yet fully formed and never will be. One part of the concept relates to sharing of ideas. The forcing of people not to share ideas is not in line with the RepRap concept yet this is exactly what some will propose simply because it looks like such a simple idea to force labour (idea nurturing) without compensation.

Remember communism had similar goals but also the benefit of at least receiving a minimum back according to ones needs. A forced GPL disclosure is worse than communism which we know does not work in the long run. Communism is an idea that can only work in groups that share the same goals and once a group is bigger than a small commune or family their goals have to be divergent (unless the speakers drone conformist propaganda all day and the people partially forget). One of my goals if to further RepRap for intellectual reasons (ideological and humanitarian reasons are also valid) and one sided communism will not bring the goals of total strangers in line with my goal of furthering RepRap so I would be remiss in promoting that solution.

Now imagine instead a means that could move us to a utopia where people are nice to each other. Is making people into takers going to get us there or is making people into reciprocators going to get us there? I think the latter has a better chance of breeding people that will give. To this end I believe we need to teach and encourage people to give for what they receive so they will become used to giving. If everyone is a well programmed taker then there will be societal collapse.

The hardware and software discussions are safe from much of the controversy so venturing into the philosophical threads has it's dangers. Sometimes they border on what might be considered political comment on tamer forums and be sanctioned. The RepRap concept however is more than the machine and as such needs to consider the philosophical issues as well.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2013 12:33PM by KalleP.

---

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

As I said before, I am more than happy to share with fellow tinkeres and experimenters, but not with someone who just wants to make money.
therefore, this may be a naive idea, but why not have an area of the wiki for NC, clearly stated as such, developers can choose to post their work
in the gpl or nc area.
I am the first to admit that I have not thought this through fully, and it may not work.

P.S, some people like to post ideas to stop patents, others just don't want their ideas used commercially.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2013 03:35PM by johnrpm.

---

Random Precision

Quote

As I said before, I am more than happy to share with fellow tinkeres and experimenters, but not with someone who just wants to make money.

To achieve this, you'd likely have to get rid of all the shops and their owners, first. The sole purpose of running a shop is to make money. Regardless wether it's open, closed, mixed, shaked or stirred source hardware.

Who'd be left after such an exodus?

Also, sharing sources is an invitation to the money-makers and copy-shops, so you'd also have to go entirely closed source as well. A NC-clause would (try to) achieve exactly the goal stated above, but remarkably, you apparently don't want this either.

No offense. I just start to enjoy the discussion.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Our views of the reprap community must be very different, or is it just me who is not running a shop?.

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

Quote

As I said before, I am more than happy to
> share with fellow tinkeres and experimenters, but
> not with someone who just wants to make
> money.

>
> To achieve this, you'd likely have to get rid of
> all the shops and their owners, first. The sole
> purpose of running a shop is to make money.
> Regardless wether it's open, closed, mixed, shaked
> or stirred source hardware.
>
> Who'd be left after such an exodus?
>
> Also, sharing sources is an invitation to the
> money-makers and copy-shops, so you'd also have to
> go entirely closed source as well. A NC-clause
> would (try to) achieve exactly the goal stated
> above, but remarkably, you apparently don't want
> this either.
>
> No offense. I just start to enjoy the discussion.

---

Random Precision

Quote

is it just me who is not running a shop?

My estimate is, you're one of very few. No objection with this, I'd like to do development, only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10% RepRap. My choice was the former.

If you look at all the recent printer models, there's almost everywhere a shop behind it. Designs sold commercially are way more widespread than those not. That's why I think there are much better ways to encourage community development than to try to pick out and flame away a few developers which diverge slightly from the open source ideal in the try to better match the real world. If you want to build one of my designs, go ahead, I'll even help you, like I helped many which didn't buy a single part here.

Doing more replicable designs is much more promising than being a licence nazi. There is no need for a shop if you can make a copy on the kitchen desk in an hour. There's no need for dedicated RepRap shops when it's a snap to collect all the required parts at the local hardware store. There's no need for kits if people just have to click through a link list in the wiki. Lots of opportunities to tone down commercial activities in this community.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

> You're also gaining (and quite possibly building off) the ideas of everyone else in the community who has released them for free. Many people would think that should be payment enough.

Maybe if you have a business that already earns you a living. You cant eat that. I dont think it is desirable to have it as a wholly 'next to income source' affair.

@Kalle: earlier you talked about the 'me','we' and 'they'. You already talked about the latter being something to become part of the 'we'. However, i still feel there is some view as them being adversaries of some sort. I do not think so, largely a matter of education and change of culture/scene.

For instance the idea of 'takers' and 'breeders'. Say in the future you have some society with plenty. If you dont take control of the genepool, 'breeders' will eventually take over, and (barring insanely unlikely new physics)no-matter what technology we will get, the breeders will eventually make everything dog-eat-dog again due to lack of resources.(Due to exponential growth, it is always 'soon') There is simply no good outcome possible without birth control and gene-pool control. In the long term (10k year) some acceptable way of doing both is needed.

More generally it looks to me like a no-win situation trying to make things work so that 'takers cant take', and things have to evolve towards productive people. They basically need to be convinced, and their environment has promote acting in nice ways.. And we see a wide range of behaviors in different places in the world, there is room to do this.

Challenging the idea that useful actions require a job challenges how our societies work. Especially if that causes people to lose their jobs, or if suddenly, things you had to pay for, like designs, suddenly appear for free. It shows how 'jobs' are largely constructs people make up to earn a living, which effectively controls them, not some kind of 'division of labor' thing. People just offering stuff for free helps the community and ecosystem along, at least some of the companies make some kind of living for a person.

The gift economy we're vaguely alluring too isnt communism. And the communisms that failed were specific beasts. In particular freedom of speech was muzzled, and the whole thing was forced into operating as a large entity, instead of the smaller communities. (largely due to the Paris Commune, which was easily defeated due to its lack of organization) This is 100 years ago, technology has progressed, and even if we have to do things by hand, we can look it up on the internet how to do it, we dont have to emulate our father. We dont try to 'seize the means of production', but instead we try to make our own, show that things can be run that way.(and of course the reprap project is far from alone in this) We still have to figure the larger scale organization problem, but we're not near there yet.

Back to business models: Say someone has a nice design and hides all his designs to get an advantage, he might find that it doesnt matter for most, and others will go to a competitor. Many designs can just be eyed and replicated, copyright doesnt protect against that, you basically need a patent, which is either expensive or not applicable.(and even more closed than closed source; agressive about it..) Often the problem isnt even designing stuff, it is getting customers, and being closed source wont help there.

Maybe this issue shouldnt be approached in the abstract so much. If you have a particular business model, what does it matter if it is open source, and if it is disadvantageous, how do you deal/cope with it?

My estimate is, you're one of very few. No objection with this, I'd like to do development, only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10% RepRap. My choice was the former.

Well this confirms I am naive, I thought this was a place to share ideas and create something, not a collection of business people, I suppose I had better look
for a community that fits my naive ideals.

---

Random Precision

Quote

I suppose I had better look for a community that fits my naive ideals.

How about improving this one? All the means required are here, you "just" have to show your ideals actually work better than the commercial-centric approach.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My estimate is, you're one of very few. No
> objection with this, I'd like to do development,
> only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to
> do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10%
> RepRap. My choice was the former.
>
> Well this confirms I am naive, I thought this was
> a place to share ideas and create something, not a
> collection of business people, I suppose I had
> better look
> for a community that fits my naive ideals.


if the people who are around selling components for these printers through their online stores weren't around we would very likely be still using the old ptfe and brass barrel hot-ends most of us started with, and our print quality certainly wouldn't rival/exceed some commercial closed source 3d printers,

the reality is the reprap movement needs some of these shops just as much as these shops needs the reprap movement, nothing about that is going to change and if anything only get worse especially with the western world economy in the state it is in.

the reprap movement has when you sit back and have a good long hard look at it gone down some very interesting yet parallel paths, eg higher and higher print quality , more ability to self replicate , ease of construction and cost reduction
given the progress made in the last 5 years and where we are now in terms of hardware software and firmware , a lot of thanks should go to the owners of some of these stores as if it weren't for them and their cash-flow to meet high MOQ's there is no way we would be this far ahead.

the irony here is that the found himself has his own online store http://www.reprappro.com/

reprap is about build self replicating printers not eliminating capitalism .....

---

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

... my first impression at the beginning was, that Adrian was much too 'liberal' with OS vs. comercialisation ... but now I have the same view - it's a sort of 'breeding ecology', when a critical limit is reached and the interest won't decay too fast.

So with the mainstream-hype and the growing interest around 3D-printing (and all the maturing concepts) there is (and even wasn't any) no chance for a closed OS- or 'pure RepRap'-comunity ... the decentral and open structure of the 'team' and the forums was one of the first decision, that leads to our actual situation.

Other, more 'focussed' communities (like fab@home), didn't get this momentum and interest and starved away after some years

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

How about improving this one? All the means required are here, you "just" have to show your ideals actually work better than the commercial-centric approach.

No point trying, as you already stated that reprap is mainly shop keepers

To achieve this, you'd likely have to get rid of all the shops and their owners, first. The sole purpose of running a shop is to make money. Regardless wether it's open, closed, mixed, shaked or stirred source hardware.

Who'd be left after such an exodus?

Now I know why the WEALTH WITHOUT MONEY loggo was dropped.

---

Random Precision

I dont get it, having a shop doesnt have to hurt other goals at all. I mean it can turn people into 'just business' people, but it rather far from has to.. And 'shops' is also a way of 'replication' of the reprap, it doesnt have to be people printing the parts for new people and getting the vitamins to make a second printer for a friend.

And i dont really care about the self-replicating part, just about increasing ability without increasing dependence too much, and that naturally leads to seeking printable designs.

The only think that bothers me with the shops is that it might be duplication of effort, (imagined)long toes and perhaps oppertunity loss.. (to not say it again.)

i don't think the claim that reprap is mainly shop keepers is even remotely valid, i would estimate may 100 users of the nearly 5000 active users actually have some commercial interest behind the scenes and even then a good percentage of them aren't really all that big anyway

---

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

You can't make money selling printers to yourself. There has to be many more people using them than selling them.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2013 05:47PM by iquizzle.

I am replying to a few message here, I hope I have the quotes all correctly attributed.

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about improving this one? All the means
> required are here, you "just" have to show your
> ideals actually work better than the
> commercial-centric approach.
>
> No point trying, as you already stated that reprap
> is mainly shop keepers

johnrpm: I think you are being wilfully naive. The comment about most being shopkeepers was almost certainly referring to those participating in this thread there are obviously the large majority who are not. I am not a shopkeeper but might have to become one if the community cannot see any other way to acknowledge innovation and development work. Others here are also not shop keepers but interested parties just starting out. The reason there are many shop keepers on this thread is because it is relevant to those that plan to be part of the RepRap economy. Until utopia is realised one has to interact with the economy. If that economy is sustainable then the growth of RepRap will be maximised.

> To achieve this, you'd likely have to get rid
> of all the shops and their owners, first. The sole
> purpose of running a shop is to make money.
> Regardless wether it's open, closed, mixed, shaked
> or stirred source hardware.
>
> Who'd be left after such an exodus?

johnrpm: Again I thinkk you have taken this out of context. I read this to mean that many of those who had projects on the wiki (or perhaps commenting on the forums as well) had commercial interests, this may be 0.1 to 1% of the active RepRap owner base so there would be lots of people left, all those that do not earn anything from it and hence would be volunteers and donators only, all those that respect their own time enough to give it value would just have been chased away. As mentioned by others most of the popular designs are commercialised, sometimes by the developers and sometimes by other enteprising people. This is what allows for the growth of RepRap, mass production is very, very much faster than DIY manufacture until you have hundreds of thousands of people who can source vitamins faster than a manufacturer. It is counter productive to force everyone to become a purchasing agent so that it is a DIY purchase of 5 stepper motors instead of having one purchasing agent with a manufacturing team that buys 1000 motors and retails them.

> Now I know why the WEALTH WITHOUT MONEY loggo was dropped.

johnrpm: I was not around in those days so please explain to me why it happened, I am curious. I have suspicions that the concept was a bit too radical for mainstream capitalists to be comfortable with and the repeated and regular controversy was counterproductive. From what I have heard most of those who said it was not viable have left and gone on to other things or opened up shops which keeps proving the point that the pure open source hardware ideal has not and cannot work yet.

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > My estimate is, you're one of very few. No
> > objection with this, I'd like to do development,
> > only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to
> > do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10%
> > RepRap. My choice was the former.
>
> Well this confirms I am naive, I thought this was
> a place to share ideas and create something, not a
> collection of business people, I suppose I had
> better look
> for a community that fits my naive ideals.

johnrpm: Here you re not being naive, it is exactly such a place. The real and pressing issue is indeed how to make sure the ideas remain shared so something can be created. You need to move to the place you are most comfortable with so you can gain the most personal reward for your time. I and others have a interest in making the RepRap concept/community a place where we can feel comfortable with sharing out ideas while seeing that it will keep growing and not stagnating due to a forced brain drain. Instead of leaving the community or trying to force others to do something our way we are hoping to find a consensus or a middle ground that can achieve the long term goals of RepRap and still keep the majority (especially the productive part) of the community comfortable.

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I said before, I am more than happy to share
> with fellow tinkeres and experimenters, but not
> with someone who just wants to make money.
> therefore, this may be a naive idea, but why not
> have an area of the wiki for NC, clearly stated as
> such, developers can choose to post their work
> in the gpl or nc area.
> I am the first to admit that I have not thought
> this through fully, and it may not work.
>
> P.S, some people like to post ideas to stop
> patents, others just don't want their ideas used
> commercially.

johnrpm: From this it looks like you are having exactly the same dilemma as all the others who would like to limit the abuse of their ideas. That is exactly what this thread is discussing and you are unlikely to find a better platform to air your views. The wiki already has a place on the development pages to specify the licence model. The only problem is that there is a portion of the community that believes only GPL should be allowed in that variable field, almost as if it should not be an editable.

VDX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... my first impression at the beginning was, that
> Adrian was much too 'liberal' with OS vs.
> comercialisation ... but now I have the same view
> - it's a sort of 'breeding ecology', when a
> critical limit is reached and the interest won't
> decay too fast.
>
> So with the mainstream-hype and the growing
> interest around 3D-printing (and all the maturing
> concepts) there is (and even wasn't any) no chance
> for a closed OS- or 'pure RepRap'-comunity ... the
> decentral and open structure of the 'team' and the
> forums was one of the first decision, that leads
> to our actual situation.
>
> Other, more 'focussed' communities (like
> fab@home), didn't get this momentum and interest
> and starved away after some years

VDX: I believe that either accidentally or intentionally Adrian set the stage for a evolving concept/system that has done things that he was not expecting. The original ideals may have been simpler and the current and future direction has been unexpected at times. I think that it will be a while before he wants to admit to what his higgen goals may or may not have been. Perhaps it was just the most elaborate pyramid scheme in history to date, the only difference is that in this one you enable all your levels to buy out from the puramid and get value for their investment if they work to completion of their printer. It is radical in may ways that were not possible before and similar models may not be easy to find in future. The community involvement has been essential to the growth but so has the proliferation of producers.

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doing more replicable designs is much more
> promising than being a licence nazi. There is no
> need for a shop if you can make a copy on the
> kitchen desk in an hour. There's no need for
> dedicated RepRap shops when it's a snap to collect
> all the required parts at the local hardware
> store. There's no need for kits if people just
> have to click through a link list in the wiki.
> Lots of opportunities to tone down commercial
> activities in this community.

Markus: I think you are in the small group who push to realise the RepRap ideal of making them at home more than most. Yet you are also in that group who is criticised for wanting to earn a living from it. Those who buy from the copy shops do not reward development, they reward capital and marketing skills. You share all your source and all who want to can copy it as desired. Your software is all open source because that model is a good one yet people like to say you are not open source just because you are pro earning a living alongside making the most open designs that are available.

I take my hat off to you and know your suffering even though I am not a RepRap manufacturer at this time. I have lots of ideas unpublished but they are my pearls while I still hold them. If the LRC model works I will share more. I have shared lots of my ideas under GPL (and in the forums) and will share more but some ideas are worth fighting for.

Jasper1984 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Kalle: earlier you talked about the 'me','we' and
> 'they'. You already talked about the latter being
> something to become part of the 'we'. However, i
> still feel there is some view as them being
> adversaries of some sort. I do not think so,
> largely a matter of education and change of
> culture/scene.

Jasper1984: The 'they' are those that do not provide some lasting input to the RepRap community but gain something from it. Copy shops should not be totally vilified as they do put more printers in the field which grows interest and breeding capacity but they generally do not give back in development or idea sharing, instead they guard any new developments they make pretty closely to maintain their commercial advantage, as a business should. The only failing was that they had no barriers put on their source of designs so they have no commercial reason to compensate the developer or the community. In effect they assist only as a side effect.

> For instance the idea of 'takers' and 'breeders'.
> Say in the future you have some society with
> plenty. If you dont take control of the genepool,
> 'breeders' will eventually take over, and (barring
> insanely unlikely new physics)no-matter what
> technology we will get, the breeders will
> eventually make everything dog-eat-dog again due
> to lack of resources.(Due to exponential growth,
> it is always 'soon') There is simply no good
> outcome possible without birth control and
> gene-pool control. In the long term (10k year)
> some acceptable way of doing both is needed.

Jasper1984: The barrier to entry in breeding has been the cost of feeding yourself and your family. If this is completely removed then the 'breeders' will be advantaged.

> The gift economy we're vaguely alluring too isnt
> communism. And the communisms that failed were
> specific beasts. In particular freedom of speech
> was muzzled, and the whole thing was forced into
> operating as a large entity, instead of the
> smaller communities. (largely due to the
> P
> aris Commune, which was easily defeated due
> to its lack of organization) This is 100 years
> ago, technology has progressed, and even if we
> have to do things by hand, we can look it up on
> the internet how to do it, we dont have to emulate
> our father. We dont try to 'seize the means of
> production', but instead we try to make our own,
> show that things can be run that way.(and of
> course the reprap project is far from alone in
> this) We still have to figure the larger scale
> organization problem, but we're not near there
> yet.

Jasper1984: I agree a gift economy is not communism. However I stand by my statement that a forced gift economy is worse than communism.

> > Back to business models: Say someone has a nice
> design and hides all his designs to get an
> advantage, he might find that it doesnt matter for
> most, and others will go to a competitor. Many
> designs can just be eyed and replicated, copyright
> doesnt protect against that, you basically need a
> patent, which is either expensive or not
> applicable.(and even more closed than closed
> source; agressive about it..) Often the problem
> isnt even designing stuff, it is getting
> customers, and being closed source wont help
> there.

Jasper1984: If I had to hazard a guess I think well over 90% of all home 3D printers are mass produced, of the remainder perhaps less than 10% had the open source or the licence model scrutinised in any way. Most people do not care either way so having a restrictive licence will not affect most people, it is the few who want to do the right thing by making their rights clear who are being pressurised by an even smaller minority who are championing the rights of a vanishingly small portion who insists on freedoms that are not required, are not sustainable, are not morally defensible.

> Maybe this issue shouldnt be approached in the
> abstract so much. If you have a particular
> business model, what does it matter if it is open
> source, and if it is disadvantageous, how do you
> deal/cope with it?

Jasper1984: I quite agree, action is required, I did this with creating the LRC licence model to test. If it gets tested and points our way to a better system it will have served its purpose. The idea that only one licence model is allowed is where we are getting stuck especially if it has to be GPL which is known not to work.

My thoughts keep coming back to Ayn Rand novels I read years ago, 'The Fountainhead' and 'Atlas Shrugged' come to mind, they are rather radical and somewhat slow reading but can make one think about these matters. The basic tenet is that if one does not respect individual efforts then those efforts will be withdrawn. Being older now this seems so obvious but when I was young and naive and not having worked I was not aware that all effort was to be valued.

---

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

Kalle,

The list I gave do indeed provide remuneration for designers of parts. Set up a kickstarter and you even get the money before you spend any time working on the design. Using your experience as evidence to get a new job also helps you financially, in an indirect way. Donation buttons bring in as much money as people are willing to give.

Of course you aren't being paid royalties for each item made. If that is the way "Open source" hardware is to work it would be indistinguishable from what we do now.

If everyone refuses to release their super secret ideas so they can make a few pennies themselves (and let's face it, there is not much profit in RepRap hotends) then the community collapses. We've already all gained from the freely released designs of existing printers and components. As with software, if no-one is contributing to development the project will cease or else become closed source and we are back to the bog standard "I sell it, you buy it" world. My understanding was that the Open Source hardware movement was about taking some of the lessons from software and extending them. Afterall, Linus Torvalds doesn't have the time to write a complete OS on his own that could run the internet, but once people (and companies) see the benefits they get from everyone else's work it makes more sense to collaborate.

Yes there will be freeloaders. I for example might never contribute anything constructive to the RepRap project. However, I hope that with hardware we see the same benefits as we do with software. Even with freeloaders giving nothing back, the product made as a result of collaboration is orders of magnitude beyond what is made with a purely competitive attitude.

Are Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds billionaires like Bill Gates?
No.

Is linux better than MS Windows?
Well, one of those runs TV boxes, CT scanners, nuclear power stations, mobile phones and basically the entire internet. The other lets grandma email you pictures of cats.

jac

This post was a genuine attempt for a simple solution to a complex problem, I tihink if some thought was put into it, it could
work, but this has largely been ignored.

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I said before, I am more than happy to share
> with fellow tinkeres and experimenters, but not
> with someone who just wants to make money.
> therefore, this may be a naive idea, but why not
> have an area of the wiki for NC, clearly stated as
> such, developers can choose to post their work
> in the gpl or nc area.
> I am the first to admit that I have not thought
> this through fully, and it may not work.
>
> P.S, some people like to post ideas to stop
> patents, others just don't want their ideas used
> commercially.


I was shocked to hear from a member of the core team, [reprap.org]

@johnrpm
is it just me who is not running a shop?

@Traumflug
My estimate is, you're one of very few. No objection with this, I'd like to do development, only, too. But I had to decide wether I wanted to do RepRap stuff 100% or another job and only 10% RepRap. My choice was the former.

I have tried to listen to all sides of the debate, but can not see a solution to this problem for the forseeable future, there are as many opinions
as people, so achieving a consensus will be very difficult, but I wish you all luck, please leave me out of the debate, thanks.

---

Random Precision

Sorry to have you shocked, @johnrpm. This wasn't my intention.

Regarding your suggested solution: I find it generally questionable to part an open community into different classes. All developments have advantages and disadvantages, you'd have to have hundreds of such classes next to classes of licencing. I'm also not enthusiastic about this "Core RepRap Developer" class, IMHO it shouldn't exist. I'm on this page because I help administering the server, not to elevate me against other RepRappers (as you can see, the core dev page redirects to the admin page).

With everything handled in the same class, developments (hopefully) shine by their qualities, only. That's the goal, isn't it? And I'm not sure wether NC licences win over GPL or the opposite happens or both continue to be choosen for the next decade. Let's find out by not stigmatising one or the other.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the irony here is that the founder himself has his
> own online store
> http://www.reprappr
> o.com/
>
> reprap is about build self replicating printers
> not eliminating capitalism .....

And still people do not understand that Open Source does not mean you can't make money! RepRapPro may make money by selling atoms, but the IP is all released Open Source (AFAIK). There is absolutely no inconsistency with the original goals, nor any irony.

I guess that we have spent so much time with concepts such as capitalism and communism, that when something comes along which is quite orthogonal we struggle to find a way to think about it. But you can't pigeonhole Open Source into any existing categories, it is a new category "Open Source", and requires a new way of thinking.

I admit it took me several years to get my brain around the concept of Open Source, and I realised a lot of what I thought I knew about IP was wrong. I'm not a lawyer, and don't wish to be one!

Unfortunately, when there is such widespread misunderstanding, and even fundamental disagreement in the RepRap core team, there is probably not much hope for everyone else to find a consensus that works.

One leaf I take from Adrian Bowyer's book, is that it is better to just get on with doing it, rather than talking about it!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2013 03:43PM by bobc.

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the irony here is that the founder himself has
> his
> > own online store
> >
> http://www.reprappr
>
> > o.com/
> >
> > reprap is about build self replicating printers
> > not eliminating capitalism .....
>
> And still people do not understand that
> Open Source does not mean you can't make money!
> RepRapPro may make money by selling atoms, but the
> IP is all released Open Source (AFAIK). There is
> absolutely no inconsistency with the original
> goals, nor any irony.
>
> I guess that we have spent so much time with
> concepts such as capitalism and communism, that
> when something comes along which is quite
> orthogonal we struggle to find a way to think
> about it. But you can't pigeonhole Open Source
> into any existing categories, it is a new category
> "Open Source", and requires a new way of
> thinking.
>
> I admit it took me several years to get my brain
> around the concept of Open Source, and I realised
> a lot of what I thought I knew about IP was wrong.
> I'm not a lawyer, and don't wish to be one!
>
> Unfortunately, when there is such widespread
> misunderstanding, and even fundamental
> disagreement in the RepRap core team, there is
> probably not much hope for everyone else to find a
> consensus that works.
>
> One leaf I take from Adrian Bowyer's book, is that
> it is better to just get on with doing it, rather
> than talking about it!

the irony i refer to in that post is relative to the quote and the opinion of the person being quoted,

i personally don't care if people build a buisnesses for themselves, it's how they build their buisness that matters and conduct themselves that matters

---

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