What does a good copy cat look like?

There are discussions about how the evil copy cats hurt the reprap community. Then there are developers that sell kits or vitamins. Then there are users that start into to community after buying a kit and starting to modify it.
Especially at the beginning of a reprap carrier I think many people are not up to the task of building their reprap completely on their own. So the ability to buy kits enables some people to join the community.

So shops selling kits are good ?

Some developers also use shops to finance their development.

So selling kits without giving back to the community is the problem?

But not everybody who is a good developer is a good salesman. And not every good salesman is a good developer. So the salesman has a problem. He has no way of contributing back to the community, or does he? So what does the community expect from a salesman that wants to help reprap by selling kits to people to help grow the community?

If there are "evil copy cats" how would the good ones look like? Or are shops bad no matter what?

Create more value than you capture.

I am not sure why RepRap struggles with these sort of questions. In other communities, such as CNC, laser show etc, they do not seem to have these problems. There are people who make and sell stuff, and it is properly seen as a service to the community. No one complains if they are getting a cheap product.

Perhaps it is because of the Open Source roots of RepRap, and a lot of people seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what Open Source is about. For reason, people seem to assume there should be an an extra layer of "community ethics" when it comes to making Open Source products, and some cases rules that are opposite to what the Open Source license allows! Of course, selling Open Hardware has a problem, in that because no one has exclusive rights to the IP, they are forced to margins of the lowest cost producer. This is generally good for the consumer, but doesn't allow people in high-cost countries to compete. But Open Source is not concerned with creating a level playing for producers, it is designed to create a level playing field for consumers.

I think Phillip Torrone did a great disservice by writing about "unwritten rules" of Open Hardware (an oxymoron of course), analyzed here [wyolum.com]. Torrone was really talking about some gentleman's rules for a cosy cartel of OSH producers, not about the spirit of Open Source.

People find it hard to separate the concepts of money and IP, because for so long owning IP = making money. It doesn't make any sense to talk about good or evil copy cats. Open Source is designed to be freely copied. It's a failure if it is not. An evil Open Source copy cat would be someone who makes modifications and refuses to share them, or patents Open Source ideas and prevents others using them. But merely selling Open Source designs cheaply is not evil, in fact it is desirable. An Open Source community must embrace that idea, or they are not really an Open Source community.

I am afraid to say all this confusion creates a very bad effect on the community, no one is really sure whether they should be following the rules of Open Source, some unwritten "community" rules, or resort back to closed source model.

Quote
bobc
People find it hard to separate the concepts of money and IP, because for so long owning IP = making money.

Making money is a neccessity in our economy, accordingly creating IP costs money and can't be separated from it. That's not a matter of traditions, but a matter of the way our world works.

If there is no business model around Open Source to compensate for these costs, Open Source can't happen. And the model of relying on unpaid hobbyists is such a model, too, because it requires designers to have other means of income.

Quote
bobc
But merely selling Open Source designs cheaply is not evil

If they'd sell actually cheaply, I'd agree. But we mostly see the prices of closed source.

Quote
JustAnotherOne
He has no way of contributing back to the community, or does he?

Of course there are ways to contribute back. The most simple way is to give money straight to the developers. You can also call out prizes, fund developments and do similar things.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug
If there is no business model around Open Source to compensate for these costs, Open Source can't happen. And the model of relying on unpaid hobbyists is such a model, too, because it requires designers to have other means of income.

Unpaid hobbyists is per definition(unpaid!) not a business model !
I think bobc has some valid points. If we look at open source software then we see that the big successful projects have business models around them. Either a company in the background that sells support to companies or the distributors that sell support and contribute patches.

Quote
bobc
An evil Open Source copy cat would be someone who makes modifications and refuses to share them, or patents Open Source ideas and prevents others using them.

Following this logic the shops that do their own development and release their modifications only partly or after they finished development and after starting to sell it are the evil copycats, right?

What I can see is that Open Hardware development is harder to do for the unpaid hobbyist as he needs a higher investment to start development than the Open Source developer. The Open Source developer invests some energy cost caused by his computer and his time. The Open Hardware developer has to invest in materials and prototype manufacturing.
So having a business model around like in the successful Open Source projects could be an even bigger benefit for an Open Hardware community. So why does reprap not have such a business model ?

Quote
Traumflug
If they'd sell actually cheaply, I'd agree. But we mostly see the prices of closed source.

If the community tells everybody to not buy there, then how should these shop reach high numbers of sales. And without many sales the price can't go down. And having more than one shop would also help,..

Quote
Traumflug
Of course there are ways to contribute back. The most simple way is to give money straight to the developers. You can also call out prizes, fund developments and do similar things.

If I want to give money "straight to the developers" can you give me the bank account number for that?

And why should I do that anyway? What does the community give to those copy shops that contribute back? (I'm not a bad person, but having a good reason to give money to the community would help giving more money,..)

to me, this looks like a copy cat:
[www.kickstarter.com]

it's just a copy of the mendel parts orca printer.
i would not care if they do this, if they at least state that on their front page, what they don't do.

possenier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to me, this looks like a copy cat:
> [www.kickstarter.com]
> -color-material-3d-filament-printer-made-in-canad?
> ref=live
>
> it's just a copy of the mendel parts orca
> printer.
> i would not care if they do this, if they at least
> state that on their front page, what they don't
> do.

I'm not familiar with the Orca printer but I just did a quick search and found it on Ord Solution's page. Looks like they sell Orca v0.43 kits and this model on Kickstarter will replace it. The only difference I see is that the Cartesian configuration was changed from a X Head, YZ Bed to a XZ Head, Y Bed while retaining the Orca frame. Maybe OS just like the Orca frame but with a Mendel style configuration? What's wrong with using mendel parts on a different machine? Is burrowing different features into one machine a bad thing?

no, borrowing things is no problem.
but at least be so honest to say so when confronted with it, and not as they said in there comments that it's a complete different thing.
by the way, both are X head, YZ bed type printers, so that also didn't change.
it's like saying prusa on your metal frame, but changing the fond and then saying it's something new.

So this is the Orca v0.43
[www.ordsolutions.com]
This is definitely a X Head, YZ configuration

The one on kickstarter, the bed is fixed to the bottom base. You can clearly see the two smooth rods fastened to the base. Even if they do admit it looks like an Orca, does it still make it a copy cat design? Just looks like they modified it to something they believed is a superior setup.

I mean, you can say the same thing with the Prusa I3. It's very similar to the Mendel90 but with a different name and metal frame.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2013 02:10PM by gyronictonic.

the one on kickstarter does not have the bed fixed, look at the video where you see it move down.
really, it's a standard mendel-parts orca, but with a slightly bigger bed. thats the only difference.
the other difference will be the 5 extruders, but they don't have that yet.

as for the prusa 3 and the mendel90 i do think there is a lot different.
they ended up looking about the same, but if you see both the prototypes they where both different.
but anyways, both came from the same thing.

of the ORD i really don't see the difference to claim it a "new" or "better" printer since the "better" thing doesn't exist yet.

oooooh you're right, I see it now. That makes a lot more sense and I see your point now. I was going about on their CAD drawings, had me thinking otherwise.