Help Writing Article on Proprietary vs. Open Source!

Hi everyone,

I'm currently writing an article for 3D Printing Industry which will discuss the benefits of open source vs. proprietary/patented tech and I was hoping for an open source method for writing the article! Who better to ask about the benefits of open source than the RepRap community?

Would you want to help me write this article? If so, then let's just get talking about the differences of open source and proprietary platforms and the pros and cons of each. While still a bit uneducated on the topic, I'd say that I'm an open source kinda guy.

Thanks!

For the benefits of open source in general read most anything from Stallman, Raymond or Torvolds. For hardware specific thoughts Chris Anderson has some interesting takes on the benefits of open hardware. The benefits of open hardware are largely the same as OSS though the means by which they propagate is different for the obvious reasons. The benefits of open source have been touted for about 20 years now.

Thanks for the info! Actually, I wanted the article itself to be sort of open source, so I was hoping to get a range of RepRappers' opinions on the topic. What do YOU see are the benefits of open source hardware and software?

RealityIncCo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm currently writing an article for 3D Printing
> Industry which will discuss the benefits of open
> source vs. proprietary/patented tech and I was
> hoping for an open source method for writing the
> article! Who better to ask about the benefits of
> open source than the RepRap community?

Unless that is meant to be ironic, I guess you haven't been following the recent debate?

If you're assuming - a) the RepRap community is all about Open Source and fully committed to it, or b) the RepRap community has a full understanding of the pros and cons of Open Source vs proprietary (software or hardware) and there is a general consensus of opinion - I think you would be wrong on both counts.

I think RepRappers old and new are still grappling with what Open Source actually means, and how it applies.

You may also need to clarify what you mean by "open source". There is a spectrum from proprietary through to copyleft. I use the capitalized "Open Source" to mean an Open Source license model approved by OSI,FSF,OSHW,OHANDA etc.

> Would you want to help me write this article? If
> so, then let's just get talking about the
> differences of open source and proprietary
> platforms and the pros and cons of each. While
> still a bit uneducated on the topic, I'd say that
> I'm an open source kinda guy.

It's a big topic. Pros and cons are quite subjective, perhaps even completely subjective. Whose viewpoint is being considered, the user, the developer, the company, the community? Given the number of articles already out there on similar lines, I am not sure what would be added to the debate from the point of view of someone who has just done a crash course in order to write an article (no offense intended).

Proprietary models should be well understood, assuming you are versed in the rules of copyright, patent, trademarks, trade secrets etc. Open Source is relatively new, and not well understood, even by the people who say they support it. At least, read everything written by Richard Stallman on the subject, Philosophy of the GNU Project. Now, not everyone agrees with RMS, some people say he goes "too far", and some would say his vision of Freedom is too idealistic and not for everyone. However, he pretty much invented the concept, and the best person to articulate his vision of what Free/Open Source means.

There is the additional question that is more relevant to RepRap, which is "what is the nature of Free/Open Source Hardware?" I think FOSH is on a learning curve some years behind FOSS, and while I would assume the same principles of FOSS should apply to FOSH, not everyone agrees with that. One thing I just realised is that I come from a software background and I think I understand FOSS fairly well, but many RepRappers are from hardware backgrounds or general tinkerers who haven't needed to understand Open Source before, and are experiencing a bit of culture shock.

RealityIncCo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the info! Actually, I wanted the
> article itself to be sort of open source, so I was
> hoping to get a range of RepRappers' opinions on
> the topic.

I think you mean crowdsourced, not open source. Not the same thing.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2013 04:30PM by bobc.

[forums.reprap.org]

Oh god! You're right. I did mean crowdsourced. I guess I'm still trying to find my footing with how to approach this topic.

Thanks for your input, Bob. Much appreciated!

I guess my reasoning behind *crowd sourcing* this article was that, because I am still learning about it, I would turn to some folks who may (or may not) have thought about it more. In a discussion with the community, we'd have a number of different opinions emerge, including the informed and uniformed, which would highlight the complexities of the topic.

So, I didn't expect anyone to be an expert in here. In fact, I expected some people to be new to the various ideas behind various open source ideas.

The pros and cons would, then, be completely subjective, which, I guess is sort of the point.

Basically, because the topic is so huge, it's difficult to approach. At 3DPI, we get experts to give their expert opinions on things, have had patent lawyers write posts about patent law, etc. This article was meant to deal with it in more of a grass roots, crowd sourced sort of way.

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RealityIncCo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm currently writing an article for 3D
> Printing
> > Industry which will discuss the benefits of
> open
> > source vs. proprietary/patented tech and I was
> > hoping for an open source method for writing
> the
> > article! Who better to ask about the benefits
> of
> > open source than the RepRap community?
>
> Unless that is meant to be ironic, I guess you
> haven't been following the recent debate?
>
> If you're assuming - a) the RepRap community is
> all about Open Source and fully committed to it,
> or b) the RepRap community has a full
> understanding of the pros and cons of Open Source
> vs proprietary (software or hardware) and there is
> a general consensus of opinion - I think you would
> be wrong on both counts.
>
> I think RepRappers old and new are still grappling
> with what Open Source actually means, and how it
> applies.
>
> You may also need to clarify what you mean by
> "open source". There is a spectrum from
> proprietary through to copyleft. I use the
> capitalized "Open Source" to mean an Open Source
> license model approved by OSI,FSF,OSHW,OHANDA
> etc.
>
> > Would you want to help me write this article?
> If
> > so, then let's just get talking about the
> > differences of open source and proprietary
> > platforms and the pros and cons of each. While
> > still a bit uneducated on the topic, I'd say
> that
> > I'm an open source kinda guy.
>
> It's a big topic. Pros and cons are quite
> subjective, perhaps even completely subjective.
> Whose viewpoint is being considered, the user, the
> developer, the company, the community? Given the
> number of articles already out there on similar
> lines, I am not sure what would be added to the
> debate from the point of view of someone who has
> just done a crash course in order to write an
> article (no offense intended).
>
> Proprietary models should be well understood,
> assuming you are versed in the rules of copyright,
> patent, trademarks, trade secrets etc. Open Source
> is relatively new, and not well understood, even
> by the people who say they support it. At least,
> read everything written by Richard Stallman on the
> subject,
> Philosophy of
> the GNU Project. Now, not everyone agrees
> with RMS, some people say he goes "too far", and
> some would say his vision of Freedom is too
> idealistic and not for everyone. However, he
> pretty much invented the concept, and the best
> person to articulate his vision of what Free/Open
> Source means.
>
> There is the additional question that is more
> relevant to RepRap, which is "what is the nature
> of Free/Open Source Hardware?" I think FOSH is on
> a learning curve some years behind FOSS, and while
> I would assume the same principles of FOSS should
> apply to FOSH, not everyone agrees with that. One
> thing I just realised is that I come from a
> software background and I think I understand FOSS
> fairly well, but many RepRappers are from hardware
> backgrounds or general tinkerers who haven't
> needed to understand Open Source before, and are
> experiencing a bit of culture shock.

RealityIncCo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I guess my reasoning behind *crowd sourcing* this
> article was that, because I am still learning
> about it, I would turn to some folks who may (or
> may not) have thought about it more. In a
> discussion with the community, we'd have a number
> of different opinions emerge, including the
> informed and uniformed, which would highlight the
> complexities of the topic.


I think the assumption that the license of the project or the concept of open source development is off the mark in that most that are building printers want to print. Those that don't develop by and large aren't concerned with licensing or the "inside baseball" aspects of open source. You are dealing with a culture of makers, hackers, tinkers and the esoteric nature of your subject matter doesn't interest many. It's also not very realistic to expect an outpouring of ideas in a short period of time. Those that are able or willing to respond may have other commitments or just simply not be interested in participating in something with someone which they know nothing about. The advantages to an open source model are well documented. I don't know that here you'll find anyone that can offer anything much different.

vegasloki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RealityIncCo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I guess my reasoning behind *crowd sourcing*
> this
> > article was that, because I am still learning
> > about it, I would turn to some folks who may
> (or
> > may not) have thought about it more. In a
> > discussion with the community, we'd have a
> number
> > of different opinions emerge, including the
> > informed and uniformed, which would highlight
> the
> > complexities of the topic.
>
>
> I think the assumption that the license of the
> project or the concept of open source development
> is off the mark in that most that are building
> printers want to print. Those that don't develop
> by and large aren't concerned with licensing or
> the "inside baseball" aspects of open source. You
> are dealing with a culture of makers, hackers,
> tinkers and the esoteric nature of your subject
> matter doesn't interest many. It's also not very
> realistic to expect an outpouring of ideas in a
> short period of time. Those that are able or
> willing to respond may have other commitments or
> just simply not be interested in participating in
> something with someone which they know nothing
> about. The advantages to an open source model
> are well documented. I don't know that here
> you'll find anyone that can offer anything much
> different.

I don't know that that's true. In covering a number of machines that have sprung from these forums for 3DPI, I've seen a lot of people who are interested in the issue of licensing with regards to their projects. Mostly, it's in favor of the open source nature of RepRap. When projects like the iRapid come out and attempt to profit off of the work of the RepRap community, the community responds quite strongly. And because RepRap was founded on principles of open source, there are definitely people in the community who come at the project with a strong opinion about the commercialization of RepRaps, how to do it or whether or not to do it. The idea doesn't seem all that esoteric to me.

I defintely understand the time it takes to respond to a thread and in no way expect this to happen over night. I have also communicated with various members of the community outside of the forums regarding their individual projects, so I'm not a complete stranger to everyone here. Just thought this would be a fun way to write a story with diverse points of view from people who are directly involved with open source design.

RealityIncCo, Did you read the thread in the link that ddseeker provided? Here it is again just in case: An internal struggle between the "we" and the "me" on the community and IP. I don't know what you expect to cover in this thread that hasn't already been beaten to death in that one. Do you have any specific questions?

For me personally, I'm a little fatigued of all the bickering about licenses. I think it's holding everyone back. I am looking forward to ignoring the debate in the future and focusing on technical things.

You can lead a horse to water, but hell if I am going to do their homework for them...

RealityIncCo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know that that's true. In covering a
> number of machines that have sprung from these
> forums for 3DPI, I've seen a lot of people who are
> interested in the issue of licensing with regards
> to their projects. Mostly, it's in favor of the
> open source nature of RepRap. When projects
> [url=http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/09/06/the-
> young-and-the-repraps-the-irapid-3d-printer-and-re
> prap-com/]like the iRapid[/url] come out and
> attempt to profit off of the work of the RepRap
> community, the community responds quite strongly.
> And because RepRap was founded on principles of
> open source, there are definitely people in the
> community who come at the project with a strong
> opinion about the commercialization of RepRaps,
> how to do it or whether or not to do it. The idea
> doesn't seem all that esoteric to me.

Of course Open Source allows commercialization, so its not correct to say "because RepRap was founded on principles of open source...". Many people think that Open Source does or should prevent commercialization, but it doesn't.

I guess that is the #1 Myth about Open Source, people think it is like a patent, i.e. it allows people to publish ideas for "public good" but prevents others making money out of it. In fact, it specifically allows anyone to make money out of your Open Sourced IP without having to pay you a cent.

What is really bad is not commercialization, but grabbing exclusive rights to public domain stuff. That was the real beef with iRapid, they tried grabbing a generic reprap domain name and trademarking it.

I think there is a false dichotomy set up by the "proprietary vs open source" framing, as though there is a best answer. It's a bit like "cats vs dogs". Unless you set a context, it just goes in circles.

Personally, I think cats are way better than dogs, regardless of context

Actually, I didn't see that link! Thanks for pointing it out. I missed I think because it sort of blended into the background. I'll check it out and see what I can make of it. If I have specific questions for the community, I'll get back to you.

Thanks so much for your help!

Thanks Matt and ddseeker! The thread you linked to is great!

Also, sorry for missing it in the first place and wasting anyone's time. Thanks so much for giving me the time of day in the first place!

I for one can't shut up about open source design. My wife cringes a little as soon as I start my ramp up. I invite the chance to ramble on about it.

What are the benefits?

I am idealistic and want to hasten the coming of the singularity. Seriously, I feel that non-physical items should be free. The practical reason is controlling the flow of ideas and data is problematic. The idealistic reason is that we will increase our collective knowledge at a faster rate. The emotional reason is I have more fun just designing without worrying about who gets the credit.

As you probably realize, this topic gets philosophical in a hurry. There is also a whole spectrum between free open source and non-free closed source. I try not to get too preachy about what others should and shouldn't do. I wish more people would go open source but I try not to have an over developed sense of entitlement. (Makerbot is a good example. They built their business with the help of the open source community. They are now not as open as they once were. However, all of their past contributions haven't disappeared. If they don't want to remain open then that is up to them. Some view it as a betrayal.)

I am going free open source because I think I can form a valid business model around it. I get to make money and get to feel idealistic at the same time. I won't get into specifics but I haven't come across anything that I personally think couldn't be open sourced in a way that would allow it to remain lucrative. (Money is the main reason people claim something should be closed source and/or patented. I would challenge anyone to come up with a scenario that requires a closed approach to be profitable.) In many situation, the business model would have to change and the margin may be smaller. Services and goods will always be needed.

Before I go too deep, I will leave you with this. You CAN NOT design any new product without violating half a dozen patents. (Some patents are so hopelessly general that they might as well say "a device that does what the user wants, doesn't do what the user wants, or some combination of the two." ) Whether you patent something or open source license it, you can be sued. Suing open source projects is currently slightly taboo. That by itself isn't a good enough reason to go open source but it is a nice side benefit. I just hope the patent trolls will wait until I am established.