A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker

A lot of these arguments boil down to semantics, i.e. what exactly does one mean by "Open Source". Here is a proposition:

"Open source hardware" has a fairly well established definition, so let us reserve "True Open Source" for companies that fully comply with that definition.

What Ultimaker is doing is not true "open source", but it is much friendlier than what other companies (Makerbot, for example) are doing. So let us call Ultimaker "Open Friendly". Adrian Bowyer suggested (somewhat jokingly, in this thread) the term "sustaina-source"

Quote
Adrian Bowyer (in September 2012)
What this whole debate has highlighted for me is that perhaps “open source” is too misleading to slap onto a product or business ethos. Perhaps a new term should be coined to specifically remind people that such-a-business supports open source to the full extent permissible whilst retaining a sustainable business. Say… sustaina-source… (apologies)

So,
Let us call Lulzbot and companies like it "True Open Source".
Let us call Ultimaker and companies like it "Open Friendly".
Let us praise them and get on with our lives.

Oh, and let us call Makerbot and companies like it "Traditional".

Quote
MattMoses
A lot of these arguments boil down to semantics, i.e. what exactly does one mean by "Open Source". Here is a proposition:

"Open source hardware" has a fairly well established definition, so let us reserve "True Open Source" for companies that fully comply with that definition.

What Ultimaker is doing is not true "open source", but it is much friendlier than what other companies (Makerbot, for example) are doing. So let us call Ultimaker "Open Friendly". Adrian Bowyer suggested (somewhat jokingly, in this thread) the term "sustaina-source"

Quote
Adrian Bowyer (in September 2012)
What this whole debate has highlighted for me is that perhaps “open source” is too misleading to slap onto a product or business ethos. Perhaps a new term should be coined to specifically remind people that such-a-business supports open source to the full extent permissible whilst retaining a sustainable business. Say… sustaina-source… (apologies)

So,
Let us call Lulzbot and companies like it "True Open Source".
Let us call Ultimaker and companies like it "Open Friendly".
Let us praise them and get on with our lives.

Oh, and let us call Makerbot and companies like it "Traditional".

with a view to ending the argument and possibly with something to show for it I propose two new simple license types: FAS-NC ("Freely available source - non commercial) and FAS-AU ("Freely available source - any use")

---

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

Quote
jebba
How much did you get for your -NC board?

It's doing very well, thank you. The biggest threat aren't technical issues but actually these evangelists trying to turn down everything not religiously pure (in their view). Accordingly, about all customers are those not going to IRC and you don't see them. I do, because they often send me email.

And I consider Gen7 to be the design with the most DIY copies. Made by people which actually live the open source ideas and prefer to make things over buying them from a shop. More than a dozen derivates show the open source ideas work better here than for the more popular designs.

BTW., the E3D you take as an example is -NC, too.

Quote
jebba

Quote
Traumflug

Quote
jebba
A -NC license isn't open source

This is something I consider to be cynism, at least in this context. It means hiding designs is prefered over publishing them.

Did I say that?

It's the only conclusion one can draw from your words.

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
I propose two new simple license types: FAS-NC ("Freely available source - non commercial) and FAS-AU ("Freely available source - any use")

Add FAS-NY ("Freely Avaliable Source - Not Yet")

Quote
Adrian Bowyer (in September 2012)
What this whole debate has highlighted for me is that perhaps “open source” is too misleading to slap onto a product or business ethos. Perhaps a new term should be coined to specifically remind people that such-a-business supports open source to the full extent permissible whilst retaining a sustainable business. Say… sustaina-source… (apologies)

Adrian is a wise man. He sees the misalignment between preaching total freedom and maintaining a business.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
I propose two new simple license types: FAS-NC ("Freely available source - non commercial) and FAS-AU ("Freely available source - any use")

This is a nice idea perhaps, but how is this any different from options already available with creative commons licenses?

The problem with creative commons licenses (or any conceivable new licenses) is that they can't cover the functional aspects of a piece of hardware. There is a lot of interesting information about this is an article called What's the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing by Michael Weinberg. Here is an excerpt from the section called "Does Licensing Matter?"

Quote
Michael Weinberg
from What's the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing

One way to avoid some of these thorny copyright questions is by distributing objects and designs with permissive licenses such as those provided by Creative Commons. Unfortunately this solution can break down when applied to physical objects beyond the scope of copyright.

To put it simply, you cannot license what you do not have. A license is a conditional permission to use: I grant you the right to make copies of my work as long as you comply with these conditions. If you do not comply with the conditions, then your copies are in violation of my copyright.

However, if there is no copyright, there is no need for permission, and no way to enforce the terms. A license without an underlying right is legally meaningless. For example, adding a Creative Commons license to a door hinge (a useful object) grants you no legally binding control over anyone who uses that hinge. If someone copies the hinge without complying with the license, there is nothing you can do because the copies do not infringe on any rights.

@MattMoses: Does this sum it up.

Document vs. Object:

Without a patent (object/method/design) a CC, OS, or OH does not prevent any one from manufacturing what has been described, or gives rights to the creator to stop the manufacturer of described objects.

NonCommercial (NC) or NoDerivatives (ND) licenses prevent selling, modifying, or requires attribution of a copyright document, not the manufacture of objects.

CC licenses are operative only when applied to material in which a copyright exists,
[wiki.creativecommons.org]

To use the term Open Source the document (not an object) must go through an approval process.

[creativecommons.org]
[opensource.org]
[www.ohwr.org]

Quote
A2
Does this sum it up.

I wouldn't say Intellectual Property law can be "summed up". It's very complicated.

Quote
A2
CC licenses are operative only when applied to material in which a copyright exists

As far as I know, yes.

Quote
A2
NonCommercial (NC) or NoDerivatives (ND) licenses prevent selling, modifying, or requires attribution of a copyright document, not the manufacture of objects.

Not necessarily, because an object can be copyrighted too (a sculpture or a work of art, for example). There is a distinction between "Creative Objects" and "Useful Objects", with creative objects being protected by copyright and useful objects not. Michael Weinberg's article explains this in detail, with many examples:

Quote
Michael Weinberg
from What's the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing?

The ends of the copyright/patent spectrum are fairly easy to describe. Abstract sculpture? Protected by copyright. Breakthrough new hinge? Protected by patent. But what about things in the middle? What about things that are kind of artistic and kind of useful? More specifically, what about things that have some artistic features and some useful features? Can they be protected by copyright?

The law addresses these questions with a seemingly straightforward process called severability. If an object has both artistic and useful features, the copyright does not extend to protect the entire thing. Instead, copyright protection is limited to the artistic features that can stand alone – assuming there are copyrightable features that can stand alone. It protects those features by “severing” them from the rest of the object. If the artistic and functional features cannot be separated, the law errs on the side of keeping useful objects available to everyone and excludes the object from copyright protection altogether.

Quote
A2
To use the term Open Source the document (not an object) must go through an approval process.

Clearly this is not so! If there was an approval process, we wouldn't get into these arguments all the time!

Quote
A2
Without a patent (object/method/design) a CC, OS, or OH does not prevent any one from manufacturing what has been described, or gives rights to the creator to stop the manufacturer of described objects.

Yes, this is pretty well known and also yes, it makes all the discussions about GPL vs. CC vs. -NC a bit moot from the legal standpoint. Such licences aren't enforceable.

Nevetheless, they express an intention. And as you can see nicely in the RepRap community, it matters quite a bit how well a licence choice is accepted (or not).

Attempts towards enforceable hardware licences exist. The most known ones are the CERN OHL and the TAPR OHL. They're not based on copyright, but on plain contracts. Unfortunately, neither of these two has doing business in mind. Likely, because for their creators money doesn't matter (TAPR are hobbyists, CERN is paid from public sources).

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Tks MattMoses for your copyright explanation.

Design patent
A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility.

Utility patents
US utility patents protect the functionality of a given item.

Copyright
The copyrighted artistic expression must either have no substantial practical utility (e.g. a statue) or be separable from the useful substrate (e.g. picture on a coffee mug).

Trademark and trade dress
Trademarks and trade dress are used to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of a manufactured object.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Software vs. Products

Quote
Traumflug
Attempts towards enforceable hardware licences exist. The most known ones are the CERN OHL and the TAPR OHL. They're not based on copyright, but on plain contracts. Unfortunately, neither of these two has doing business in mind. Likely, because for their creators money doesn't matter (TAPR are hobbyists, CERN is paid from public sources).

So it appears to me that most of the Reprap products are using the wrong licence, e.g.:
Open Source Initiative, (Software, Documents). [opensource.org]
Creative Commons, (Software, Documents). [creativecommons.org]
GNU GPL, General Public License, (Software, Documents). [gnu.org]

Reprap products should be using one of these licences:
CERN OPEN HARDWARE LICENCE, (Products). [www.ohwr.org]
TAPR Open Hardware License, (Products) [www.tapr.org]

The OHL addresses unique issues involved in the creation of tangible, physical things,...
[www.tapr.org]

hardware design documentation, and the manufacture and distribution of products.
[www.ohwr.org]

@Traumflug: what one is more appropriate for Reprap products.
(TAPR are hobbyists, CERN is paid from public sources)

@Traumflug: Can you further explain what you mean.
Unfortunately, neither of these two has doing business in mind.

Is there a Reprap wiki guide of how to choose a licence.

not sure but feel free to make a page if you cannot find one,

---

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

Quote
Traumflug
The question is, why do you do things open? Very likely not to give the copiers a headstart over your own production. Instead I think you do it to be attractive in a market where the "open source" tag counts very much. As such, it's a marketing move.

I don't think that's a fair representation of what they are doing. Just because it doesn't fit your definition of what open source is doesn't mean what they are doing is marketing only. Lulzbot provides a value add by manufacturing and supporting the design in addition to making it available for others to build. Whether or not you agree (and it's fine if you don't) isn't relevant to those that want to go that route and buy something from Lulzbot.

By and large the majority of people buying these machines or building them aren't concerned first and foremost with an open hardware label. The marketing value you are projecting on the projects in reality is very little. Many if not most of these people care about getting a machine for the least amount of money with the greatest ease of use/assembly. To them it's not about supporting an open eco-sphere in the terms of a maker culture (though some are) it's about building machines that are more affordable than what they can buy. I bring that into the discussion to point out that any perception of a benefit of claiming to be open source is exaggerated. While the merits of open source and the infrastructure that supports the movement is involved in the marketing of the machines, it's an exaggeration to state that marketing as open source is any great advantage. From my point of view most either don't know or don't care (or both) of the intricacies of open design. They know they can build a machine less expensively with information available on the Internet and are not so much concerned with if it's an -NC license, or CERN or whatever. I think your argument projects too much on using the term open source as a marketing point when the advantage to doing so is minute except to a few of us, relatively speaking. The marketing upside to calling a project open source isn't as big a benefit as some seem to think it is.

Quote
A2
So it appears to me that most of the Reprap products are using the wrong licence, e.g.:

I don't think there's a "wrong" licence. People should be free to choose whatever they consider to be right.

The only thing I'm a bit sensible to is when people try to fool their audience. Like when they claim to be "true open source" but put countermeasures into place anyways. Or when people declare such open source with countermeasures as "true open source".

Quote
A2
@Traumflug: what one is more appropriate for Reprap products.

I'm not a ruler here and it's also likely that different products prefer different choices. Pick what you think is most appropriate for your product and your business model (where I include "being hobbyist" as a "business" model). Then live the intention of this choice.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
vegasloki
I don't think that's a fair representation of what they are doing. Just because it doesn't fit your definition of what open source is doesn't mean what they are doing is marketing only. Lulzbot provides a value add by manufacturing and supporting the design in addition to making it available for others to build. Whether or not you agree (and it's fine if you don't) isn't relevant to those that want to go that route and buy something from Lulzbot.

Sounds like this marketing only claim is received as an affront. Wasn't my intention. For me it's entirely fine if companies do marketing. What makes me a bit sensible are these many cases where companies started with big "open source" fanfare just to countermeasure the intention of open source (collaboration, others free to copy, etc.) as soon as the intention kicks in.

Quote
vegasloki
I bring that into the discussion to point out that any perception of a benefit of claiming to be open source is exaggerated. While the merits of open source and the infrastructure that supports the movement is involved in the marketing of the machines, it's an exaggeration to state that marketing as open source is any great advantage.

I wish this insight would lead us to more acceptance of whatever licence developers choose, to more honesty in the business model and to less spitting on "wrong" choices.

And I admit I'm a bit burned in the latter area, because I had so many discussions along the lines of "yes, you can download sources and yes, everybody is free to make his own copy and to collaborate, but no, it's not open source". Usually from people which have very obviously mostly business in mind.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
A2
Is there a Reprap wiki guide of how to choose a licence.

There is a Wiki category that details the more popular licences found on the Wiki.

If someone has the time they can add a few more of the relevant Forum threads to the list, I am adding this one now.

[reprap.org] Category:Licenses

---

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