Use of open source designs

@ thetazzbot

Perhaps you are referring to Johann C. Rocholl, who designed the Rostock, then rethought it and designed the parametric Kossel and some of its various variants, and also modified Marlin to create the first generally available 3D printer firmware with linear delta control capabilities?

I don't believe you owe Johann any money, because if he had been collecting fees/royalties for his work we would certainly have heard about it by now... (just in case I am checking my wallet)

But imo recognition and proper attribution would not hurt?

As for the Prusa i3 Rework, I had a rather heated discussion in the French subforum here with the participation of one of the employees or partners of emotion tech (he declined to provide his exact status) and they refuse to even acknowledge that they have been in violation of the GPL for the last two years, and in fact accused me of lying about it and asked the moderator to erase my posts!

The exact thread can be found here: [forums.reprap.org]

Well I was speaking figuratively. Im not interested in selling printers or kits etc.

But we're on the same "rework" page

Quote
AndrewBCN
As for the Prusa i3 Rework, I had a rather heated discussion in the French subforum here with the participation of one of the employees or partners of emotion tech (he declined to provide his exact status) and they refuse to even acknowledge that they have been in violation of the GPL for the last two years, and in fact accused me of lying about it and asked the moderator to erase my posts!

The exact thread can be found here: [forums.reprap.org]

Maybe I missed something, because I don't understand why they behave like that. They release the STL files, which is enough for cheap clones to appear the day after the release, but they don't release the sources, which may help the community to develop and improve the design even further. However the worst part is that most people do not understand the supposed violation of the GPL licence, which means they do not understand the purpose of the licence itself and its importance.

Quote
AndrewBCN
The exact thread can be found here: [forums.reprap.org]

Perhaps you can explain the details to us non French speakers?

If they downloaded Prusa's OpenSCAD files, and then re-created Prusa's parts using their own CAD software (Solidworks, for example) they would be under no obligation to release their CAD files. (Unless Prusa's parts had non-functional artistic aspects that were covered by copyright.)

*EDIT: They are however using Prusa's name. If Prusa wanted to, he could probably bust them for that...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2015 09:46PM by MattMoses.

Quote
cristian

Quote
AndrewBCN
As for the Prusa i3 Rework, I had a rather heated discussion in the French subforum here with the participation of one of the employees or partners of emotion tech (he declined to provide his exact status) and they refuse to even acknowledge that they have been in violation of the GPL for the last two years, and in fact accused me of lying about it and asked the moderator to erase my posts!

The exact thread can be found here: [forums.reprap.org]

Maybe I missed something, because I don't understand why they behave like that. They release the STL files, which is enough for cheap clones to appear the day after the release, but they don't release the sources, which may help the community to develop and improve the design even further. However the worst part is that most people do not understand the supposed violation of the GPL licence, which means they do not understand the purpose of the licence itself and its importance.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I did try to explain to them and to other participants in that thread that emotion tech's violation of the GPL was absolutely senseless and did not benefit them (emotion tech) or the RepRap community in any way, as you have described in the phrase that I put in bold above. No use. And the thread was closed by the moderator, so it turned out to be impossible to further explain that point in that same thread.

Quote
MattMoses

Quote
AndrewBCN
The exact thread can be found here: [forums.reprap.org]

Perhaps you can explain the details to us non French speakers?

If they downloaded Prusa's OpenSCAD files, and then re-created Prusa's parts using their own CAD software (Solidworks, for example) they would be under no obligation to release their CAD files. (Unless Prusa's parts had non-functional artistic aspects that were covered by copyright.)

*EDIT: They are however using Prusa's name. If Prusa wanted to, he could probably bust them for that...

Matt, I posted about this violation of the GPL in the Prusa i3 Rework page in the wiki (in the Discussion tab), and I also posted a remark about this violation of the GPL in the wiki page about Greg's Wade's Geared Extruder that I linked to in an earlier post here.

Note that this French company has had > 2 years to fix this violation of the GPL, and many months since I first wrote about it in the wiki, but they simply deny any wrongdoing, and even claim that the Prusa i3 Rework is actually licensed under the GPL, while never having published a single source file!

You can read cristian's post above, he has correctly understood the issue at hand here.

OK, I found it. Page is here for those interested. From the Discussion tab:

Quote
AndrewBCN
To all effects they have stolen the IP from others and decided to make it proprietary.

Is what they did bad manners?
Yes.
Is what they did self-defeating?
Yes.
Is what they did against the spirit of Open Source?
Yes.

Is what they did in violation of the GPL?
It depends. If they created their models by modifying Prusa's OpenSCAD files, and they happen to be sitting on these modified OpenSCAD files and they refuse to release them, then YES they are in violation of the GPL. However! If they re-created their parts in some other CAD format, or if they wrote their own new OpenSCAD files from the ground up, then NO they are not in violation of the GPL.

So it all comes down to thejollygrimreaper's question on the Discussion tab:

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
what package did you use to do the step files?

If the answer is anything other than "Josef Prusa's files and OpenSCAD" then they have no obligation to release their source, and they are not in violation of the GPL.

At any rate, they have released STEP files, and so they meet "RepRap's lowest common denominator about what Open Source is" which is Comes with sufficient sources to make a copy. So if we were really being consistent about how the "Not Open Source" tag is applied, we would have to remove the tag from that page.

Hello,
I agree with you MattMose when you say that EmotionTech have the righ to redraw their own models from scratch and diffuse them. Doing so, I think they are not in violation with the original Prusa's files licence.
But they release their own STL under the GPL licence, then they should distribute the source files. If they do not want to distribute the source, they should use another licence, like a creative commons.
However, if they use a mesh based software instead of a parametric, it's a bit pointless to release the "source" files: the mesh is the source (but I know that the STL mesh is uglier than the original format).

---

Prusa i3 - e3d v5 - Gnu/Linux - Pronterface - Slic3r - Octoprint - Rpi - French

Quote
MattMoses
...

Is what they did in violation of the GPL?
It depends. If they created their models by modifying Prusa's OpenSCAD files, and they happen to be sitting on these modified OpenSCAD files and they refuse to release them, then YES they are in violation of the GPL. However! If they re-created their parts in some other CAD format, or if they wrote their own new OpenSCAD files from the ground up, then NO they are not in violation of the GPL.
...

@Matt

Sorry, but your entire reasoning is incorrect. Again, the above paragraph shows you have not read the GPL. Not having read it, you cannot understand its terms, use, meaning and purpose.

Also note that the Prusa i3 Rework extruder is in an even more complicated situation, as it is a closed-source copy (without attribution!) of an earlier GPL-violating design, as I have explained in the wiki.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2015 08:32AM by AndrewBCN.

Quote
kimented_
Hello,
I agree with you MattMose when you say that EmotionTech have the righ to redraw their own models from scratch and diffuse them. Doing so, I think they are not in violation with the original Prusa's files licence.
But they release their own STL under the GPL licence, then they should distribute the source files. If they do not want to distribute the source, they should use another licence, like a creative commons.
However, if they use a mesh based software instead of a parametric, it's a bit pointless to release the "source" files: the mesh is the source (but I know that the STL mesh is uglier than the original format).

Indeed any company or individual can reverse-engineer a 3D design and re-license it under the terms of their choice, although in the world of patents, reverse-engineering is considered a violation of the IP rights of the patent holder, and in the world of copyright, this is considered plagiarism and infringement of copyright.

In the world of the GPL it doesn't work like that at all, so again I suggest you read the GPL.

I confess I am finding myself in a strange position in this thread when it comes to the GPL, because many people are expressing their opinions about it without having actually read the text of the GPL.

It is much like arguing over the US Constitution with people who have not read it (and its amendments).

So: text of the GNU General Public License V3 (GPL for short).

Please read it. Think about it. Ask questions if there is something you do not understand.

Edit: before you ask questions about it, read the FAQ!

For example:
Can I use the GPL for something other than software?
You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2015 10:16AM by AndrewBCN.

Quote
cristian
...
If I write some computer program (in C, Java or whatever) and I release it under the GPL, this does not prevent somebody from writing a different program that does the very same thing and release it under a non free licence, provided that he did not copy my program directly.
...

Hmmm, actually that is arguable, and has actually been argued in court before, with the copycat author losing. One of the earliest and most notable of such cases being the Lotus "look and feel" lawsuits, which you can find referenced on Wikipedia for example.

The simple fact is that just because you are the author of a program does not give you automatically IP rights over it, these are subject to many conditions. And again, "IP" and "IP rights" are both relatively recent concepts that even in our advanced Western societies are still being "digested" by governments, legislators and lawyers and translated into actual law.

Additionally, what we are discussing here is, I would say, at the very frontier of IP and IP rights understanding. Which makes our discussion all the more interesting!

Quote
AndrewBCN
I confess I am finding myself in a strange position in this thread when it comes to the GPL, because many people are expressing their opinions about it without having actually read the text of the GPL.

It is much like arguing over the US Constitution with people who have not read it (and its amendments).

So: text of the GNU General Public License V3 (GPL for short).

Please read it. Think about it. Ask questions if there is something you do not understand.

Actually it is you that has completely the wrong idea about the GPL and copyright, much of what you are writing is incorrect.

You should know that even Richard Stallman has said the GPL does not apply to hardware!

Tables, whether Bauhaus or otherwise, are NOT copyrightable (although the EU would like to change that). While a drawing of a table may be copyrighted, the table is not. Therefore if I draw exactly the same table independently there is no copyright violation.

I suggest it is you that needs to understand copyright law and the scope of the GPL.

It would be good to get on the same page on this, then we can discuss the really bad ruling that allows Lego to trademark a plastic figure.

---

What is Open Source?
What is Open Source Hardware?
Open Source in a nutshell: the Four Freedoms
CC BY-NC is not an Open Source license

Quote
AndrewBCN
So: text of the GNU General Public License V3 (GPL for short).

Please read it. Think about it. Ask questions if there is something you do not understand.

Edit: before you ask questions about it, read the FAQ!

Andrew, I diligently re-read the GPL and FAQ as you instructed. I did not find anything that contradicted my position. In fact, I found things that supported it:

Quote
GPL FAQ
Can I use the GPL to license hardware?
Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example, you can release a drawing of a physical object or circuit under the GPL.

In many situations, copyright does not cover making physical hardware from a drawing. In these situations, your license for the drawing simply can't exert any control over making or selling physical hardware, regardless of the license you use. When copyright does cover making hardware, for instance with IC masks, the GPL handles that case in a useful way.

This is consistent with what I have been saying all along - your license for the drawing (or OpenSCAD files) simply can't exert any control over making or selling physical hardware, regardless of the license you use.

It comes down to the question of what can and cannot be copyrighted. As myself and others (hi bobc! ) have pointed out, your understanding of copyright is flawed.

A most interesting discussion! I had further discussions with the person who advertised the "Canted Wade's Extruder" for sale. He says that his OpenScad files do not contain any of Wade's or Greg's original code. He described 're-engineering' from the ground up. Taking the advice from the posters in this thread, I have just read the V3 GPL license. It's quite interesting to see that there are several interpretations within this thread. I guess this is the case because we routinely miss-interpret the license because it's not really written for things. The clue to understanding appears to revolve around the fact that the item is still copyrighted and that GPL acknowledges copyright ownership whilst extending rights to the copier.

Here, we have an issue because it's not clear what is being copyrighted in the first place. Is it the OpenScad file? Is it the object produced? Is it the name or function of the part produced? GPL V3 clearly states in the Q&A that the output of the software is only covered by GPL V3 if the output contains significant portions of the GPL V3 software. GPL V3 does not contain a clause, unlike most EULAs I have read, that prohibits reverse engineering. So, even though we might not like it, because the engineer has effectively reverse engineered much of the original design so his OpenScad does not contain any of the original GPL V3 licensed code, he is within his rights to do what he has done. At the same time, there is no reason why I couldn't take his ideas and produce my own OpenScad files that would produce facsimiles of his design. Could I then attach my own copyright to the OpenScad file and publish it using a GPL V3 License?

Now, if Greg or Wade had registered their design then this would be different.

---

Using ABSPrusa Mendel Zaphod with Pronterface and slic3r 1.3.0. Printing well with 3mm PLA and ABS through 2 x J Head Mk IV b and Wade Geared Exruders. Controlled using RAMPS1.4 board running Marlin_v1.1.9

Quote
MotoBarsteward
I had further discussions with the person who advertised the "Canted Wade's Extruder" for sale. He says that his OpenScad files do not contain any of Wade's or Greg's original code. He described 're-engineering' from the ground up.

The problem with free software is that anybody not releasing sources may claim to have re-engineered it from the ground up, even if it is not true. Besides this, I agree with the rest of the post.

Yes, Cristian, I agree. And the only way to work around that issue is to have designs registered or patented and to obtain full disclosure through the courts. Maybe the solution would be to have the source code water-mark the 3D object in some way so, simply by examining the object, the origonal source code can be recognised. If built into OpenScad, this would allow the copyright owner to be identified. If OpenScad always inserted this watermark and a version of GPL was drafted that required this watermark to be inserted then copyleft could apply. Copyright owners would up-load their OpenScad code to a server/repository which operates in a similar way to a FOSS checker. Only then can they release using the new version of GPL.

How does this prevent people 'substantially re-engineering'? It doesn't but, as OpenScad always watermarks then they would be forced to use another CAD tool so their 're-engineered' claim is implicitly verified.

---

Using ABSPrusa Mendel Zaphod with Pronterface and slic3r 1.3.0. Printing well with 3mm PLA and ABS through 2 x J Head Mk IV b and Wade Geared Exruders. Controlled using RAMPS1.4 board running Marlin_v1.1.9

Quote
bobc
...
You should know that even Richard Stallman has said the GPL does not apply to hardware!
...

@bobc
Perhaps you should read the whole thread and not just my last post before jumping in. I already mentioned in this thread that I had a discussion about this with RS some 20 years ago. In the meantime, there are thousands of Open Source VHDL designs that have been placed under the GPL and I expect millions on OpenSCAD 3D designs to have the mention "licensed under the GPL" in their source code too.

Would you care to provide a precise, dated quote of RS stating that that he doesn't believe the GPL applies to VHDL designs or OpenSCAD 3D designs?

I don't think I am always right, but if I am wrong in this case, at least I am - again, as I already mentioned - in good company, since Josef Prusa, Johann C. Rocholl and Greg Frost licensed their 3D designs under the GPL.

BTW, the RAMPS 1.4 - which you copied with the ill-fated RAMPS-FD - is also licensed under the GPL, and Marlin - which you also copied to create your abandoned 32-bit version - is also licensed under the GPL. I find it slightly inconsistant that you copy GPL hardware and firmware and then claim that it only applies to software - in direct contradiction to the statement that can be found in the FSF FAQ which I quoted and linked to.

Quote
MotoBarsteward
A most interesting discussion! I had further discussions with the person who advertised the "Canted Wade's Extruder" for sale. He says that his OpenScad files do not contain any of Wade's or Greg's original code. He described 're-engineering' from the ground up. Taking the advice from the posters in this thread, I have just read the V3 GPL license. It's quite interesting to see that there are several interpretations within this thread. I guess this is the case because we routinely miss-interpret the license because it's not really written for things. The clue to understanding appears to revolve around the fact that the item is still copyrighted and that GPL acknowledges copyright ownership whilst extending rights to the copier.
...

Re-engineering or reverse-engineering or parallel-engineering are distinct issues from the applicability of the GPL to 3D designs, which seems to have become the main point of this thread.

The GPL is a license, in the same way that whenever you buy a piece of proprietary software, it comes with a license for you to use the software, the terms of which usually specify a number of restrictions on what you can do with it.

For you to place any intellectual work under any license of your choice, you must own (have ownership) that intellectual work, either because you created it with your intellect, or because you acquired it.

The way I see it, a 3D design is an intellectual work. If I upload a 3D design that I created and own to a web site for other people to download and use, I can specify a license for people to use this 3D design. Obviously I cannot specify terms on how people will use the object itself, I mean, if people want to use a Greg's Wade's Geared Extruder as a decoration for their living room or as a clock, they are at total liberty to do so. However, I can specify the terms of the license for people to use the 3D design, for example if they are allowed to modify the 3D design without my authorization, or not.

The GPL is a specific kind of license and I do not see in what way it cannot be applied to a 3D design in the process I described above, which is the process of applying a license to a 3D design such as thousands of people do every single day on Thingiverse, for example.

Citing RS to support one's opinion looks more like a logical fallacy than a valid argument.

If it were up to me, patents would not exist and the GPL would be the natural "essence" of things, including 3D designs (better this extreme than having patents everywere, software patents worst of all). But until courts do not start ruling on this topic, I am doubtful and pessimistic.

Quote
cristian

Quote
MotoBarsteward
I had further discussions with the person who advertised the "Canted Wade's Extruder" for sale. He says that his OpenScad files do not contain any of Wade's or Greg's original code. He described 're-engineering' from the ground up.

The problem with free software is that anybody not releasing sources may claim to have re-engineered it from the ground up, even if it is not true.
...

Exactly! And that is not a problem only with free software, it is a problem with any intellectual work, free or otherwise. Now, there is also the question of how much similarity exists between the original work and the potentially "ip-rights-infringing work", and the triviality or not of the infringement. Re-engineering, reverse-engineering and parallel-engineering claims have to be analysed case by case, imo.

In this specific case (a non-GPL "claimed reverse-engineered" remix of Greg's Wade's Geared Extruder) one could for example verify the past history of the person, did she/he ever publish any other 3D object and its OpenSCAD source? Are the changes trivial or extensive? Have any new, original ideas been incorporated into the original work? Etc.

If the changes are trivial but interesting, then anybody with some competence with OpenSCAD can revisit Greg's original code, add a few lines, and republish her/his "Canted Wade's Extruder" under the GPL.

Imho closing the source of a 3D design is self-defeating in the end, and easily worked around.

Ha, cristian, the Orks will not win! (sorry, private joke here)!

Quote
AndrewBCN

Quote
cristian
The problem with free software is that anybody not releasing sources may claim to have re-engineered it from the ground up, even if it is not true.
...

Exactly! And that is not a problem only with free software, it is a problem with any intellectual work, free or otherwise.

Sure, what I meant is that a closed source work has an obvious advantage over free/open source work: when sources are available as for free software you don't need to take somebody to court to get its source code and check whether he really copied it.

Quote
AndrewBCN
Ha, cristian, the Orks will not win! (sorry, private joke here)!

Believe it or not, I hope so!

OK everybody,
I just checked the thing that was the object of the OP's original query. Unfortunately it is not available for sale anymore and the only picture we have of the item is the stamp-sized one available at this link:

[www.ebay.co.uk]

which is actually a composite picture of the original Greg's Wade's Geared Extruder (exact version unknown, but this is irrelevant), and a picture of the canted version, side-by-side. I won't even go into whether this Canted thing was actually re-engineered or not, I consider this point moot since all I see is a trivial remix of the original thing, and one that I don't deem particularly interesting or useful.

My guess is I could come up with a similar canted version by adding at most ten lines of code to Greg's OpenSCAD code, and I am definitely not a good OpenSCAD programmer. Perhaps with a few more lines of code I could make the thing parametric, with an adjustable angle, but again, I don't actually consider this an interesting or useful change to the original design.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2015 10:54AM by AndrewBCN.

My only interest is because my particular printer geometry means I am lacking in Z clearance. This version offered 30mm more clearance. I suspect that, if this worked, it would be limited to 1.75mm feed stock but wanted to try it out to be sure. I am tempted to modify Wade's OpenScad myself and make it available through Thingiverse just to annoy the guy. As it stands now, I have to re-learn everything that this guy has already learned in order to just find out it doesn't work. This is not the point of the whole RepRap movement and the open source philosify.

Better images are available if you google 'Canted Wades' and then look at the Images.

I think the whole episode, though, has been very interesting. I've now read GPL V3 and can make informed comment which is more than I could do before! And, this weekend, I'm going to have a go at working with OpenScad to use this guy's idea. I don't believe he has registered his design or patented it. I can't be accused of violating the copyright in his code because mine will be independantly developed and I haven't seen his source code and anyone chancing on his old eBay entry in Google will find my designs in GitHub and Thingiverse.

---

Using ABSPrusa Mendel Zaphod with Pronterface and slic3r 1.3.0. Printing well with 3mm PLA and ABS through 2 x J Head Mk IV b and Wade Geared Exruders. Controlled using RAMPS1.4 board running Marlin_v1.1.9

@ MotoBarsteward

Although I encourage you to learn OpenSCAD (learning the basics takes just a few hours and there are tutorials on YouTube), personally I would not bother with trying to reimplement the canted aspect of this particular design, if you really need the extra clearance that this design claims to offer there are many different and imo better ready-to-print solutions on Thingiverse.

For example I would recommend that you take a look at Marty Rice's direct drive extruder or any number of variations on the "i3 Rework / ch1t0" rotated-by-90-degrees Greg's Wade's extruder, which rotate the stepper by 90 degrees and hence do offer some extra clearance.

Or what I consider nowadays a much more interesting solution, which is to use a Bowden arrangement, such as the one I have published on Thingiverse recently here: P3Steel / Prusa i3 E3D hotend Bowden mount which is of course written in OpenSCAD and licensed under the GPL. There is a video of it on YouTube too.

Quote
AndreBCN
I don't think I am always right, but if I am wrong in this case, at least I am - again, as I already mentioned - in good company, since Josef Prusa, Johann C. Rocholl and Greg Frost licensed their 3D designs under the GPL.

This in no way supports your argument, Andrew. As I said before, I myself license stuff on Thingiverse under the GPL. Just because I click the 'GPL' button does not mean that a) the license is actually valid in that situation, or b) that the license applies to anything other than the files themselves. As dc42 stated earlier in this thread, it still makes sense to use the GPL license on the files, even with the understanding that the design elements are not covered by the license.

Quote
AndrewBCN
Imho closing the source of a 3D design is self-defeating in the end, and easily worked around.

I am in complete agreement with this statement. All along I have said that even though it is legally permissible, it is still not a good thing to do.

Quote
AndrewBCN
The GPL is a specific kind of license and I do not see in what way it cannot be applied to a 3D design in the process I described above

It cannot be applied because you are trying to license what you do not have.

A copyright on the design file does not cover the design itself. You just can't (or won't) seem to accept this, Andrew.

• We have provided you with the definition of copyright.
• We have identified the section in the GPL FAQ that describes the GPL's limitation in this situation.
• We have provided you with Michael Weinberg articles which clearly explain this.

Against this mountain of facts, the only counterargument you can provide is "The way I see it..." or " I do not see in what way it cannot be applied..." or "the Bauhaus table is artistic and functional and therefore the GPL must apply to everything". Just admit you are wrong Andrew. And also, please stop falsely accusing people of violating the GPL until you can provide actual justification for your unique and personal interpretation of how the GPL applies to hardware.

Quote
MotoBarsteward
Here, we have an issue because it's not clear what is being copyrighted in the first place. Is it the OpenScad file? Is it the object produced?

It is the OpenSCAD file.

Quote
MotoBarsteward
At the same time, there is no reason why I couldn't take his ideas and produce my own OpenScad files that would produce facsimiles of his design.

Correct.

Quote
MotoBarsteward
Could I then attach my own copyright to the OpenScad file and publish it using a GPL V3 License?

Yes.

Quote
MotoBarsteward
Now, if Greg or Wade had registered their design then this would be different.

No. Registering the copyright does not magically increase its power. It just creates a paper trail that shows a copyright exists:

Quote
Wikipedia on copyright registration
The purpose of copyright registration is to place on record a verifiable account of the date and content of the work in question, so that in the event of a legal claim, or case of infringement or plagiarism, the copyright owner can produce a copy of the work from an official government source.

Reverse-engineering an OpenSCAD file does not infringe on any copyright, so whether or not the copyright is registered is not relevant.

Quote
MattMoses
[...

Quote
AndrewBCN
The GPL is a specific kind of license and I do not see in what way it cannot be applied to a 3D design in the process I described above

It cannot be applied because you are trying to license what you do not have.
...

Matt,

This is very exactly the single point from which derives our entire disagreement.

I am saying that if I intellectually create some piece of work, and of course materialize this intellectual effort through a drawing, a program (source code, obviously, materialized by a file on any media or a printout, etc), a freehand sketch, a recording, a musical partition, a text, I have ownership of this intellectual work (under certain conditions, of course, such as the work must be original, not trivial, etc...). I can also contract other people to exercise their intellect and produce a piece of work under contract for me, or I can buy all the rights for that piece of intellectual work from an individual or a company (one of the richest men on earth got his fortune exactly like that).

Now this entire discussion began with you stating that only 3D designs with aesthetic value ("artistic" as described in MW's article) can be owned by their creator, and since I have argued that this distinction was nonsensical and poorly researched by MW, you now maintain that any 3D design cannot be owned by its creator, irrespective of aesthetic value or not?

Please clarify your position.

Quote
AndrewBCN
The GPL is a specific kind of license and I do not see in what way it cannot be applied to a 3D design in the process I described above

It cannot be applied to a 3D design of a useful object like an extruder because you are trying to license what you do not have.

Quote
MattMoses

Quote
AndrewBCN
The GPL is a specific kind of license and I do not see in what way it cannot be applied to a 3D design in the process I described above

It cannot be applied to a 3D design of a useful object like an extruder because you are trying to license what you do not have.

Irrespective of the terms of the license, what you are maintaining is that I do not have ownership of the 3D design of any useful object that I create, but I do have ownership of the 3D design of any useless, but "artistic" object that I create? Is that it?