Use of open source designs
Posted by MotoBarsteward
|
Re: Use of open source designs June 17, 2015 02:50PM |
OK Matt, while I wait for you to clarify that last point, let me summarize your position and where we disagree:
Also please refrain from ordering me to do or not do anything at all, as I don't believe in giving or receiving orders in a civil discussion in a public forum.
Now, leaving the terms of any license whatsoever aside for a moment, what you are saying is that 3D designs cannot be licensed because to license a 3D design requires ownership of that design, and a 3D design cannot be owned.
What I am saying is that - just like any other IP - a 3D design can be owned.
From then on you go on to say that that the GPL license is not applicable to any 3D design, because nobody owns any 3D design.
What I am saying is that the GPL is applicable to 3D designs, because the creators of 3D designs have ownership of these 3D designs and can license them under the license of their choice.
You also go on to say that you yourself license your 3D designs under the GPL, although you consider this meaningless, since you don't own these 3D designs. I am saying that in doing so, you are being inconsistent.
On the other hand, I have also given examples of well-known designers from the RepRap universe, who have licensed their 3D designs under the GPL. You are maintaining that they did so, either because they were "naive and uninformed", or because they had the same understanding of the applicability of licenses in general, and the GPL in particular, to 3D designs as you have, and were equally indifferent to being inconsistent as you are. I maintain that they were fully conscious of the rights they had over the IP of their work and they chose the GPL deliberately and knowingly, and with the hopes that the terms of the GPL would be respected by users of their works.
That I guess summarizes the differences in our personal position on these matters, and I don't believe either of us will change their position (and also I don't believe in such phrases as "Just admit you are wrong...").
Also please refrain from ordering me to do or not do anything at all, as I don't believe in giving or receiving orders in a civil discussion in a public forum.
bold was yours, btw.Quote
Matt
...
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.
...
Now, leaving the terms of any license whatsoever aside for a moment, what you are saying is that 3D designs cannot be licensed because to license a 3D design requires ownership of that design, and a 3D design cannot be owned.
What I am saying is that - just like any other IP - a 3D design can be owned.
From then on you go on to say that that the GPL license is not applicable to any 3D design, because nobody owns any 3D design.
What I am saying is that the GPL is applicable to 3D designs, because the creators of 3D designs have ownership of these 3D designs and can license them under the license of their choice.
You also go on to say that you yourself license your 3D designs under the GPL, although you consider this meaningless, since you don't own these 3D designs. I am saying that in doing so, you are being inconsistent.
On the other hand, I have also given examples of well-known designers from the RepRap universe, who have licensed their 3D designs under the GPL. You are maintaining that they did so, either because they were "naive and uninformed", or because they had the same understanding of the applicability of licenses in general, and the GPL in particular, to 3D designs as you have, and were equally indifferent to being inconsistent as you are. I maintain that they were fully conscious of the rights they had over the IP of their work and they chose the GPL deliberately and knowingly, and with the hopes that the terms of the GPL would be respected by users of their works.
That I guess summarizes the differences in our personal position on these matters, and I don't believe either of us will change their position (and also I don't believe in such phrases as "Just admit you are wrong...").
|
Re: Use of open source designs June 18, 2015 04:42AM |
I'm sorry for the french quote
It say: An invention, an idea, cannot be protected with copyright. For me, this means that a new feature on an extruder can be copied: this is an idea. But the binary file or the source code cannot be copied without respecting the licence.
The GPL applies on the files, but not on the idea. And the GPL will never do that, because it is impossible (the copyright cannot do that), and because it's bad (this is why the open community are against the software patent).
I advise you to read the GPL, Andrew
Prusa i3 - e3d v5 - Gnu/Linux - Pronterface - Slic3r - Octoprint - Rpi - French
Quote
http://www.eucopyright.com/fr/quelle-est-la-difference-entre-le-droit-d-auteur-et-un-brevet-d-invention-ou-une-marque-deposee
Le droit d’auteur protège les ouvrages originaux des auteurs, tandis que les brevets d’invention protègent des inventions et des découvertes.
Les idées et les découvertes ne sont pas protégées par la loi du droit d’auteur, mais la modalité dans laquelle elles sont exprimées peut être protégée par le copyright.
It say: An invention, an idea, cannot be protected with copyright. For me, this means that a new feature on an extruder can be copied: this is an idea. But the binary file or the source code cannot be copied without respecting the licence.
The GPL applies on the files, but not on the idea. And the GPL will never do that, because it is impossible (the copyright cannot do that), and because it's bad (this is why the open community are against the software patent).
I advise you to read the GPL, Andrew
Prusa i3 - e3d v5 - Gnu/Linux - Pronterface - Slic3r - Octoprint - Rpi - French
|
Re: Use of open source designs June 18, 2015 09:13AM |
Quote
kimented_
I'm sorry for the french quote
Quote
http://www.eucopyright.com/fr/quelle-est-la-difference-entre-le-droit-d-auteur-et-un-brevet-d-invention-ou-une-marque-deposee
Le droit d’auteur protège les ouvrages originaux des auteurs, tandis que les brevets d’invention protègent des inventions et des découvertes.
Les idées et les découvertes ne sont pas protégées par la loi du droit d’auteur, mais la modalité dans laquelle elles sont exprimées peut être protégée par le copyright.
It say: An invention, an idea, cannot be protected with copyright. For me, this means that a new feature on an extruder can be copied: this is an idea. But the binary file or the source code cannot be copied without respecting the licence.
The GPL applies on the files, but not on the idea. And the GPL will never do that, because it is impossible (the copyright cannot do that), and because it's bad (this is why the open community are against the software patent).
I advise you to read the GPL, Andrew
Which was the very thing I have now cleared up in my mind through asking the question in this thread. My original assumption was that, because Wade's extruder was designed in OpenScad and the OpenScad files were made available under GPL V3, I was entitled to receive this guys modified OpenScad files as, I assumed, they were based on Wade's original. I was informed by this guy that I was wrong in my assumption because the new design was 're-engineered' and contained none of Wade's original code. I've learned two things: -
1. 'Assume' makes an Ass out of you and me.
2. GPL V3 only covers copyrightable material. In this case, the copyrightable material can only be, by definition of copyright, the software source code. If you want to protect your rights of ownership of the thing its self then you have to use another mechanism such as, in the UK and EU, a registered design.
So, the guy in question, although I might not have liked it, was legally correct in saying that he did not have to give me his source code.
According to GPL V3 Q&A, the output of GPL V3 software can only be GPL V3 licensed if that output contains a significant portion of the licensed code. STL files contain none of the original OpenScad source at the moment. Is there a way of adding it as a comment into the STL file? I ask this because tools exist that can modify STL files which then circumvents the original authors wish for his copyrightable creation to be made GPL in all derrived forms.
Is there a working group that is defining a form of GPL License that is more applicable to the world of object and design creation?
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
|
Re: Use of open source designs June 18, 2015 11:00AM |
Quote
AndrewBCN
Hi Craig,
Thanks for joining this thread.
Answering your question, you can check a link I posted earlier here in this thread, to a page written by Eben Moglen:
Enforcing the GNU GPL by Eben Moglen. Note the text dates back to 2001 (14 years ago).
So apparently the GPL has legal validity and is enforceable in court, at least in the US and at least in some cases.
OK, but he talks only about "enforcing" it quietly behind the scenes through persuasion, not through the legal system -- and actually says they've avoided going to court because of the costs involved. (As of 2001 at least.) My question was whether violation of an open source license is actionable in court, the way a case of traditional copyright or patent infringement is. I was imagining a judge saying, "Let me get this straight. Your complaint is that someone violated an agreement about something you gave the world for free, claim no ownership of, and have lost no money as a result? Get the %$#& out of my court and stop wasting my time!"
Have there been any cases taken to court involving open source agreements?
But this article points out the the FSF does retain copyright, which I didn't realize. So there may be traction there for a copyright infringement case. But it still seems murky to me. As he says, copyrights are meant to exclude and limit. But the FSF claims copyrights and then gives works away for free, allowing anyone to alter and further distribute them freely. I can see an opposing lawyer making the case that this is failure to protect the copyright, to say the least, and any arguments about what comes out of that are without merit. Add to that the lack of financial damages, and the legal case may be very weak. Legal cases are about what the law says in its current state -- or what a lawyer can make it seem to mean
-- not what anyone thinks is right or wrong.These are just my thoughts. I don't really know.
|
Re: Use of open source designs June 18, 2015 11:44AM |
Quote
kimented_
...
It say: An invention, an idea, cannot be protected with copyright. For me, this means that a new feature on an extruder can be copied: this is an idea. But the binary file or the source code cannot be copied without respecting the licence.
...
I advise you to read the GPL, Andrew
I appreciate the irony, but your argument is fundamentally flawed.
Ideas are not subject to copyright because they cannot be owned, that much is a universally accepted fact and is correctly stated in any legal text concerning IP, or copyright law, and it is also clearly considered in the GPL.
I am sorry, but you are basing your entire argument on a single misconception: that a 3D design is an idea. This is the same as saying that Flaubert's "Madame Bovary" was just an idea. A piece of intellectual work, once it is materialized in a drawing, a text, a program, etc..., is definitely not an idea.
Let us consider for example the 3D design: Greg's Wade's Geared Extruder, which is copyright by Greg Frost and licensed under the GPL (at least n the version that can be found on Thingiverse here: [www.thingiverse.com]
The idea here is that of an extruder: we push filament into a path with a certain force. There are certainly many ways to do that, but Greg's Wade's Geared Extruder is a particular 3D design, with a particular arrangement od different 3D parts, that accomplishes this function in a particular way. It is undeniable that this particular 3D design was arrived at with some amount of intellectual work. The design is expressed as an OpenSCAD piece of code, which even uses another OpenSCAD library (for the gears, notably). The particular design is licensed under the GPL and so is the gear library.
Do you still believe that Greg's Wade's Geared Extruder is just an idea or, do you accept the fact that, just like Flaubert's work which expressed some many ideas in so many marvelous words arranged in such a marvelous way, Greg's Wade's Geared Extruder expresses an idea into a 3D design by combining 3D elements into a particular arrangement with a particular purpose?
|
Re: Use of open source designs June 18, 2015 01:37PM |
Quote
AndrewBCN
Misconception 1.
Misconception 2.
Misconception 3.
Misconception 4.
Misconception 5.
Hey, you forgot Misconception 6, about the fact that a CAD file (source or not) does not necessarily contain what is legally needed to define a design. With this I mean that the architets who register their designs do not just submit a CAD file (look here as a random example of what is required, which is more than I usually put in my OpenSCAD files).
And there is Misconception 7 too, about the fact that even if you are (morally) the original creator of a design and you release it under some licence, in some (most?) countries this is not legally equivalent to registering your design or filing a patent.
So even if Misconceptions 1,...,5 were false, releasing an OpenSCAD file under GPL may not be enough to protect somebody's design from being registered (or patented?) by somebody else. (Orcs never give up
)
|
Re: Use of open source designs June 18, 2015 03:16PM |
Hehe! Indeed that is one of the problems with Orcs...
See: [copyright.gov]
The phrase that I put in bold seems to be more or less universally accepted in Western developed countries.
That question is closely related to the enforceability of the GPL, and I don't think there exists a blanket answer to that question that will cover all cases. I believe that the GPL can be enforced in some cases, and that sooner or later we will see a case in court of enforcing the GPL covering a 3D design, but until this case actually occurs, we can only discuss the theory here.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2015 03:20PM by AndrewBCN.
Quote
cristian
...
Hey, you forgot Misconception 6, about the fact that a CAD file (source or not) does not necessarily contain what is legally needed to define a design. With this I mean that the architets who register their designs do not just submit a CAD file (look here as a random example of what is required, which is more than I usually put in my OpenSCAD files).
See: [copyright.gov]
Quote
US Copyright Office
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
The phrase that I put in bold seems to be more or less universally accepted in Western developed countries.
Quote
cristian
And there is Misconception 7 too, about the fact that even if you are (morally) the original creator of a design and you release it under some licence, in some (most?) countries this is not legally equivalent to registering your design or filing a patent.
So even if Misconceptions 1,...,5 were false, releasing an OpenSCAD file under GPL may not be enough to protect somebody's design from being registered (or patented?) by somebody else. (Orcs never give up
That question is closely related to the enforceability of the GPL, and I don't think there exists a blanket answer to that question that will cover all cases. I believe that the GPL can be enforced in some cases, and that sooner or later we will see a case in court of enforcing the GPL covering a 3D design, but until this case actually occurs, we can only discuss the theory here.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2015 03:20PM by AndrewBCN.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.