Arcol Hot End and Licenses

I was going to buy a preassembled hot end from Laszlo, but found this:
[reprap.org] (Check out the License concerns)

Can someone shed some light on this? Or better yet, could Laszlo speak on this point? I would ask Laszlo directly, but there is no contact information posted on the blog or the store attached to the blog. This makes me VERY wary of purchasing something as it feels more like a scam than a purchase. And those hot ends are not cheap.

./Drae

Hi,

don't know what's bothering you, but I think Arcol is just protecting his investment a little. Arcol is a very nice guy who can be found often on the reprap irc channel. I'm 100% sure he's no scammer, in fact I ordered his hotend last week and expect it to arrive next week.

---

regards,
Tom

For my part I would not support Arcol in any way. [edit - maybe this is a bit strong]

Having such a license is totally against the spirit of Reprap and I bet you anything you like that he used parts of the design of GPL extruders.

For example, Nopheads heater block. That is an approach that Nophead pioneered and it would be interesting whether he licenced that at all. If so then the licence of the Arcol hot end is in violation.

Further, it is a GPL project he depends on to make sales. If there was not the Reprap GPL licence project then he would not have a market in the first place.

my 2p

[EDIT] - I want to make it clear I in no way disparage Arcol (Lazlo?)'s reliability or ability or personality or looks or anything like that. It is possible he is one hot, smart, reliable dude.

BUT

I am simply unimpressed by the licence choice and think it is invalid given the heater block has a GPL licence attached to it here. Now I don't know how valid the license is given the licensee is not the creator but someone else (whosawhatsis) who posted it with what seems tacit approval from Nophead. I think the validity of that licence would point to the validity of the Arcol hot end licence... discuss

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2011 05:50AM by AgeingHippy.

I disagree with the ND part of the license (though I believe that Sebastien is completely wrong on his interpretation of the NC portion), but the issues with the license are separate from whether you can safely order from him. Arcol is active in the RepRap IRC channel, and as far as I am concerned a valued member of the RepRap community. I use Makergear hot ends myself, but would not worry about ordering from Arcol in the least.

I don't think makergears hot end is open source either, but that doesn't make Rick a scam. I respect the rights people have to protect the time & money they invest in developing new and/or improved things.

---

regards,
Tom

That is fair enough Tom, but the design is based on open source (the heater block) so should be of the same licence? The heater block used there is integral to the design. Further, the use of a barrel screwed into a PTFE thermal break... There are many elements of his design that are inspired by GPL licensed elements...

I certainly have no problem with people making money from their own efforts, and I have no intention of now or in the future producing the Arcol hot end in a commercial environment, but I do think the licensing is wrong. That's all.

I don't feel happy about the license either, I agree. But it doesn't bother me. I don't think the license clauses can be held easely against me, whatever part of Arcol's I use or reproduce, for the same reasons you mention. You can't license a brick of aluminium with holes in it, unless it's a unique design. Same for a ptfe tube etc etc. Sebastien's concern about printing rp parts with and be not allowed to sell them is bit overdone (pun), how would one proof that? Sebastien's idea to change the license if he gets no reaction from arcol is completely wrong: he can kick arcol off of the wiki, but he cannot change the license. But I guess all the discussion is not worth it to arcol, and he might change the license.

---

regards,
Tom

What parts of these extruders are non-obvious and not already in the public domain such that CC and GPL are invalid and unenforceable? Or do those concepts only apply to patents?

Without specific claims, is it possible that the license statements may be so vague as to be unenforceable?

Hi Dale

I do think the resistor in a block of metal = heater block is non-obvious, but Arco does not have the credit for that.

I am sure that if I or anyone else decides to use the Arcol.hu extruder design and produce it commercially (which the selected CC licence prohibits) the designer will not bring the resources required to bear to prosecute... but my complaint is that this non-commercial license has been selected when it is clearly building on open source ideas.

I guess this is really a storm in a teacup, but we need these minor dramas to keep the days interesting

All this is pretty much moot until significant money is involved, which there will never be.

Plus, all it takes is a minor variation to circumvent the "copyright" (if it is even valid in the first place) because of the open source nature of all the constituent pieces.

"I do think the resistor in a block of metal = heater block is non-obvious, but Arco does not have the credit for that."

I am absurdly anti-patent and any mention of the word non-obvious throws up huge flags. If someone attempted to patent the "resistor in a block of metal" I would have a hissy fit. Using that same standard here I am gonna have to say that a "resistor in a block of metal" is not non-obvious.

I do not want to "defend" Laszlo but I think some you went bit too far... Some points I'd like to make

1. The NC/ND DOES NOT prevent you to make GPL part with that extruder... so yes you CAN print mendel parts with it .. the whole idea is idiotic I must say ... It is like you purchase electric screwdriver that is licenced under some closed licence and you cannot use it to screw bolts on your open source box ... cmon ppl, get real ..

2. NO the "resistor in aluminium block represents a heater" is NOONES licence hence it is neither GPL nor BSD nor any other licence. If you look around will find many pieces made that way.... Even the resistor used in the heater block is similar device on it's own. So it was not invented by nophead nor anyone else from the GPL community and it is much older then GPL licence and open source movement. Apart from that - I never seen anything from nophead (wrt the heater block) released as GPL (or any other licence)

3. The *ONLY* hot end that I know of that is GPL is the one made by Adrian, none of the other hot ends are open source, not BitsFromBytes one, nor Makerbot one .. why would you expect Laszlo to make his hot end open source and what gives anyone the right to bitch about that hot end not being open source when that is the only hot end besides one from Adrian that have any documentation available to the public??? I purchased hot end from Makerbot, and I still have no idea what is inside the "black thing"... I was even denied a simple "can I get a dxf of a wade extruder holder for this hot end" - and it is a square with 3 holes !!!! while for Arcols hot end you can find whole hot end in open scad on the wiki ?! (I can't say Arcol's hot end is better or worse then Makerbot's ... but with regards to licence, I'd say Arcol's hot end is much better as the design *is* published)

4. Wrt whole thread, I know that Laszlo replied to Sebastian wrt that "licence concerns". I don't know what exactly Laszlo wrote there but I see that Sebastian added his concern on the wiki page but not the Laszlo's reply .. I personally don't care much about what Laszlo replied because I really believed that noone in his right mind can think that you cannot print GPL part with non GPL hot end .. but looks like I was wrong ..

5. If I was in Laszlo's place, I would not even read this thread ... now if he decides to answer .. good but .. I'm not really sure this thread deserves answer ... I don't remember I seen one about BFB's or Makerbot's hot end

EDIT: I'm not sure about makerbot's extruder hot end, is it open sourced or not or they use Adrian's hot end .. also there might be some open source hot ends that I do not know about .. I personally used only BFB, Makergear and Arcol, and all three are closed source (while Makergear and BFB have no documentation what so ever)

EDIT: striken few lines about makergear out as makergear pointed out where those documents are

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2011 07:07PM by arhimed.

@arhimed so, like the front page of our website and our Flickr site don't count?

The GrooveMount DXF files have been available on the MakerGear Google Group for a LONG time. Unfortunately, Google recently removed the Files section. Now, some of that stuff needs to be reposted. However, if you search for DXF in the google group you can still find many of the DXF files as attachments.

@makergear, sorry mate, I really tried to find those drawings and I failed (I do find your site very hard to navigate). I am very pleased you pointed me out to these (I asked via email if I can get those dxf's, never got any answer). Also, I don't find lack of that documentation as anything bad as I really believe that anyone is entitled to decide what licence they will use and how much documentation they will share. I designed many systems in my life and I know how expensive a design process can be, if noone already paid for it going GPL ain't always possible (nor smart). I now found a lot of pictures of makergear hot end with technical details so I don't think Arcol's hot end is "better documented" .. it is just that I was not able to find that documentation myself (wrt that DXF in the meantime I measured what I needed and made the stand myself, now I just need to find freaking time to properly test everything - I already said I love this hot end a lot - I do love the Arcol's one too, both are much better then BFB that I used for years and that was for 10 classes better then what I first tried (the makerbot parts - Adrian's design)).

Anyhow I mentioned your hot end as "just another hot end that is not GPL" (apart from BFB's and Arcol's) I might be wrong there too, maybe your hot end is introduced as GPL only that info is also somewhere where I was unable to find it (I did search for licence and license on your site using google and found nothing ... maybe again in the google mailing list but I kinda avoid those and search there shown question from Tony Buser and no answer - wrt license); I really don't believe this thread makes any sense nor I think you or Laszlo outta change your decision and change licence.

Even if Makergear hot end is BSD or GPL or it is plain CC it does not change anything ..

GPL is about copyright on the files, it has no meaning for physical objects. So there is nothing to stop anyone making or selling my or Archol's designs. It would need to be patented to prevent that and it is clearly not patentable.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

(though I believe that Sebastien is completely wrong on his interpretation of the NC portion)
That could very well be. Arcol should probably be more specific as to under what conditions people aren't allowed to use his files besides and beyond not making Hot Ends.

I'm much more concerned by the "you may not make copies of this Hot End" part. It's sort of contrary to the reprap idea. The "no derivatives" part is no fun either, mind. It's an interesting path for Arcol to take.

Amusingly, if the Hot End were closed source, anyone with a digital caliper, a lathe, and a mill could do up some copies in an afternoon. And then sell them in the reprap forum.

But not these. Which might mean that these are in some way worse than closed source?

Dunno.

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

Sebastien: I don't think Arcol COULD define what you use the hot end for, at least with a CC license. The enforcability of the CC is based on copyright law, it is not an EULA. From my understanding if the law, you cannot use copyright to place any conditions on the USE of a device or piece of software. You can make an additional license that restricts it's use, but that is not related to CC, GPL or any other copyright-based license. CC-NC means you cannot make and sell copies of his hot end (at least without his permission), but it does not mean that you cannot use it to print parts that you later sell.

FWIW, your comment "I'd like to change the license... I'll do so in a week or so, unless I hear otherwise from you" bothers me more than Arcol's license choice. Arcol's license is bad, but your view that you can arbitrarily change other people's licenses is downright scary. Any such change would have no legal bearing, and you would be opening both yourself and the reprap project up to potentially significant legal liability if you did so, so I hope you reconsider any such future threats.

FWIW, your comment "I'd like to change the license... I'll do so in a week or so, unless I hear otherwise from you" bothers me more than Arcol's license choice.

No worries. I heard otherwise. It was a useful and necessary mechanism to get Arcol to actually respond to my email.

Arcol's license is bad, but your view that you can arbitrarily change other people's licenses is downright scary.

Oh, it would certainly not be arbitrary. I wouldn't do anything without anything without consensus with the rest of the group. Group meaning you, etc. And, since he responded, I won't be fussing with it.

CC-NC means you cannot make and sell copies of his hot end (at least without his permission).
Yes. An extraordinarily odd object to find in a wiki devoted to making copies of stuff like RepRaps and parts of RepRaps like Hot Ends.

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

Sebastien, I think you are aware on how much I respect open source and how much of my life I put into open source community (not related to anything hardware/reprap related)... I'm also no expert in licensing .. not even close to one ... and I really don't care to understand licences .. (as I publish most of my work as "open licence" or "do what ever the hack you wanna do with it, just don't bug me about it" unless the work is done on a system that already has a licence so for e.g. all my mysql related work is gpl)... but with all that said, if I do not respect others ppl decisions (to go BSD or GPL or OPEN or CLOSED) I become just another fanatic ... not big difference if fanaticism is about religion or licence .. it is bad!

The RepRap "philosophy" - the way I understand it have NONE WHATSOEVER relationship with open source! The RepRap phylosophy the b]way I understand it[/b] have to do with SELF REPLICATION. Initially the open source was the environment where RepRap's can replicate the fastest, if the new closed source parts are introduced in the environment - that is just natural course of evolution, if these closed source parts are good they will survive and become "core" part of the reprap "entity", on the other hand if they are some irrelevant annoyance they will disappear from the eco-system in a generation or two .. again, this is how I see it... I might be 100% wrong about the matter... you can ask Adrian what he thinks about it ...

As kludgineer wrote, even if he wanted to, Laszlo cannot limit what you can do with a tool he provided. He can (try to) limit you selling what he provided (hot end) and duplicating his work (making another just like his), but he cannot in any way prevent you from making frame-vertex with this hot end.

The stuff nophead wrote about GPL, I donno/don't care but it might be good to have some of those things clearly explained by the person who is actually aware of all the implications of a licence, and all the international, european and american laws regarding that. Imho all that is BS and only "do what you want" licence should exist but who asks me ... if it is up to me all lawyers would be sent to albonia to move the mud from one side of the road to another... anyhow, again, a clear explanation of GPL and CC licences would be cool to have..

As for the licence of the hot end, I reeeeeeeealy have no idea what is in Laslo's head ... I hope to meet with the guy on 29th so I might ask him but I'm pretty sure he is not the "I will sue your ...." kind of a guy, also, I would not be surprised at all if he decides to completely open the design the minute he sells "more then xyz hot ends" ... I don't know if you ever invested some money in some development, but I seen some of the failed or partially failed designs Laszlo made and each of those he had to pay, from his own pocket (not financed by university or some company, but him personally), and while I have no idea how much this type of prototyping cost in Hungary, I can tell you that if I had to do that kind of work here in this shit*y country I live in, I'd be short between 7 and 12000 euros. I am 100% sure (and I'm pretty sure he knows that too) he will never manage to get back the money he invested in this research ... especially as I think I know his profit margin ... even if every single rapman out there get his hot end he will not earn money I think he invested (again I have NO CLUE how much money he invested, maybe Hungarian lathe operators are 10 times cheaper then this imbecils and criminals in Serbia, maybe he got some discount, maybe his uncle is operating lathe, I really have no idea)...

To conclude, I'd really like that his design is "completely open", but I really don't think any of us has the right to "change his licence" or to request from him to do so... also, if he now reply to this thread and say "ok now I change it to CC" .. what will that say to anyone else who want to invest money in anything reprap? that if he decide not to publish everything as CC we'll gang up on him until he opens the design? Yeah right, that will help RepRap eco system a lot ... yesterday ..

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, it would certainly not be arbitrary. I
> wouldn't do anything without anything without
> consensus with the rest of the group. Group
> meaning you, etc. And, since he responded, I won't
> be fussing with it.

No, you don't seem to get it. My point has nothing to do with consensus or whether he responded. You cannot change the license. I cannot change the license. Adrian cannot change the license. Consensus is irrelevant. ONLY Arcol can change the license. If you had changed the license without his permission, and someone had made and sold copies based on that change, your action would have made you liable for contributory damages.

> CC-NC means you cannot make and sell copies of his
> hot end (at least without his permission).
>
> Yes. An extraordinarily odd object to find in a
> wiki devoted to making copies of stuff like
> RepRaps and parts of RepRaps like Hot Ends.

Not at all. Again, CC-NC does not prevent you from making or even selling RepRaps, It ONLY means you cannot sell clones of his hot end. Considering that you cannot a copy of his hot end using his hot end (since it is machined) the license IN NO WAY limits what you can use his hot end for.

CC-NC also does not prevent you from making your own copy of his hot end. I think even you would agree that the goal of the RepRap project is not to allow people to get rich off the work of others (It is allowed, but it is certainly not a central goal of the project), so it would seem to me that a NC is in no way contradictory to the core RepRap philosophy.

(Again, I do not disagree with your concerns about the ND portion of the license)

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm much more concerned by the "you may not make
> copies of this Hot End" part. It's sort of
> contrary to the reprap idea. The "no derivatives"
> part is no fun either, mind. It's an interesting
> path for Arcol to take.

I just figured out the source of your problems with this license...

NC does not mean "no copies". NC means no commercial reproduction. Probably worth reading up on what the licenses mean!

ND, on the other hand, means No Derivatives. In other words, I cannot look at his hot end, see a problem, and make a copy that fixes that problem. THAT is a real violation of the RepRap philosophy.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2011 01:56AM by kludgineer.

No, you don't seem to get it.

I do have some sense of how these things work, actually.

If he had chosen to stonewall me again, I'd have brought it to reprap-dev-policy, where we'd have this discussion, and ... I don't know what we'd have decided, frankly.

NC does not mean "no copies". NC means no commercial reproduction. Probably worth reading up on what the licenses mean!

I do have some sense of how these things work, actually.

With the existing license. I don't see an entrepreneur making numerous reproductions of this hot end and distributing them in a non commercial manner. Do you?

I don't see anyone making numerous reproductions of this hot end and distributing them without wanting to be paid for their time. So, NC in this context, is basically "don't copy this!"

"don't copy this!"-type licenses may not be entirely appropriate for reprap, the machine you're supposed to make copies of. And it is probably ... inconsistent ... to use RepRap's wiki to advertise a hot end you're not allowed to copy.

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NC does not mean "no copies". NC means no
> commercial reproduction. Probably worth reading up
> on what the licenses mean!
>
> I do have some sense of how these things work,
> actually.
>
> With the existing license. I don't see an
> entrepreneur making numerous reproductions of this
> hot end and distributing them in a non commercial
> manner. Do you?

Clearly you don't... Preventing an entrepreneur from making numerous reproductions is EXACTLY why he chose that license. If they were being distributed in a non-commercial manner, they would not be in violation of the license!

Arcol is basically saying "I put a lot of hard work into this and feel I deserve to be paid for that work. Make all the copies you want, but you cannot dsitribute them for a profit". Like those terms or not, I don't see any real way that is in violation of the core RepRap values (again, I am only talking about the NC term here). In fact if anything it seems to me to be MORE in line with the traditional reprap values of share-alike, rather than the modern RepRap philosophy which seems to be "I want a RepRap so I can make money selling Prusa sets on ebay!" (Remember the days when the RepRap philosophy was to print a set of parts to give to someone else?).

> I don't see anyone making numerous reproductions
> of this hot end and distributing them without
> wanting to be paid for their time. So, NC in this
> context, is basically "don't copy this!"

The NC term may mean fewer of the hot ends enter circulation, but only because it keeps the vultures, sorry, entrepreneurs from selling knockoffs on ebay (whose purchasers would then go to Arcol for support even though he did not sell them their hot end). It has absolutely zero effect on Joe making a copy in his home shop. On the other hand the ND portion means that Joe can make one, but it must be /exactly/ as Arcol designed it. Even changing from Metric to SAE for the US would be in violation of the terms. THAT is what would prevent me from making one.

> "don't copy this!"-type licenses may not be
> entirely appropriate for reprap, the machine
> you're supposed to make copies of. And it is
> probably ... inconsistent ... to use RepRap's wiki
> to advertise a hot end you're not allowed to copy.

Ah ha! HERE you make a (almost) reasonable point (in spite of the fact that the license DOES NOT say "don't copy this!"). If you had said "I will remove this from the Wiki if you don't change the license", you would be on solid ground. You might be overstepping your authority as RepRap library Gnome, but that is between you and the other core members. At least you would not risk dragging the others into a potentially protracted and costly legal battle.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2011 05:41AM by kludgineer.

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
(...)

> I don't see anyone making numerous reproductions
> of this hot end and distributing them without
> wanting to be paid for their time. So, NC in this
> context, is basically "don't copy this!"
>
> "don't copy this!"-type licenses may not be
> entirely appropriate for reprap, the machine
> you're supposed to make copies of. And it is
> probably ... inconsistent ... to use RepRap's wiki
> to advertise a hot end you're not allowed to copy.

NC is a part of one of Creative Common licenses and so it is perfectly correct for RepRap wiki use, because Legal and Licensing RepRap wiki page says:

However, if you wish, you may submit it under the terms of one of the Creative_Commons Licenses too, though this is not our preferred option

Am I wrong with my interpretation of Legal and Licensing RepRap wiki page?

---

---
New cutting edge RepRap electronics, ARM 32 bits @ 100MHz runs RepRap @ 725mm/s:

[www.3dprinting-r2c2.com]

Imo:

1) since its not an item which make sense by itself (e.g. cant function independant), then the only thing it can be is a part of another machine;
2) therefore, it can only be a part (modified) of an original machine (reprap) which was GPL;

1+2 -> Thus, it is in direct violation with original GPL of reprap.
Bottom line reprap > hot end, not vice-versa.

And this seems to work in the same way in which today we see ppls in which greed > character.
(or sequencial logic > me).

kludgineer Wrote:
[...]
> Arcol is basically saying "I put a lot of hard
> work into this and feel I deserve to be paid for
> that work. [...]

Well, i have putted a lot of hard work into my mendel. Since you, kludgineer, are probably going to make one after the one i did, then you must pay me 1000 euro. Paypal accepted, tyvm. (btw, i also invented the t-shirt, jeans, and i am also a living relative of those who invented the fire and the wheel).

Sad fact is, in real life, doesnt matter how hard you work, the returns oftenly come to depend on things which have nothing to do with how hard or how easy you got around. I should know this, maybe better than others.

If you do work on something that is GPL, you have certain obligations, and certain restrictions. Its not only the case of reprap, its generally valid all around many facts of life. Although most of the times who stays within boundries does so grace of good character and not being checked by anybody.

GPL states that modifications, changes, etc to original design, parts of it, etc, will bear the same license and will be free to anyone. When you do hard work on that context, you still have that obligation, regardless of how hard you worked. If you would get new things done in first tries and without any work in 10 mins, or if you worked 10 years of your life for it, you sill have same obligation(s).

If you dont like it then its simple: DONT work hard on something that is GPL and open source. However if you do work on something GPL like that (hard work or easy work) then again its simple: respect the terms. This is exactly why i mentioned the word "character".

Clearly you don't... Preventing an entrepreneur from making numerous reproductions is EXACTLY why he chose that license. If they were being distributed in a non-commercial manner, they would not be in violation of the license!

Arcol is basically saying "I put a lot of hard work into this and feel I deserve to be paid for that work. Make all the copies you want, but you cannot distribute them for a profit". Like those terms or not, I don't see any real way that is in violation of the core RepRap values (again, I am only talking about the NC term here). In fact if anything it seems to me to be MORE in line with the traditional reprap values of share-alike, rather than the modern RepRap philosophy which seems to be "I want a RepRap so I can make money selling Prusa sets on ebay!" (Remember the days when the RepRap philosophy was to print a set of parts to give to someone else?).

We've got a decent handful of entrepreneurs who do up electronics. And I suspect most hot ends are from entrepreneurs.

In other words, that printed set of parts is made possible by a hot end and electronics which were probably done up by an entrepreneur like Laszlo.

Hot end and electronics are normally distributed in a one-to-many commercial manner. Unlike printed parts, which tend to be many-to-many. NC violates this general expectation.

I'm rather hoping that no one does up electronics or an entire machine as cc by-nc-nd. I see this hot end as a wedge issue, frankly, and would like to figure out how we're supposed to deal with such stuff.

Am I wrong with my interpretation of Legal and Licensing RepRap wiki page?
Nope. I think we may want to flag cc by-nc-nd stuff, however, since it is problematic; it's basically "I can copy your stuff, but you can't copy my stuff."

Which is sort of icky, reprap-wise.

I'll do up something that looks a bit more formal than my existing text.

At least you would not risk dragging the others into a potentially protracted and costly legal battle.
Yes ...

I thought it was best to deal with this matter now, rather than deal with a formal takedown notice from Laszlo at a later point when someone starts making copies of reprap hot ends and selling them in the forum, or if someone does up a Arcol.hu Hot End 4.0 GPL remix in the wiki.

Ah ha! HERE you make a (almost) reasonable point (in spite of the fact that the license DOES NOT say "don't copy this!"). If you had said "I will remove this from the Wiki if you don't change the license", you would be on solid ground. You might be overstepping your authority as RepRap library Gnome, but that is between you and the other core members.

Arbitrarily deleting pages isn't really appropriate, actually. And would probably violate the rules that we'd have done up in reprap-dev-policy if we were interested in such matters.

Arbitrarily changing the license was an empty threat, since it would have gone to reprap-dev-policy to be dealt with formally. I had felt slightly tetchy since Arcol had been too busy to respond to an earlier email on the subject. And because I really don't like how it leaves the door open for takedown notices from Laszlo which, presumably, I'd have to deal with at some point in the future. I really don't like that last bit.

"Oh, hi! You're going to have to take down that bit of research / stop selling that Hot End because Laszlo says you can't do that." Not the sort of rule I'm keen on enforcing, and I'm not happy to be potentially put in that position.

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

NoobMan the 1+2 > 2 does not really have anything to do with GPL ?! At least with software different segments can have different licences and "cannot work independently" makes no change - here's the example, there are compiler optimization algorithms that have their own licences and cannot operate outside of a compiler, so they on their own don't do anything but are "sold" and "licenced" and "patented" separately...

Again the whole discussion about GPL part is pretty much wrong IMO as we really need an expert opinion. AFAIK GPL cannot be, at all, in any way, implemented for hardware... CC might be the better solution but again, what is protected by a licence, a "technical documentation" or the "object". Wrt GPL (again, this is mine interpretation and IANAL) if you take a design document of an object and they come with GPL licence you can't use those documents to create a non GPL object, but, if you take the OBJECT and digital caliper, measure it and create new tech spec from scratch and create new object - you in no way infringed on the GPL licence on the documentation (as you have not used the documentation).... It is also what nophead mentioned somewhere in the beginning of this thread ..

arhimed Wrote:
[...] ... but, if you take the OBJECT and
> digital caliper, measure it and create new tech
> spec from scratch and create new object - you in
> no way infringed on the GPL licence on the
> documentation (as you have not used the
> documentation).... It is also what nophead
> mentioned somewhere in the beginning of this
> thread ..

I cant say anything about technicalities like that. Of course I can only say how i can see things. I speak for myself too, because actually i just do that literally. Sadly for me, i tend to use the poor useless excuse for wasted space that i call my head to judge things. As far as i can see, if you measure the physical thing or look at the drawing in both cases you are copying a design which is present in either. The mentioned technicality may exist (along with many others), but that cant change the way i see things for myself. Just coz a rule or a technicality can let you escape with it, that alone doesnt mean you actually have to do it - again that is why i mentioned that word. Which is probably the very last boundry in areas that are blur or grey or contradictory.

What would be the point of a patent if any form of arbitrary copyright/license actually provided protection for the physical device?