Don't get me wrong, I just said that I think GPL is maybe wrong for the hardware (because of the wording in the licence itself) and that CC might be better choice. I might be wrong, that's why I would really like someone who is lawyer to read those few licences and share his opinion ...

It really gets weird to discuss licence not a single participant in the discussion really fully understands ... from Sebastians's understanding that current licence for this hot end prevents you from printing "open" parts to "the licence is only relevant to the documentation and not to the object" ... makes really no sense as we have no idea what we are talking about ... except we are badmouthing person who actually invested time and resources and made something good .. I don't really see the point ..

NoobMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

The flaw in your reasoning here is the idea that hardware designs are copyright protected. That is true of aesthetic designs, but purely functional designs have almost zero protection under copyright. As Andrew Diehl pointed out, the only way to protect a novel functional hardware design is to patent it. This is not a "technicality", it is a fundamental part of IP law AND THE REASON THE REPRAP EXISTS!

If it were not for that "technicality", Stratasys would just sue the RepRap project for copyright violation, since most of what we are doing is moderately close to what they have done before. Virtually ALL modern inventions are derivatives of some other, earlier work. If it were not for the "technicality" you mention, electronic development would have stopped at the invention of the Transistor, for example, since almost everything after is improving and refining that discovery. That "technicality" is the reason modern technology exists.

Arcol's license protects his specific hot end design, though as noted there is nothing stopping someone from simply reverse engineering it. In practice, even with his restrictive license terms, he would have a tough time making a court case to prevent a derivative, simply due to the large amount of existing public research on the topic, including, I believe, his own blog posts documenting his progress. Thhis is all the more reason to criticize the ND portions of his license. But these complaints have nothing at all to do with the NC portion.

@kludgineer I'd not say it is the reason reprap exist but the reason reprap can exist ... wrt everything else, I believe I agree with you 100% ...

All Archol's copyright protects is copying the design files. Nothing to stop anybody using the files to make hot ends and selling them. No need to reverse engineer since copyright does not stop you making use of the information it only stops you copying information.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

arhimed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @kludgineer I'd not say it is the reason reprap
> exist but the reason reprap can exist ... wrt
> everything else, I believe I agree with you 100%
> ...

You are right, that was phrased badly.

nophead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All Archol's copyright protects is copying the
> design files. Nothing to stop anybody using the
> files to make hot ends and selling them. No need
> to reverse engineer since copyright does not stop
> you making use of the information it only stops
> you copying information.


There you go, I'd say Chris knows what he is talking about (I guess the post would not be this precise if there is no info to back it up ) so .. what's all the fuss about ?!

Although this topic is about an extruder and its license, it is also indicative of the growing pains of open hardware, tying to find its place in the world, a recent article on open3dp points out some of the possible future problems, its right that we must be vigilant to guard against those who would stifle open hardware in the future.
I must confess that I have probably never read a license all the way through and trust others who are far more intelligent than me to look into the legalities, my view is simple, if I submit anything to the reprap wiki I am giving it away, end of story.

---

Random Precision

I agree that this issue in itself is minor, but it is a wedge issue and needs to be addressed.

Is there any input from the author? He must be aware of this thread.

nophead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All Archol's copyright protects is copying the
> design files. Nothing to stop anybody using the
> files to make hot ends and selling them. No need
> to reverse engineer since copyright does not stop
> you making use of the information it only stops
> you copying information.

The license says what you are allowed to do with the copyrighted files. The license is not just about copying yes/no. If the
license says your not allowed to produce/make anything with the design files, well than you're not allowed to make anything. Analogy to software: If you compile some source code, you're not free to do whatever you want with the resulting binary files.

Even with reverse engineering you have to be careful. To be sure you would have to clean room reverse engineer the hot end. One person would have to look at the design files and write some specification and the other one design according to this specifications. If you looked once at the design files you would get "tainted", and had a hard time to explain that you didn't "mind copy/paste" the design. Way overkill in this case but that would be the correct way (ask compaq).

Markus Amsler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nophead Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All Archol's copyright protects is copying the
> > design files. Nothing to stop anybody using the
> > files to make hot ends and selling them. No
> need
> > to reverse engineer since copyright does not
> stop
> > you making use of the information it only stops
> > you copying information.
>
> The license says what you are allowed to do with
> the copyrighted files. The license is not just
> about copying yes/no. If the
> license says your not allowed to produce/make
> anything with the design files, well than you're
> not allowed to make anything. Analogy to software:
> If you compile some source code, you're not free
> to do whatever you want with the resulting binary
> files.

Not true. Archol would have to patent it to stop somebody making and selling them. If you could stop people making things simply by publishing the plans with a copyright notice why would anybody spend thousands of pounds on patents?


>
> Even with reverse engineering you have to be
> careful. To be sure you would have to clean room
> reverse engineer the hot end. One person would
> have to look at the design files and write some
> specification and the other one design according
> to this specifications. If you looked once at the
> design files you would get "tainted", and had a
> hard time to explain that you didn't "mind
> copy/paste" the design. Way overkill in this case
> but that would be the correct way (ask compaq).

So what law is broken by making an exact copy of an un-patented object and selling it?

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

Disclaimer: Im no laywer, just happen to read slashdot

nophead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not true. Archol would have to patent it to stop
> somebody making and selling them. If you could
> stop people making things simply by publishing the
> plans with a copyright notice why would anybody
> spend thousands of pounds on patents?
You're not allowed to use his plans to make something and sell it. But you're allowed to take out the caliper/look at pictures/(do anything except opening his copyrighted files) then make your own plans and manufacture it. Even if the resulting hot end is exactly the same, it depends how you got there.

> So what law is broken by making an exact copy of
> an un-patented object and selling it?
Nothing as long as you don't use his plans.

From a legal POV it's a real pain that he published his design files at all. Like this it's pretty impossible to prove that you didn't looked at his copyrighted files.

From here: [en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

Initially copyright law applied to only the copying of books. Over time other uses such as translations and derivative works were made subject to copyright. Copyright now covers a wide range of works, including maps, sheet music, dramatic works, paintings, photographs, architectural drawings, sound recordings, motion pictures and computer programs.

I don't see any mention of machine parts.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

Correct, you can't copyright the parts themself (yet). But in the license for the copyrighted plans you can specify pretty much anything (like selling your soul in some EULAS), including don't feed me to a fabber.
Now I have no idea if/how much arcol's CC license apllies to fabrication/3D printings. But I'm pretty sure you can't just take a by-nc-nd licensed MP3 manufacture an LP and sell it.

Ok here from the by-nc-nd license:

Quote
"Reproduce" means to make copies of the Work by any means including without limitation by sound or visual recordings and the right of fixation and reproducing fixations of the Work, including storage of a protected performance or phonogram in digital form or other electronic medium.

So it sounds like 3d-printing/manufacuring is covered by this licence ("make copies of the Work by any means").

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2011 04:54PM by Markus Amsler.

@AgeingHippy and what would you want him to answer? I believe he stated his mind selecting this hot end clearly, he would like to sell them and he would not like you to copy them, but to order them from him. If you in any way copy them, he will for sure not sue you as the initiation of the process would in any way cost many times more then anyone can ever earn from selling reprap hot ends...

Quote

But I'm pretty sure you can't just take a by-nc-nd licensed MP3 manufacture an LP and sell it.

No because the music is copyrighted and you have copied it onto the LP. Same reason you can't photocopy a book, but you can read it and do whatever you want with the information it contains, which may be instructions on how to make something.

Quote

So it sounds like 3d-printing/manufacuring is covered by this licence ("make copies of the Work by any means").

The copyrighted "work" is the plans, not what can be made by the plans. It works for books, software and music but not physical objects.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

Nophead, you convinced me.

My software analogy source=cad/plan, binary=part/object is wrong because source, cad/plan AND binary are copyrightable, but not the part/object.

@AgeingHippy and what would you want him to answer? I believe he stated his mind selecting this license clearly, he would like to sell them and he would not like you to copy them, but to order them from him. If you in any way copy them, he will for sure not sue you as the initiation of the process would in any way cost many times more then anyone can ever earn from selling reprap hot ends...

Well, if he wants us to take his license seriously, we have to take him seriously. This means operating under the expectations that he will be serving us reprap folk with takedown notices or suing once we host folk doing the wrong type of Hot End research or entrepreneurs doing the reprap thing and copying his hot end. This is quite troubling.

We should also operate under the assumption that other entrepreneurs are watching.
They currently play under GPLish flavored rules / social contract: "You can copy my stuff, I can copy your stuff."

Laszlo is using a different rule: "I can copy your stuff, you can't copy my stuff."

This is unfair.

And none of us are very keen on enforcing the rule he's put in place and preemptively taking down hot end research / entrepreneurs.

It really gets weird to discuss licence not a single participant in the discussion really fully understands ... from Sebastien's understanding that current licence for this hot end prevents you from printing "open" parts to

I was playing a bit fast and loose.

Technically, if you use the files he's provided to make a copy at home, you can't use that copy to print and sell Mendel parts without him suing you/reprap.
If you buy a copy from a non-Laszlo entrepreneur, you can't use that copy to print and sell Mendel parts without him suing you/reprap.
If you buy a copy from him, you can use that copy to print and sell Mendel parts, and he will not sue you/reprap.

Laszlo should probably be much more precise about under what conditions he's planning on suing people/reprap.

---

-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!

I think Nophead is right. The license applies to the plans and instructions that was published on the wiki. If he wanted to prevent others from making and selling copies of the actual extruder, then he should have patented it instead of publishing it on the web.

Anyone is free to duplicate his extruder design and even sell them since it's not paented. No one is allowed to publish the wiki elsewhere or to modify it.

Review is one way to show our appreciation for those who are kind enough to share their knowledge with us. When Google asked me to rate my experience with Makergear, I posted the following:

“A business with a heart! They design products, post their designs as open source to share them with the world and sell them at near cost. The only problem I have with them is their price is so good that I end up buying more than I really need ”

arhimed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @AgeingHippy and what would you want him to
> answer? I believe he stated his mind selecting
> this hot end clearly, he would like to sell them
> and he would not like you to copy them, but to
> order them from him. If you in any way copy them,
> he will for sure not sue you as the initiation of
> the process would in any way cost many times more
> then anyone can ever earn from selling reprap hot
> ends...


NO NO NO!!!!!

How many times do I have to point this out! THIS LICENSE DOES NOT PREVENT YOU FROM MAKING COPIES OF HIS HOT END. The license does not prevent you from making 1000 copies of his hot end and giving them away to everyone you talk to. The license ONLY prevents you from from selling copies of his hot end for commercial purposes, and from modifying his design in any way.

There are reasonable issues with this license that should be discussed, but if we cannot talk about the issue in honest, reality based terms, then we might as well not talk about it at all. Saying that his license prevents you from making copies is flat out WRONG and, intentionally or not, misleading.

Markus Amsler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I'm
> pretty sure you can't just take a by-nc-nd
> licensed MP3 manufacture an LP and sell it.

Of course not. What part of "No commercial reproduction" is so vague? On the other hand, if the MP3 were released with a CC-BY-ND license, then yes, you could release a for profit copy of it. It was the authors choice to release it with those terms, and they would have no recourse if you made millions of dollars selling their record (other than the court of public opinion of course).

>
> Ok here from the by-nc-nd license:

You quoted the wrong section. The relevant portion of the code here is the NC part, not the reproduce part. ALL Creative Commons licenses allow reproduction. That is their entire reason for existence. The additional clauses (BY, SA, ND, and NC) each place various restrictions on what you can do with the reproductions once you have made them.

For future reference, Part 4b is the relevent part of the license that limits commercial use:

Quote

You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.

You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.

So you cannot use Laszlo's files to make a copy of the hot end, and then use that hot end for private monetary compensation by making and selling Mendel parts.

---

-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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was playing a bit fast and loose.

As you continue to do in spite of being corrected repeatedly.

> Technically, if you use the files he's provided to
> make a copy at home, you can't use that copy to
> print and sell Mendel parts without him suing
> you/reprap.

WRONG!!!

Copyright CANNOT restrict how you personally use a item that you legally obtained (there are very limited exceptions to that under the DMCA and similar laws elsewhere in the world, but all the exceptions are also related to copying, not normal use). An EULA can, but CC licenses are not an EULA, they are a grant of exceptions to the normal copyright law.

Even with all the restrictions, Arcol's hot ends are legal to copy and are legal to use in the same ways you would use any other hot end. Saying otherwise over and over again does not change that, it only makes you look bad.


> If you buy a copy from a non-Laszlo entrepreneur,
> you can't use that copy to print and sell Mendel
> parts without him suing you/reprap.

WRONG

Copyrights are not patents. INTENTIONALLY trafficking in counterfeit copyrighted goods is illegal, but the worst that could happen to you if you inadvertently purchased a knockoff is it would be confiscated. In practice, that will not happen. The RepRap project also would be under no legal risks, assuming you do not follow through on your threat to unilaterally change the license terms.

> If you buy a copy from him, you can use that copy
> to print and sell Mendel parts, and he will not
> sue you/reprap.
>
> Laszlo should probably be much more precise about
> under what conditions he's planning on suing
> people/reprap.

The license terms are not remotely vague. The Creative Commons licenses are very specific and well defined, and they have been tested in court. The rights granted and not granted are quite clear. The problem is that you are, seemingly intentionally, confusing matters by continually misrepresenting what the license terms mean.

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may not exercise any of the rights granted to
> You in Section 3 above in any manner that is
> primarily intended for or directed toward
> commercial advantage or private monetary
> compensation.
>
> So you cannot use Laszlo's files to make a copy of
> the hot end, and then use that hot end for private
> monetary compensation by making and selling Mendel
> parts.

NO. Read section 3. It is SOLELY related to copying.

Even with all the restrictions, Arcol's hot ends are legal to copy and are legal to use in the same ways you would use any other hot end.

Copy and sell in quantity?
If so, we should edit that wiki page and make this clear.

The RepRap project also would be under no legal risks, assuming you do not follow through on your threat to unilaterally change the license terms.

I think I've made it clear I'm not going to do so, yes?

The rights granted and not granted are quite clear.
Laszlo's giving the impression that people cannot sell copies of his nozzle, with the implication that he will use takedown notices backed by legal action. If this is not his intention, it's his obligation to make this clear.

---

-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!

Let me try to phrase this in a different way that may make it easier for some people to understand.

The various Creative commons licenses do not and cannot place any restrictions on your rights other than those in the existing copyright law. Instead the CC licenses grant you limited exemptions to the copyright that allow you to make copies of the copyrighted work. The exact exemptions vary depending on the specific license chosen, but in no case will the terms ever be more restrictive than the copyright law itself.

Therefore the NC term of the CC license CANNOT mean that you cannot use the cc item for ANY commercial purpose, anymore than the copyright on, for example, a cordless drill prevents you from using the drill in the normal course of business.

Does that make it more clear?

NO. Read section 3. It is SOLELY related to copying.

Did. The Licensor grants you the right to reproduce the work (3a) ... but you may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. (4b).

You can make a copy of the Hot End, but you may not use it for private monetary compensation (by printing and selling Mendel Parts).

Mind you, there's something to be said for Nophead's point that you can't copyright physical expressions of hardware. Which we notice whenever we buy aftermarket car parts, for example. This would invalidate the general cc-by-nc-nd stuff, which is generally intended for mp3s and ironic t-shirts.

---

-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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even with all the restrictions, Arcol's hot ends
> are legal to copy and are legal to use in the same
> ways you would use any other hot end.
>
> Copy and sell in quantity?
> If so, we should edit that wiki page and make this
> clear.
>

COPYING does not equal SELLING. His license restrict SELLING copies of his hot end, as I have stated repeatedly.

It baffles me why you are so obsessed with the NC term of the license. It is mildly annoying, since I agree with your point that his terms allow him to copy from others but not the other way around. But the ND term of his license is truly against the RepRap philosophy, yet you seem completely unphased by that. Weird.

COPYING does not equal SELLING. His license restrict SELLING copies of his hot end, as I have stated repeatedly.

You have, yes. Copying without selling is a trivial case we can ignore. Copying with selling is what we need to focus on.

If Laszlo is going to serve us with takedown notices and legal threats, it will be based on this.

Of course, that's when we'll point out the physical expression of the Hot End cannot be copyrighted.

But the ND term of his license is truly against the RepRap philosophy, yet you seem completely unphased by that. Weird.

Please calm down, I'm not your enemy. I am a bit frustrated that Laszlo wants me to police the forum and wiki to purge people copying and hacking his Hot End.

The ND bothers me as well, but I'm not anticipating takedown notices on it quite so much. A GPL cad model based on a digital -calipers-reverse-engineered Hot End is fine because it would not violate the copyright on the existing openscad files, since you can't copyright hardware. But Laszlo's use of ND is pretending this is not the case.

I think the best solution is for someone to do up some GPL cad files for a hot end, called Arcol.hu Hot-End Version 4.0 or Arcol.hu Hot-End Version 3.0 (open, GPL).

---

-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!

The copyright applies only to the published material on the web (description and
instructions on how to make the hot end), and not what you make (the actual hot
end itself) using the published material.

I thought Nophead's point was clear.

Here's an analogy. A cook book can be copyrighted. The copyright on a cookbook protects others from
copying the recipe and distributing it. You cannot edit the cookbook and publish it. But anyone who reads the book can cook the food described in the recipe. They can even sell it to others.

The only legal mechanism that I know that would prevent anyone from reproducing this hot end and selling it without permission from the inventor would be if it was actually patented. This doesn't seem to be the case. The fact that it was published on the web, copyrighted or not, puts this invention in the public domain. He may still be able to patent this in the US but as far as I understand, not in Europe.

BTW, i think that copying the wiki on this hot end into another page, like someone did with the RAMPS wiki, would not be allowed. Also, others are not allowed to edit the wiki without the author's permission.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2011 12:27AM by brnrd.