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.

Yup. Laszlo's use of CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is based on the false assumption that he can invoke the copyright on his cad files to prevent people from selling physical hardware copies of his hot end.

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.

True. But if someone stuffs patented stuff into the wiki and then tells folk they can't copy that stuff the community will get all lynch-mobby at them until the conflict is resolved. So it's beyond the scope of this conversation.

I thought Nophead's point was clear.

Yup. Laszlo's intended use of CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is invalid because one can't copyright physical hardware.

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.
It's allowed by CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, same as a mp3.

Also, others are not allowed to edit the wiki without the author's permission.
Ambiguous.

Laszlo's use of CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is intended to stick to the files, that we're agreed on. And supposed to stick to the hardware, but can't, since it's machinery, not a sculpture. He's not intending an outright ban on editing the page; he's not going to wave CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 at people who embed photos of the hot end in use; he's not going to wave CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 at me for stuffing commentary into the top of the page.

If we were to rename the

[reprap.org]]http://reprap.org/wiki/Arcol.hu_Hot-End_Version_3.0

wiki page to

]http://reprap.org/wiki/Arcol.hu_(you are not supposed to sell copies of this according to the license I'm trying to use)_Hot-End_Version_3.0[

CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 probably would not apply.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2011 12:50AM by SebastienBailard.

---

-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!

brnrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Actually, that is not quite true. You CANNOT copyright a recipe. You can copyright a compilation of recipes, aka a cookbook, but the individual recipes are not copyrightable.

> 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.

This is correct, and demonstrates the flaw in the concept of Open Source Hardware. ALL hardware is opensource unless it is patented. In this case, the idea is probably not even patentable, since it is merely doing what others have done many, many times before. The exact arrangement of his components is new, but I doubt that any of it would rise to the level of being patentable.

> 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.

That seems doubtful. The license applies to the design itself, not the web page. Regardless, copyright on the Wiki is owned by he RepRap foundation and licensed under an Gnu Free Document license, so Arcol could not object to any changes to the wiki. Assuming he put the document there himself, I believe he could not even ask the web page to be removed (or more accurately, he could ask, but nothing more). (Though I am much less familiar with the GFDL, so this may not be accurate).

This is correct, and demonstrates the flaw in the concept of Open Source Hardware.
?

@kludgineer, that was mine understanding on "what he wanted" - not mine interpretation of "creative common licence" ... not to forget me != laszlo so i it is mine understanding of what he wanted, not my knowledge of what his intention was; I was under impression I made that clear. I do agree with your and nop's interpretation of the licence; it makes sense to me - IANAL so cannot confirm if it is the proper one... but it is the one that makes a lot of sense

@sebastien, I think you need to calm down, lay off coffee for a day, sleep on this and then reread whole thread from scratch... I'm sure you will find how much your posts make no sense. As for "I am a bit frustrated that Laszlo wants me to police the forum and wiki to purge people copying and hacking his Hot End." sentence you wrote, I met Laszlo twice, once this year and once last year; I am not the best judge of character out there but I cannot be *that wrong*; The person I met would never, ever ask you to do so; so if it is not too big of a trouble, can you please explain how/where Laszlo asked you to police forum and wiki in his name.

Quote

Copying with selling is what we need to focus on.

And why is "wanting to prevent this" a bad thing ?! If you deem anyone who want to make money of his work "a devil not in the spirit of reprap" why would anyone ever share anything with community ?! It does not make any sense... IMHO bitsfrombytes helped reprap project a big deal ... a huuuuuuge deal ... and there's not a single "open" think they did ... I would really hope there's 20 more companies like BFB in the reprap world, but with attitude like this, you have companies like BFB "ignoring reprap completely" (when is the last time you seen anyone from bfb dev team post here on reprap forums?)....

I was taught that you always need to try to put yourself in your partner's shoes... from mine personal perspective not a single licence/patent makes sense, but from the same perspectives 90% of world population are stupid morons who really just waste resources, but you don't see me rallying troupes and advocating killing everyone with IQ below 120 .. I do try to put myself into other man's shoes as much as I can .. try to do so .. try to imagine that you invested let's say 10000US$ in something and you are selling it, and you expect to earn some money with it, and then some joe from arizona decides to copy your design and sell it for 5$ cheaper then you and some cing ling ping from some village in prc decides to make it and sell it for half the price and no quality .... imagine that scenario and then think about what you would feel?! And then read your posts in this forum...

arhimed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @kludgineer, that was mine understanding on "what
> he wanted" - not mine interpretation of "creative
> common licence" ... not to forget me != laszlo so
> i it is mine understanding of what he wanted, not
> my knowledge of what his intention was; I was
> under impression I made that clear. I do agree
> with your and nop's interpretation of the licence;
> it makes sense to me - IANAL so cannot confirm if
> it is the proper one... but it is the one that
> makes a lot of sense

I apologize if I misrepresented your view. I do think it is bad form to try to say what someone else thinks though. As you pointed out in your comments to Sebastien, Lazlo does not strike me as a bad guy at all. His choice of license does not in any way betray a tendency towards litigiousness so suggesting that he wants to sue everyone seems unfair to me.

Anyway, I stand corrected on the tone of my response!

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is correct, and demonstrates the flaw in the
> concept of Open Source Hardware.
> ?

Read the next sentence. ;-)

Quote
Kludgineer
ALL hardware is opensource unless it is patented.

That is not exactly true, but the point (as has been stated repeatedly, including by you) is that purely functional hardware design is not subject to copyrights. You can patent a functional hardware design (which is not relevant in this case), and you can copyright the aesthetic design of a product, but you cannot copyright the functional design.

That last bit does give Arcol a small window of legal rights, you cannot make a design that looks just like his, but it would take only very small changes to get past that part.

As for "I am a bit frustrated that Laszlo wants me to police the forum and wiki to purge people copying and hacking his Hot End." sentence you wrote, I met Laszlo twice, once this year and once last year; I am not the best judge of character out there but I cannot be *that wrong*; The person I met would never, ever ask you to do so; so if it is not too big of a trouble, can you please explain how/where Laszlo asked you to police forum and wiki in his name.

It's implied by his choice of license. He wants to prevent people from selling copies of his Hot End, or redoing it under the GPL.

Unless we are supposed to ignore people selling copies of his Hot End, or redoing it under the GPL.

It's one or the other. Police or ignore, and then deal with takedown notices.

Quote

'Copying with selling is what we need to focus on.'

And why is "wanting to prevent this" a bad thing ?!

"This machine is a RepRap, it makes copies of itself. And you're supposed to make lots and lots of copies. Oh, but not the Hot End right there. Violates Laszlo's copyright."

Telling people they can't copy part of a reprap violates the idea of reprap, the-machine-that-self-replicates.

If you deem anyone who want to make money of his work "a devil not in the spirit of reprap" why would anyone ever share anything with community ?!

That's not it. I think he's behaving unfairly towards the other entrepreneurs who generally don't keep the threat of legal action in reserve for when people copy and modify their stuff.

I do try to put myself into other man's shoes as much as I can .. try to do so .. try to imagine that you invested let's say 10000US$ in something and you are selling it, and you expect to earn some money with it, and then some joe from arizona decides to copy your design and sell it for 5$ cheaper then you and some cing ling ping from some village in prc decides to make it and sell it for half the price and no quality .... imagine that scenario and then think about what you would feel?!

I'm hoping they're not going to try to spend their time telling people they can't copy parts of reprap, since that would be rather silly of them. It's rather like telling the wind not to blow, or dandelions not to make more dandelions.

I actually want Laszlo to make and sell lots of Hot Ends, and thereby recoup his initial sunk costs and make a living selling parts and feedstock. I just think his current use of copyright to prevent people from copying or modifying his Hot End is rather silly.

---

-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 do think it is bad form to try to say what someone else thinks though. As you pointed out in your comments to Sebastien, Laszlo does not strike me as a bad guy at all. His choice of license does not in any way betray a tendency towards litigiousness so suggesting that he wants to sue everyone seems unfair to me.

Well...

If he's not going to serve RepRap with takedown notices, then it doesn't really matter if people use RepRap's wiki and forum to sell copies of his Hot End, and we can basically ignore the NC. And if he won't be serving RepRap with takedown notices on hacked Hot End research then we can basically ignore the ND.

kludgineer, will you please tell me if I'm supposed to take his license seriously or not?

Laszlo, it would be good if you let us know if you'll be serving us with takedown notices or not.

The ideal resolution is if Laszlo decides the GPL may not be too bad after all. Then we can remove the commentary on
http://reprap.org/wiki/Arcol.hu_Hot-End_Version_3.0, lock this thread, and watch the issue quickly fade away, while Laszlo sells lots of Hot Ends.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2011 01:54AM by SebastienBailard.

---

-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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for "I am a bit frustrated that Laszlo wants me
> to police the forum and wiki to purge people
> copying and hacking his Hot End." sentence you
> wrote, I met Laszlo twice, once this year and once
> last year; I am not the best judge of character
> out there but I cannot be *that wrong*; The person
> I met would never, ever ask you to do so; so if it
> is not too big of a trouble, can you please
> explain how/where Laszlo asked you to police forum
> and wiki in his name.
>
> It's implied by his choice of license. He wants to
> prevent people from selling copies of his Hot End,
> or redoing it under the GPL.
>
> Unless we are supposed to ignore people selling
> copies of his Hot End, or redoing it under the
> GPL.
>
> It's one or the other. Police or ignore, and then
> deal with takedown notices.

Not really... There is only one good choice under the law. You SHOULD NOT actively try to police the forum. Ironically you can open yourself up to greater legal liability by being overzealous than by sitting back and waiting.

And I would be careful putting words into Lazlo's mouth. The ONLY things implied by his license choice are:

1) It is copyable
2) He wants attribution if you redistribute it
3) You cannot redistribute for profit
and 4) You cannot make changes to the design.

Anything else is you reading between the lines, and that can often go seriously awry.

Treating a copyright license as a de facto patent won't make it so. Without a patent, a mechanism designer has no way of enforcing a monopoly on a device. If it were copyrighted as an isolated coffee table knick knack, perhaps. But offering the documentation on the reprap wiki takes all of the wind out of that sail.

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do think it is bad form to try to say what
> someone else thinks though. As you pointed out in
> your comments to Sebastien, Laszlo does not strike
> me as a bad guy at all. His choice of license does
> not in any way betray a tendency towards
> litigiousness so suggesting that he wants to sue
> everyone seems unfair to me.
>
> Well...
>
> If he's not going to serve RepRap with takedown
> notices, then it doesn't really matter if people
> use RepRap's wiki and forum to sell copies of his
> Hot End, and we can basically ignore the NC. And
> if he won't be serving RepRap with takedown
> notices on hacked Hot End research then we can
> basically ignore the ND.
>
> kludgineer, will you please tell me if I'm
> supposed to take his license seriously or not?

Are you planning on selling copies? If so, than yes, you should take it seriously, since you would be breaking the law.

Or are you asking merely in your role as webmaster? If so, then the answer is not so simple. It is not your job to act as a proactive sensor, so you should not take it too seriously, but you should respond in the event he sends you a takedown notice (or even a polite request).

> The ideal resolution is if Laszlo decides the GPL
> may not be too bad after all. Then we can remove
> the commentary on
> [reprap.org].
> 0, lock this thread, and watch the issue quickly
> fade away, while Laszlo sells lots of Hot Ends.

I would strongly recommend you remove the commentary anyway, at least the parts that are factually wrong, as have been extensively documented in this thread.

You SHOULD NOT actively try to police the forum.
That's lucky. I don't think we keep as much an eye on the marketplace forums as would be ideal.

Anything else is you reading between the lines, and that can often go seriously awry.
Will Laszlo be attempting to enforce the terms of his license? Yes or no?

Should we be taking this license seriously or not?

---

-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!

Are you planning on selling copies? If so, than yes, you should take it seriously, since you would be breaking the law.

False. One cannot copyright car parts or machine tools. The original cad files for them yes, the lumps of metal or reverse engineered cad files, no.

I would strongly recommend you remove the commentary anyway, at least the parts that are factually wrong, as have been extensively documented in this thread.
I'll be cleaning it up.

---

-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:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Should we be taking this license seriously or not?

No! It's a misrepresentation of the CC license terms to imply that it, or his stipulations, are applicable to the device, or carry any weight when used so.

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you planning on selling copies? If so, than
> yes, you should take it seriously, since you would
> be breaking the law.
>
> False. One cannot copyright car parts or machine
> tools. The original cad files for them yes, the
> lumps of metal or reverse engineered cad files,
> no.

Fair point. I would recommend consulting with an IP lawyer before you sell copies just to be safe, but I believe you are correct.

few points where I strongly disagree are

1. forum/wiki need policing - I do not think so. The reprap community is not a community made out of those 90% of population with IQ slightly higher then a moron but actually from those other 10% of ppl who know how to think for themselves... policing will only make ppl resent the policemen and leave the community if the policing gets too strong (as it is getting attm btw)

2. not being able to duplicate hot end hurts reprap - I strongly disagree here too. Let's say I make a super hot end that can extrude garbage into gold, I go and patent it in every country in the World and make sure not a single person in the world can duplicate it. They can only purchase the hot end from me. The hot end accepts garbage and extrudes perfect gold strings and cost 200$. Why would you care if you cannot duplicate it, sell it, change it?! You have a choice to purchase it, attach to your mendel/darwin/xyzbot and print golden pieces .. do you think a product like that would benefit reprap community or it would hurt it, because you cannot duplicate hot end?! There is attm a choice between few proven designs for a extruder drive and extruder hot end out there, some are open, some are closed, it is up to a user to decide what design they will use. Whatever design they will use will not prevent them to print "open" parts (just like I would not be able to sell you my hot end that prints gold and tell you that you can only print rings with it but cannot print squares because it infringes on something, just like I cannot sell you hammer and tell you that you can only hit steel nails with it and that everything you build with that hammer must be closed source).... the point of reprap is that it EVOLVES ... the design that is flawed will die out, the design that is good will live on ... the "garbage to gold" hot end would live what ever "licence" it has attached if the price is 200$ just like "gold to garbage" hot end will never live no matter how "open" licence for using it is ... In between those two there are other hot ends, each of them has good and bad sides, some are open, other are closed, some can be made "at home" other need cnc shop to be made, some are cheap other are expensive, some produce great output, some average and some produce barely usable output... the *evolution* will decide which ones will stay....

3. as for the "making sure ppl know what they are purchasing" - today's online e-commerce is very protective of a customer so you have option to charge back your ccard payment 5 months after payment is made, paypal also allow you to request your money for a fair amount of time after purchase .. so the users are protected and if the goods do not deliver they can always return them and take their money back .. I'm using this hot end for a long time now and it kicks ass, and really I could not care less abut the licence it was published at (as I know no licence can prevent me to print "whatever I want" with it) ... and since I do not own a cnc machine I know I can't make it "at home" so I really don't care about duplicating it, and I care less about "duplicating and selling it" ... and honestly, I really don't care if joe from montana cannot duplicate and sell it, the joe can go develop his own hot end .. nor I think that ability for joe to make money out of someone elses work will in any way benefit reprap project, on the contrary, allowing joe to benefit from laszlo's work would just show that investing into development is not a smart thing hence you will have less and less ppl investing ...

1. forum/wiki need policing - I do not think so.

Actually, it's a lot of fun to keep an eye on
http://reprap.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges
and see what people are up to.
That's how we got
http://reprap.org/wiki/1X2_Tallcat

policing will only make ppl resent the policemen and leave the community if the policing gets too strong (as it is getting attm btw)

Hmmm ... interesting point. Laszlo is attempting to put a new rule in place. We're trying to figure out if we're going to encourage him to impose this rule on his fellow entrepreneurs, or if we're going to effectively nullify it. This rule does not effect you directly because you don't distribute or research hot ends, but it does effect people who distribute or research hot ends. I would argue it is unfair to them. And it is unfair to people who buy stuff from them or use their published research, respectively.

I agree that conflict tends to have a corrosive effect on community.

2. not being able to duplicate hot end hurts reprap - I strongly disagree here too.
Saying "you can't copy this part of reprap" is a recipe for conflict in our community.

It's also the thin edge of a wedge: if we decide to welcome CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 for hot ends,
we'll have a half dozen entrepreneurs "releasing" their electronics under this and other I-don't-actually-want-you-to-copy-this-but-I'm-using-the-idea-of-open-source-as-perfume-to-make-it-smell-right licenses. Money makes people do strange things. We had a guy attempt to use the wiki to sell a closed-source darwin knock off once.

Again, I do want Laszlo to sell lots of hot ends. But trying to tell people they can't sell copies of this part of a RepRap is a bit silly. I would argue CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 is worse than closed source.

Why would you care if you cannot duplicate it, sell it, change it?!
RepRap is based on the idea of a machine that makes duplicates that we change and distribute, often selling....
Which is why imposing a rule that "you cannot duplicate it, sell it, change it" is a recipe for conflict in our community.

and since I do not own a cnc machine I know I can't make it "at home"
We as a community benefit from a handful of entrepreneurs who use CNC machines to churn out hot ends, because most people don't have CNC lathes (or manual lathes).

allowing joe to benefit from laszlo's work would just show that investing into development is not a smart thing hence you will have less and less ppl investing .
Laszlo is benefiting from an existing body of published (GPL-ish) research into hot ends, both for profit and non profit, like nophead's or adrian's. There's also basic economics to consider. We're not going to have hot ends be "too cheap to make" since that's not really a problem. And we're not going to have hot ends be "to expensive to make" since entrepreneurs will start dogpiling it. The price will equilibrate.

Laszlo's in a good position because people like him and because his hot end is good.

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

---

-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 it is quite simple.

The licence Laszlo has used is invalid because it is based on GPL licenced nozzles... and I don't think anyone can argue that.

The licence Laszlo has used is invalid because it is based on GPL licenced nozzles...
Which hot end precisely is it based on? And ... is he violating the copyright on that cad file? Or is it some GFDL docs? Or is he violating the copyright on a lump of metal ... by reverse engineering a set of cad files from it.

and I don't think anyone can argue that.
Welcome to 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!

@Sebastian

I guess I cannot point at any specific nozzel but it seems to use elements found in many GPL nozzels as found on the wiki. These include a nophead style heater block, a PTFE thermal break and PEEK hat which holds the threads (reifsneiderb's PTFE/PEEK hybrid initially used).

But then - I am only an armchair lawyer and woe betied anyone using my sayso as a legal basis

This discussion seems to be going around in circles. The design isn't patented. So, anyone can follow the instructions and plans on the wiki to make their own copy of the hot end and share or sell it without worrying about any legal issues.

brnrd, I don't agree we are going in circles. wrt original post, I think we have a consensus on "what is protected", as for the Laszlo, if I know that guy and I really think I read ppl good, he soooooo don't give a damn about particulars of the licence itself. He might be "pissed" on the initial message from Sebastian (I know I would be very pissed and I believe some of you shared that too) - however Sebastian has best interest of RepRap in mind the road to ... best intentions ... you know the story ..

What we are still discussing (me at least ) is

- is the "proprietary part" welcome to reprap ever or never, I believe there are many reasons for it to be welcome and sebastian believes (please correct me if I am wrong) then it is never welcome. I think I have shown a pretty good case where proprietary part will be very welcome.

- the RepRap phylosophy - I say that idea is to allow "evolution" to decide what is good and what is not good - if part with unclear, ugly, nasty licence is "not good for the community" - noone will use it and it will disappear on it's own

- what licence actually means, can you protect "end design" / "function" / "idea" with a "licence" or you have to have patent

Hey,

Sorry guy's for not posting earlier, I was busy with some new development.
I do not understand why you make so much fuss about the licence,
I always have best of reprap in my mind.
Yes, Bogdan is right,
I answered to Sebastian maybe prematurely because
I didn't like that he was challenging my decision.
I do not think my initial choice of licence is bad but
I do not mind at all to remove the ND part of it,
so I will now change wiki to define licence for this hot end as CC-NC.

I simply picked up the most restrictive license at the beginning to refine it
later. I will keep an eye on this thread, and once you guys got to a
consensus what is the most fair for an "entrepreneur", I will revisit the
licensing question. Most probably around august.

This hot-end is really young, it is only around 4 months old, so no need to
hurry

Bests,
Laszlo
[blog.arcol.hu]

Wehey

Pleased to see you Laszlo

arcol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so I will now change wiki to define licence for
> this hot end as CC-NC.
>

I actually don't have any issues with anyone wanting to benefit from their work. How else do we encourage innovation if this is not allowed? But I think if one wants to protect their invention, then publishing it on the web is not the way to go about it. As soon as you publish it, whether you claim ownership or not, you've already given it away to the public. The only way to keep ownership is to patent it first before publishing it. The patent process takes long while the reprap community is changing quickly. So your invention might not be useful anymore by the time you go through the process.

I am few (three iirc) years in the RepRap project (darn time go faster then one would like) and I have not seen that many improvements on the extruder design since the drive moved from DC to STEPPER .. so "changing quickly" ... I would really wish we do that much faster ... that's why I believe we should encourage "any" investment in the development of new things .. especially the extruder part ... what happened to that German group who made extruder that printed directly from pellets?

Hey Laszlo, cu on 29th great you joined the conversation

p.s.
Btw. since "today" I'm proud owner of a lathe (nothing big and fancy - just one old French lady - Minilor TR-1 / Vario-lux 130 with some accessories) so after I learn how to use it I'll try to computerize it and join the few working on some nozzle R&D

I do not understand why you make so much fuss about the licence,
I always have best of reprap in my mind.

That's very simple: we don't know what are you planning on doing if people start selling copies of your hot end. RepRap developers like to make copies of things, like RepRaps and RepRap parts. Telling the RepRap community they cannot copy part of a RepRap is a recipe for conflict.

It would be good to know if you are planning on serving the RepRap community with takedown notices, backed up with the threat of legal action.

Also, to be blunt, copyright does not extend to machine tool parts. Cad files yes, but not the physical machine tool parts those cad files describe. In view of the fact that you cannot use the copyright on your cad files to prevent people from selling copies of your hot end, I'd strongly suggest you consider simply using the gpl, rather than following a path that puts you in direct conflict with a community that is founded on copying stuff like machine tool parts.

Unless you are in a country where people can copyright machine tool parts.

I actually don't have any issues with anyone wanting to benefit from their work. How else do we encourage innovation if this is not allowed?

The entrepreneurs selling hot ends and electronics are benefiting from an ecosystem of mostly gpl research. Mendel, RepSnapper, Adrian and Nophead's published hot end research, earlier versions of gpl-ed electronics, etc. Much of this innovation is from love of the art, or using previous GPL research.

This is not to say that we don't have a bunch of entrepreneurs innovating. But up to now, they haven't tried to use licenses to prevent people from using their files.

GPL stuff can be described as "you can copy and modify my stuff if I can copy and modify your stuff". Which is a nice recipe for fairness, and describes a social contract. Laszlo is taking a machine you're supposed to copy, and bolting onto it something you're not supposed 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:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the best solution is for someone to do up
> some GPL cad files for a hot end

Done. Meet the BudaSchnozzle!

[www.alephobjects.com]

Done in SolidWorks, but I would very much like a redrafting in free/libre software. GPLv3.

Have fun,

-Jeff

.... wow. I did this post while I was at work this weekend just looking for a bit of,"It's okay.. no need to worry". Had NO idea it would be 3 pages of reponses. I'm very new to the reprap scene and very cautious when it comes to money. Armed with the knowledge from this thread, ARCOL!! THROW A HOT END ON THE GRILL FOR ME PLEASE. I'll be placing an order.

I haven't really been in the irc and yet but hope to in the future. My 11 year old is very excited about getting a printer up and running. Thanks again for all the information, and arcol for clearing things up toward the end. From what I've seen you are a skilled craftsman, and I understand you wanting to protect your version of the hot end in the greater scheme of things.

./Draeician

draeician Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .... wow. I did this post while I was at work
> this weekend just looking for a bit of,"It's
> okay.. no need to worry". Had NO idea it would be
> 3 pages of reponses.

Heh, you ARE new here, aren't you? ;-)

Anything even remotely tied to licensing issues, the merits of open source, etc. tends to generate a lot of fire around here. We are an opinionated bunch. :-)

> I haven't really been in the irc and yet but hope
> to in the future. My 11 year old is very excited
> about getting a printer up and running.

The IRC channel is, in my opinion, the best and fastest way to answer any questions you have. Drop in if you need help!