Using GPL for hardware is a bad idea

This is a continuation of a misconception between someone who took some hardware file documents, modified them, and then sold hardware.

As noted in the Wikipedia article on open source hardware, there is a clear mismatch between GPL and hardware.

First and foremost, the language in GPL and LGPL refer to software components, compiled executables, software artifacts, documentation, etc. Applying GPL to these parts of RepRap makes perfect sense.

However, someone has come along, created a modified a hardware / layout / schematic, based on an existing schematic, and sold ***HARDWARE****, with no software, and was dinged because they were not providing the "source" files.

This in my opinion is a critical flaw... If you want the hardware to be open, first and foremost, you need a license that actually covers hardware. I'm not sure why do people cling to GPL when it does not cover hardware components, (If you search for GPL hardware, one of the top items will be Richard Stahlman saying this same thing -- GPL and hardware do not make sense.)

A creative commons license, or TAPR Open Hardware license would be much more appropriate to apply to the electronics, mechanical designs, and produced parts than the software only GPL. I suspect that clinging to an unmodified GPL license will create greater and greater confusion as time goes on, as well as creating potential legal nightmares should anyone decide with a commercial interest in the open source decides to take on someone who sells competing hardware on the basis that GPL covers the "openness" of that hardware.

However, someone has come along, created a modified a hardware / layout / schematic, based on an existing schematic, and sold ***HARDWARE****, with no software, and was dinged because they were not providing the "source" files.

The only problem is that she chose to post-document her work, rather than pre-documenting her work. And that she chose to call the boards the Gen 3 MakerBot boards rather than the Gen 3 RepRap boards, or the Gen 3 RRRF boards:
[www.rrrf.org]

This is normally utterly reasonable: shipping GPL hardware is a lot more work and involves more than shipping GPL software. Moreover, why and where should you document something you might not actually be able to sell? Especially after already spending time and money on development and fabrication! In this case, the boards sold, and her fellow RepRap user-developers love them.

Unfortunately, in this instance, choosing to post-document and choosing the call the boards the wrong name gave Bre Pettis a chance simultaneously to 1) attack her and us, 2) try to sell more Gen 3 boards, 3) advertise thingiverse, 4) advertise makerbot, 5) position himself as the official guardian/archivist of all open source hardware, 6) call the boards the Gen 3 boards the Makerbot boards and 7)lecture us on ethics.

Here are the links for curious onlookers who are wondering what we are talking about:
[forums.reprap.org]
[blog.makerbot.com]
Bre's motivations for his acts and statements are rather interesting and contentious. I urge people who would like to discuss the matter to bring it up in his commercial blog: [blog.makerbot.com]

That way we can use this thread to discuss the infinitely more interesting and infinitely less political subject of the GPL, and other licenses, which, while not being as beautiful as the GPL, certainly must have their own merits.

This in my opinion is a critical flaw... If you want the hardware to be open, first and foremost, you need a license that actually covers hardware. I'm not sure why do people cling to GPL when it does not cover hardware components, (If you search for GPL hardware, one of the top items will be Richard Stahlman saying this same thing -- GPL and hardware do not make sense.)

I think it will be easier to have RMS and interested parties tweak GPL 3 to address hardware and call the new license "GPL 4".

Otherwise we have to do a user-education campaign and tell everyone to use a new-license-which-is-not-the-GPL. At which point half of them will start arguing, half of them won't care, half of them will bugger off and use every single damn license there is, half of them will roll their own, and half of them will go and make popcorn and watch the festivities.

I think it would be less work to just fix the GPL. But I say that because I'm a GPL fanboy.

Also, I think it's more useful to just use one license which is currently flawed
than to muddy the waters and start forking RepRap into myriad little licenses.

[en.wikipedia.org]

I believe this is may also be possibly related, regarding going pure-GPL versus cc-license-de-jour:
[en.wikipedia.org]

So, if the GPL is broken, maybe we should urge RMS to fix it? Otherwise we need different licenses for different parts of the instruction set to build and operate a RepRap. That feels inelegant.

I'm going to go make some popcorn now - I think this thread is going to be a long one.

---

-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!

You can certainly take the GPL, and try to rework it; to do so could get very expensive unless you can find someone in the legal community to volunteer some time.

Clinging to GPL because it's your favorite is sort of like clinging to your Pajamas, and wearing them to work, because, heck, they work so good in the bedroom, they must certainly be good enough for board room.

As far as I can tell, nothing currently legally prevents someone from withholding the hardware design files, when they modify and making electronics, mechanical parts, and kits for, or like, RepRap devices for sale or donation to others. Even more, if they should write their own software and documentation, from the way I read RepRap licensing, they can feel free to create their own fully proprietary RepRap machines so long as they don't call it a RepRap; in fact, I believe this has already been done, has it not?

You can certainly take the GPL, and try to rework it; to do so could get very expensive unless you can find someone in the legal community to volunteer some time.

Ah. My point is that it is the responsibility of the FLOSS-legal community to address this matter. I believe RMS can fix the GPL so that it does address hardware.

I do not know if he will be motivated to do so.

Even more, if they should write their own software and documentation, from the way I read RepRap licensing, they can feel free to create their own fully proprietary RepRap machines so long as they don't call it a RepRap; in fact, I believe this has already been done, has it not?

Could you drop me an email with a link and I'll look into it? Unless you mean BFB - Ian and Iain are very good people: they're working very hard on releasing everything in a timely manner.

Bogdan:

Quote

Yes, the BFB team was more then forth coming in every aspect. Including the whole firmware source story. The "missing files" are under some undefined microchip licence (note that most microchip stuff is under GPL but these libraries are not !!) so it is not simple to release the files ... as for the support - open source does not mean you support source, just that it is available, but again Tony spent few hours with me getting it to compile.

I am very happy with the BFB team and I don't often find companies that easy to work with and cooperative as they are .. I just think they have business growing faster then they anticipated so they are not as fast in doing stuff as we would like (and probably not near as fast as they would like), but anyhow, you know, you took the kit from them and you communicated with them, you know how crazy nice Ian and Iain are

btw. iirc the main reason for the delay on the 1.0.8 was refactoring .. as they wanted the source to look "nice" and to be sure no commercial licences are broken by publishing it (hence - few microchip files with "funny licence" are missing).. I think the same will be with 2.0 .. they probably want to have "Final" version that is "nice" and then they will shoot the source on dl page

just mine 0.02$

On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:58 AM, Forrest Higgs wrote:

> Thanks for clarifying that Bogdan. I think we'd do well not to presume a malicious attempt to evade open source release of firmware by BfB any time something isn't instantly available. Even if they were, reverse engineering that kind of firmware isn't exactly rocket science. :-/

---

Clinging to GPL because it's your favorite is sort of like clinging to your Pajamas, and wearing them to work, because, heck, they work so good in the bedroom, they must certainly be good enough for board room.

I think everyone out on the street and in the board room is wearing pajamas already. I believe it may be necessary to upgrade those pajamas so that they cover peoples' ... hardware ... more effectively.

---

Functionally and keeping in mind human behavior, if someone tried to a release a proprietary or non-GPL RepRap; their users would figure it out, laugh at them, and use their machines to start making RepRaps.

Since Adrian chose to begin by using the GPL, all our fellow RepRap user-developers will follow by using GPL for their versions. That will result in gentle pressure on RMS to upgrade the GPL accordingly .

Thank you for bringing it up. The matter is serious, but not urgent - I have no personal problem with spending a few months thinking about it.

I believe I speak for the rest of RepRap when I say that RepRap is not planning on taking one of our fellow RepRap user-developers to court over a GPL violation in the near future.

Even if we did discover someone who was too busy or just reluctant to document, we'd start by addressing the matter casually. That means teaching them how to use the wiki. "Just log in and edit".

---

Do we need to fix this in the next 24 hours, or can we spend 24 months on it? Are you concerned because of RepOlaRap?
[reprap.org]

---

-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!

By the way, has BfB released the .dxf files for lasercutting their RapMan 3 parts? Not that they have to, I suppose, since they probably aren't bound by GPL but I am curious. It would be a good choice of repstrap for people with lasers or waterjets available.

Anyway, the SpoolHead team was also planning to release our work under the GPL when we're done our project. I think it even said so in our project proposal. But reading over this thread, maybe that's not the best license for us? What we'd like is to have an appropriate copyleft license for it. BeagleFury, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about this. In what ways does GPL fall short as a hardware license?

Anyway, the SpoolHead team was also planning to release our work under the GPL when we're done our project. I think it even said so in our project proposal. But reading over this thread, maybe that's not the best license for us? What we'd like is to have an appropriate copyleft license for it. BeagleFury, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about this. In what ways does GPL fall short as a hardware license?

Beaglefury just opened a huge can of worms here. But he has good intentions - he's pointing out that a part of RepRap's "infrastructure" is broken. And he's doing it in the perfect forum, so I cannot be too angry with him.

This is the forum where we work on "infrastructure", policy, and where we try to deal with complexity and possible conflict rather than confronting our new users with it.

Beaglefury, I'll look at those links.

---

Here's where we can edit the GPL3, and try to modify it appropriately.
[reprap.org]

It will be important to coordinate with the rest of the world, most notably with RMS and the FSF, but I'm going to hold off until I self-educate on these matters more thoroughly.

---

If you want your stuff to be compatible with RepRap, I suggest using the GPL.
Call it GPL2.1 - "GPL, as used by RepRap, as they are using GPL2 even though it is not perfect." That way everyone's contributions are cross compatible, and that way Adrian can use your stuff.

Or you can look up one of the many CC licenses. If I were feeling sarcastics, I'd suggest that you create your own license, or even better, create a new license for each thing you release. Making sure that each of them is cross compatible and making sure that each of them is compatible with RepRap.

Or you can use the GPL, and then, if it becomes needful, you can then re-release under a different license at a later time.

---

-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'm not sure why do people cling to GPL when it does not cover hardware components.

Simple. Not everyone seeks out complexity. And they want everything they do to be compatible. Or maybe they choose to use the license that everyone else is using. Or maybe the GPL is the only license they have heard of. Also, this way they don't have to explain to a friend, or user, or a potential customer, "Oh, we're not using the GPL".

Imagine, for a moment, the consequences if RepRap did a big blog annoucement:
"We're not using the GPL anymore!!!"

That's never going to happen. I don't want to alienate my fellow user-developers. And I don't have the time to do a 6 billion people user education campaign, because that's the number of potential RepRap user-developers out there.

---

One last thing.

All readers: While "core" RepRap development is done under the GPL, please remember that you are welcome to the wiki for all manner of RepRapped projects, under any license you choose. If you are working on improving RepRap, please use the GPL to be compatible with the rest of us.

---

-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!

If you derive from something that is covered by GPL then surely it must inherit the same licence, otherwise it makes a nonsense of the whole thing.

For example, if person A makes a change but also changes to a less restrictive license person B can derive from that and do things they couldn't do with the original, making the original license irrelevant.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

"People often ask about the possibility of using the GNU GPL or some other kind of copyleft for hardware designs.

Firmware such as programs for programmable logic devices or microcoded machines are software, and can be copylefted like any other software. For actual circuits, though, the matter is more complex.

Circuits cannot be copylefted because they cannot be copyrighted. Definitions of circuits written in HDL (hardware definition languages) can be copylefted, but the copyleft covers only the expression of the definition, not the circuit itself. Likewise, a drawing or layout of a circuit can be copylefted, but this only covers the drawing or layout, not the circuit itself. What this means is that anyone can legally draw the same circuit topology in a different-looking way, or write a different HDL definition which produces the same circuit. Thus, the strength of copyleft when applied to circuits is limited. However, copylefting HDL definitions and printed circuit layouts may do some good nonetheless. "

- Richard Stallman

---

The same could be said of the RepRap mechanical parts.

Compare the GPL license, which discusses terms like "Software", "Source Code", "Machine Readable", with something more appropriate for hardware, such as the TAPR Open Hardware License, where terms the license covers includes "Hardware", "Physical Artifact", "electronic", and clarifies the use (or lack of applicability) of copyright in terms of applicability to hardware.

While there are some issues using GPL (I.E, it is not really compatible with a non-commercial only license), it is perfectly suitable for all software components. It is not, however, suitable for any of the hardware components, first and foremost being, you cannot copyright a piece of hardware or electronic design, except in terms of expressing it as a 'work of art'.

Just to reiterate my point, here is the exact statement from the GPL FAQ:

"Can I use the GPL to license hardware?"

"Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example, you can release a drawing of a hardware design under the GPL. However, if someone used that information to create physical hardware, they would have no license obligations when distributing or selling that device: it falls outside the scope of copyright and thus the GPL itself."

Nophead is right, and GPL prevents degrading of the license in that exact way. You are bound by the license you received, which in the case of the GPL dictates that that same license apply to all derivative works. Only the original author can change the license and he never loses that right.

BeagleFury is also right, the GPL was designed very specifically for software the GNU website states clearly that it can't be applied to a physical product. Physical products require a level of effort to recreate and distribute that is a infinitely greater than of software. Distributing software is practically a zero cost game.

From the GPL FAQ: Can I use the GPL to license hardware? Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example, you can release a drawing of a hardware design under the GPL. However, if someone used that information to create physical hardware, they would have no license obligations when distributing or selling that device: it falls outside the scope of copyright and thus the GPL itself.

Emphasis mine.

Sebastien is always right ; well most of the time. Changing the root license for Reprap should not be taken lightly but this is a serious matter. We are moving forward under the assumption that the GNU and the FSF (Free SOFTWARE Foundation) cares about hardware and nothing I've read indicates that.

I want to spend some time reading up on Creative Commons licenses to see if they would apply better.

In the case were we need a better license there is nothing prohibiting RepRap from dual licensing GPL and whatever would provide more hardware protections. The GPL specifically allows that, and again only the original author can choose to change it. This should keep the community from splintering and fussing somewhat.

---

---
Isaac: a CNCed Mendel Derived RepStrap
FlemingCNC

Looks like I spent way to long tweaking my post. BeaglyFury beat me to the GPL FAQ quote.

---

---
Isaac: a CNCed Mendel Derived RepStrap
FlemingCNC

jbayless Wrote:

> Anyway, the SpoolHead team was also planning to
> release our work under the GPL when we're done our
> project. I think it even said so in our project
> proposal. But reading over this thread, maybe
> that's not the best license for us? What we'd like
> is to have an appropriate copyleft license for it.
> BeagleFury, you seem to be quite knowledgeable
> about this. In what ways does GPL fall short as a
> hardware license?

If you intend on keeping the 'open source' mindset, then I'd suggest you use GPL for any and all source code and documentation. Depending on how you want to limit the distribution and/or construction of the hardware itself, I'm not sure if there is currently any solution to allow you to do this. Read thru the TAPR Open hardware license and see if it would suit your desires and intentions for the hardware.

I am raising this issue because as I see it, it seems many in the forums (and elsewhere) assume GPL will protect the hardware and electronic devices -- it does not.

Pardon me for the confusion... I definitely don't want to limit distribution or construction of the hardware. But, if someone makes an improved hardware design that is based on ours, will the GPL require them to release the documentation for their improvements?

I'm assuming documentation, in the hardware sense, refers to things like CAD models...

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2010 03:34PM by jbayless.

jbayless, I forgot your personal context - you're an engineer and student and you need a some thing that works now.

Use this text (after reading TAPR):

"This project is released under the terms of the GPL and TAPR as appropriate"

That will will make your mentors happy, as opposed to writing: "So, this dude called Sebastien told me that we should use the GPL even though he concedes it may not perfectly apply."

---

BeagleFury, your personal context is that of a mathematician and RepRap fan, and you want to make sure that our definitions and codes work and are self-consistent. Also, you don't want to see a "bad guy" behave unfairly by releasing a closed-source RepRap knockoff.

---

My perspective is a bit different - I need to go for a walk and run errands, but I'll be back in a few hours. Or days

I (and RepRap more generally) prefer whenever possible to not rock the boat. RepRap's job is to make the boat larger.

jbayless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pardon me for the confusion... I definitely don't
> want to limit distribution or construction of the
> hardware. But, if someone makes an improved
> hardware design that is based on ours, will the
> GPL require them to release the documentation for
> their improvements?

As I understand the GPL, they would be free to take your designs for the device, build copies of the device, and then sell that device without providing the open source documentation on how to build the device, so long as they did not distribute any part of the GPL modified designs, documentation, or software.

This does imply they may have to write their own software to drive the hardware; unfortunately, if they keep the modified 'GPL' artifacts to themselves (they don't distribute it), GPL would not prevent them from distributing the hardware artifacts produced by those designs and software.

Things get a quite a bit more unclear, if they actually include your software, data files, and documentation with their device. I suspect intellectual rights legal issues will get very interesting when desktop manufacturing allows someone to create a copy of their car.

Also, don't be afraid of using GPL where it applies. For those things it covers, GPL has a long legal track record of being enforcable. Any software, documentation, data files, etc, that you write --- covered by GPL, would legally obligate others to provide full source and disclosure, whenever they sell or give someone else versions of that software, documentation, or data files.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2010 05:02PM by BeagleFury.

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BeagleFury, your personal context is that of a
> mathematician and RepRap fan, and you want to make
> sure that our definitions and codes work and are
> self-consistent. Also, you don't want to see a
> "bad guy" behave unfairly by releasing a
> closed-source RepRap knockoff.

Yep. That pretty much nails it.

Well, a little more than that, I think the current state encourages confusion, assumptions, and the sorted battles that play out. Or at the very least, it doesn't provide enough information to discourage misconception and confusion. I think it merits some consideration and/or clarification -- if it has good chance to prevent innocents from stepping on the wrong toes (because they become educated about their rights and obligations, or the lack of them), and encourages the cheaters to play fair (because they can educate themselves to the financial and social penalties they'll be likely to face if they get caught).

... Describe a hypothetical scenario wherein a big corporation tries to "steal from us" (my words) and the RepRap community's likely reaction?

Remembering that each RepRap user-developer owns a personal factory.

---

-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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... Describe a hypothetical scenario wherein a big
> corporation tries to "steal from us" (my words)
> and the RepRap community's likely reaction?
>
> Remembering that each RepRap user-developer owns a
> personal factory.

Sure...

Hypothetical situation:

Big company collects and organizes all the open source R&D RepRap designs. They specifically avoid downloading any source code to avoid copyright / GPL restrictions for software they will be stealing (BSD if they can), or using (writing enough to get the hardware working). The make awesome hardware design enhancements and improvements to the hardware (but don't distribute them, yet.) Using some genius bits of ingenuity, they create a patentable enhancement to the printer, allowing it to print cheaply in 10 different materials at 10x the print speed of comparable RepRaps -- it isn't overly complicated or fancy and very low cost in R&D effort, but, leveraging the 4+ years of R&D effort of the open source RepRap project, they are able to get their patent and begin production over the course of a year or two (keeping everything secret up to that time except for the required 'publish' aspect of patent applications.)

They apply their own proprietary copyright to all the software they developed or stole (BSD stylish), trademark the name and look and feel of there machine, and apply for patents for all the hardware modifications they think they could get by the patent office; where applicable (E.G, they reverse engineer existing design documents to avoid GPL when 'copying them' for giving them to the patent office, etc.)

After obtaining their patent(s), they flood the market with cheap 3D printers, cheaper than anything you could hope to reproduce on your own with a Mendel or similar printer. They pursue in courts any slight or innocent violation of their patent for anyone who tries to print anything resembling a copy of their printer (which looks pretty similar to a Mendel.)

They dominate in the 'low cost desktop 3D printer" market over the next 7 years.

RepRap developers, fans, hobbiest, and the people who actually did the hard work on 99% of the hardware this company sells lose out (Well, they can go to Walmart and buy the machine, and maybe start a underground hack culture trying to avoid the company sniffing them out and slapping them with civil lawsuits..). Ordinary people don't care or want RepRap because it's expensive -- Interest in the official RepRap dies down as people who just want a 3D printer buy the version this company made, leaving only those RepRap geeks that don't conform with the rest of society.

It's certainly a big win for 3D printing and accessibility, but seems to me this hypothetical situation becomes a loss for the open source RepRap movement -- all because someone can leverage a loophole with GPL and nonapplicability to hardware they distribute. Such a behavior would be dispicable and reprehensible, but there exist companies with even fewer ethics that described above (To be far, most companies probably are FAR more ethical than this..)

Granted, I'm not sure there exists any legal framework that would allow someone to release hardware designs and prevent this abuse -- I'm not sure how much history there is on enforcement of 'hardware licenses' or the such, of which TAPR OHL appears to consist. The 'hypothetical situation' has near 0 probability of occuring -- but then -- that's usually what hypothetical situations are.

They dominate in the 'low cost desktop 3D printer" market over the next 7 years. ?

What's their business model? Do they make money on the printer, or on the printer media? (Inkjet printer, etc. etc.)

How much will RepRaps cost 2 years from now?

---

-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!

Well, you asked for a hypothetical situation; I'm not sure.

I did raised this thread in response to an actual incident. In that particular case, it seems everyone is happy again, after a few initial angry words and hurt feelings... it seems an innocent mistake (And still, I do not believe the person selling the boards had any *legal* obligation to provide the design modifications as a condition of them selling the boards.. in spite of the claims and implications that were thrown about..)


It still feels like the official position is a resounding silence. Should you improve the hardware design and share the hardware, does it state anywhere that you have obligations to share those updated designs when you distribute the hardware? Is this just a "warm and fuzzy we trust you", or is it closer to a "If you cheat us, there may be legal consequences"? The fact that GPL was chosen seems to imply the latter, rather than the former, as a general mood and tactic.


On a personal note, I find myself partial to release stuff under a "non-commercial use only" license, "with attribution", "changes allowed" type of stuff.... If someone wants to make some money off of stuff I've worked on, they should feel free to contact me and, or the others who've contributed to the 'monetarily free' work. I prefer the "free" as in "it has no direct financial cost", rather than the "free" as in "you can sell it for as much as the suckers you find will pay". Obviously, this is not compatible with GPL.

Well, you asked for a hypothetical situation; I'm not sure.

Wade will "sell" a set of printed mendel parts the price of a case of beer. Not every time, but we have enough "free as in free" people that the price of RepRaps will eventually equilibrate at:

cost = price of materials + price of shipping + delta,

where delta is small.

The black hat company you describe will be in a race to the bottom with RepRap, cost-wise.

[reprap.org]
"a total materials and parts cost under $200"

I did raise this thread in response to an actual incident. In that particular case, it seems everyone is happy again

While I do try to maintain respect and compassion for most living things, this is a bit of work when it regards people who fork a community-as-documentation-system / documentation-system-as-community for personal wealth, self-aggrandizement, and because it is fun.

We do need to maintain a basic level of politeness and civility on the internet. At the same time, they are directly responsible for the disorder and gaps in our documentation system, so ... I cannot say that I am ... happy.

The way of things.

---

It still feels like the official position is a resounding silence.

False. It is a serious matter but not one that requires immediate action.

I do not believe the person selling the boards had any *legal* obligation to provide the design modifications as a condition of them selling the boards.. in spite of the claims and implications that were thrown about..)

We are lucky, then, that Ms. Aandrus set out to share the plans in the spirit of fellowship and fairness. What triggered this was one forum goer immediately assuming ill-will because she didn't provide a link to her files in her post. The new sales-forum and RepRap marketplace will instruct people to 'assume goodwill on the part of the seller, vis-a-vis documentation'. Heaven knows I do, regarding all RepRap user-developers, sellers or otherwise. Ever try to get documentation out of Nophead or Forrest Higgs? But into the 'right place', the wiki? ... It's best to assume goodwill.

---

As soon as we start to release parts of RepRap under a mix of licenses we have to worry about not being able to even release the damn toolchain because a module-module license mismatch. Thus we need to work with the FSF to fix the GPL. Assume a 5 year time scale for GPL4.

In the mean time, should we muddy the waters or increase license chaos by suggesting that each RepRap user-developer use a different license? No! Thus the previous "resounding silence".

---

This is the threat model I worry about:

5 years from now, how do we deal with a cease-and-desist from a upper-tier 3D printer company, because we're starting to cut into their sales on exotic, non-thermoplastic 3D printer, by designing our own exotic, non-thermoplastic RepRaps?

You'll note that the long-time 3D printer companies are moving out of the low end market, but, at the same time RepRap is not just Mendel.

RepRap will also be a laser sintering station that makes metal parts. Ideally this decade.

It is necessary to stand back and see this as a game that will play out over decades.

BeagleFury, I'm glad you are helping organize the working party on this license stuff and fixing the GPL.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2010 12:47AM 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 wanted to post earlier, but I've been slaving away every night on my delta robot delta-strap! If there is a hell for people who make ugly welds, they have a special spot just for me!

Two things:
FIrst, GPL is based on copyright laws. The whole makerbot blog post is funny because there was no GPL violation as the derived designs did not contain any GPL "source". You can't copyright processes, just the expression of them. Can you imagine someone posting a "Hello World!" app as GPL and then complaining when someone made a closed source version of it? Same deal.

Second, GPL protects projects because the project themselves are complex enough that it would take considerable effort to duplicate the project. For example, I could copy the design, architecture, interface, and whatever else I wanted from the GPL linux project. However, I couldn't use any source files and it would take about 5 years, several million dollars and a lot of luck. Thus, the project protects itself by its shear complexity.

RepRap has a problem, that its design isn't complex enough yet to have that same kind of protection. We need to build a machine that is complex enough that people decide that it is easier to contribute to the project than it is to duplicate the work.



Personally, this is a tough topic for me, because anything I release that is open source can be picked apart for the good ideas and sold. This is a societal meme. The facts are that most of the work already done is clobbered together from other peoples ideas, tutorials, experiments. So why should I resist taking that deep breath and giving it all away?

The most valuable part of the GPL is that it encourages cultural freedom, and for me that is enough.

FIrst, GPL is based on copyright laws. The whole makerbot blog post is funny because there was no GPL violation as the derived designs did not contain any GPL "source". You can't copyright processes, just the expression of them. Can you imagine someone posting a "Hello World!" app as GPL and then complaining when someone made a closed source version of it? Same deal.

Yes, well, I'm not going to point that out to MakerBot or the rest of the world. "RepRap: GPL is invalid". That would not look good on the blog. It would give slashdot something to talk about, but that's about it.

RepRap has a problem, that its design isn't complex enough yet to have that same kind of protection. We need to build a machine that is complex enough that people decide that it is easier to contribute to the project than it is to duplicate the work.

Have you seen Eiffel? I can't make it simpler. I can document it with a few photographs.

I'd say we need to build a machine that is so cool, people contribute because they think it is cool, but the wiki went critical a few days ago. People are starting to contribute.

The most valuable part of the GPL is that it encourages cultural freedom, and for me that is enough.

Likewise.

Also, why are we worrying about protecting our stuff? The threat model seems that the other guys are becoming scared of us and lashing out.

I'm not worried about people who fork RepRap. Those become sterile offshoots unless they also systematically fork RepRap's documentation/community. And in the end they become self replicating, as their users turn those machines into RepRaps.

I'm fine with people copying-and-going closed source. We start out-innovating them they instant they decouple from our community. It is as if they set out to steal the philosopher's stone, but then they used it to turn gold into lead. Or if they had snapped a flowering twig off a tree, except the flowers start to fall immediately.

Still, we should help fix the GPL. And that means working the the existing community.

If the FSF doesn't realize the GPL needs to start covering hardware, we should send them a gift of Mendel parts once we've done our part to self-educate on these matters. And then we can start to work with them.

---

The thing about sterile offshoots Bre never pointed out, is that in RepRap's case, we don't need to do anything. We have no business model to protect.

Everyone's heard of the myth of Prometheus?
[en.wikipedia.org]
In this case, RepRap is the fire itself.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2010 03:44AM 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:
-------------------------------------------------------

> cost = price of materials + price of shipping +
> delta,

Right now, that "price of materials" includes about $200-$300 in parts that must be purchased (motors, rods, screws). This is the part that a company could sweep away with very innovating (and patentable) ideas.

If it costs the company $60 to produce their machine for materials and electronics, and they are protected from others copying their design that allows that production cost.. they still sell them for $150, and out compete a RepRap that cannot use the design modifications they made for cheaper and patented modifications... especially since their printers can print 10x materials and 10x faster.. (hypothetically, of course.)

Heck, I think RepolaRap will probably be about half the cost of a Mendel.. imagine if I had decided to patent the design (assume that I could get the patent), had the financial clout to flood the market with RepolaRaps (making a 5-10% margin profit on them)... If I were a nasty bad guy, and sued, sent court orders to anyone who created a design that remotely looked like mine, and got into bed with walmart so no one in the real world thinks "RepRap", they think "Ola!"... Good thing I'm such a nice guy, hmm?? hehe.

> The black hat company you describe will be in a
> race to the bottom with RepRap, cost-wise.

Except they will own intellectual rights on the area that RepRap lacks -- patents. They will be able to take the people who try to leverage their designs by reverse engineering them and trying to create 'free' versions because of the way patent laws work.

> BeagleFury, I'm glad you are helping organize the
> working party on this license stuff and fixing the
> GPL.

So, maybe what we need is something like this on the Wiki --:

"RepRap currently does not officially provide legal open source protection preventing distribution or sale of physical RepRap parts. While you are free to use sell parts based on your own design with no problems, we hope and encourage you to distribute design modifications for RepRap parts when you distribute or sell them. At some point, we hope the Free Software Foundation chooses to adapt GPL to cover Hardware in some form or fashion, to reinforce our hope with stronger legal obligations.

Contributors that wish to cover the work specific to hardware they've added may want to consider using a Dual license, GPL for the software modules, and TAPR OHL for the hardware components, using the language along the lines of:

  All Software, Data, and Documentation are licensed for use and copying under GPL version __ or later.
  All Hardware, and Hardware parts printed from any GPL covered design or documentation are licensed for use under TAPR OHL version __ or later."

I do not believe any 'conflict between licenses' would exist with this language because they cover distinct components; a component covered by one license will not be covered by the other.

Isn't the reason the GPL does not cover hardware simple because the law does not allow it to? I.e. the GPL is based on copyright law. The equivalent for hardware is patents. So you can't simply dream up a new licence unless the law is changed?

On the subject of patents, in the UK I believe they have no effect on what an individual does in their own home. So if some black hat company patents a magic technique then I can simply read the patent and build my own at home.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

> The black hat company you describe will be in a
> race to the bottom with RepRap, cost-wise.

Except they will own intellectual rights on the area that RepRap lacks -- patents... ... If I were a nasty bad guy, and sued, sent court orders to anyone who created a design that remotely looked like mine... They will be able to take the people who try to leverage their designs by reverse engineering them and trying to create 'free' versions because of the way patent laws work.

Bitorrent.

Also, in the scenario you describe, doesn't this mean our users win? Or is the blackhat company gouging our poor users by jacking up the price of the feedstock? The blackhats have to be making their money somewhere.

Also, can't we purchase motors and SMD chips from the same factory in Shenzen that the blackhat uses? And we can design a RepRap that doesn't need fasteners. Also, they must be using an out-of-patent 'generic 3 axis positioning system' which we can clone with a straight face. (Unless you're talking really exotic positioning and motion control stuff.)

Lastly, isn't this blackhat nuts trying to compete with us? While also trying to police the behavior of our fellow user-developers? Will they try to nuke our cottage-industry division, or just try to get us to stop development?

So, maybe what we need is something like this on the Wiki:
------>%---------snip------------->%--------------

It is more elegant to just fix the GPL.

Adrian and I are not worried about companies undercutting RepRap. Adrian and I are worried about RepRap undercutting companies.

Mind you, I can have great sport with them on the blog. "Company X has admitted that it is worried that the new our new 'Rigger-class' exotic-process machine [link] is threatening Company X's sales. Here is the takedown notice. We are consulting the FSF." Think how that will play out in the blogosphere and media.

We normally play nice. But if someone threatens my fellow user-developers or our documentation I get creative. The little incident just now could have gone much worse for the other party.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2010 10:30AM 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!

nophead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't the reason the GPL does not cover hardware
> simple because the law does not allow it to? I.e.
> the GPL is based on copyright law. The equivalent
> for hardware is patents. So you can't simply dream
> up a new licence unless the law is changed?

Yes. GPL restrictions and licensing is based on copyright. Since you cannot copyright hardware, it can not cover hardware.

From how I interpret the OHL, the intent is to restrict your ability to distribute the hardware devices by licensing the use of copyrighted material used to make that device. You are not allowed to modify or use a copy of copyrighted material to produce hardware unless you include that copyrighted material and the modifications you make. In this sense, OHL is still leveraging copyright law. I'm not sure there is enough precident to say whether this can be enforced.

It also would not prevent someone from refusing to recieve the copyrighted material, but instead, taking the hardware and reverse engineering their own designs to avoid all the licensing issues. Proving they actually used your copyrighted material could have challenges, even if precident is set to say the violations can be enforced..


> On the subject of patents, in the UK I believe
> they have no effect on what an individual does in
> their own home. So if some black hat company
> patents a magic technique then I can simply read
> the patent and build my own at home.

I'm not so sure -- look at the genetic patent suits; I recall one case (in Canada? If memory serves) where someone who was unaware they owned land upon which genetically modified seed had blown / spilled / etc. They were ordered by the court to remove all 'hardware' covered by the patent. Ironically, or perhaps, justly, they counter sued, and the costs for removal were assigned to the patent holder!

I'm not so sure -- look at the genetic patent suits; I recall one case (in Canada? If memory serves) where someone who was unaware they owned land upon which genetically modified seed had blown / spilled / etc. They were ordered by the court to remove all 'hardware' covered by the patent. Ironically, or perhaps, justly, they counter sued, and the costs for removal were assigned to the patent holder!

The principle here is that you can research what you want, you can't always sell what you want. Happily, we are researchers.

Still, it would be good to know what the "laws" are here.

---

-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!

Also, (and I still need to do my reading), are the OHL and GPL compatible? Or are there self contradictions when you run both?

What's to prevent the FSF from releasing the GPL4 as {GPL3 + OHL}? Aside from about five years of talking about it?

---

-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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, (and I still need to do my reading), are the
> OHL and GPL compatible? Or are there self
> contradictions when you run both?

Yes for compatible... Actually, I think a bit the opposite for contridictions -- TAPR OHL in the introduction states it seeks only to cover those areas not covered by copyright based licenses such as GPL:

"The OHL addresses unique issues involved in the creation of tangible, physical things, but does not cover software, firmware, or code loaded into programmable devices. A copyright-oriented license such as the GPL better suits these creations."

As it stands, if you modify documentation covered by both licenses, both licenses require that you share those modifications and changes. Should you modify and distribute anything, you're bound by the licenses to provide access to all your changes, whether they be covered by GPL, or by OHL.


> What's to prevent the FSF from releasing the GPL4
> as {GPL3 + OHL}? Aside from about five years of
> talking about it?

Nothing. If GPL4 == GPL3 + OHL, then GPL4 + OHL = (GPL3 + OHL) + OHL = GPL3 + OHL. If GPL3 + OHL is compatible, then GPL4 + OHL will be compatible and enforcable based on precident and case history, if possibly a little redundant.

If, as a contributor, you're really really concerned that users may lose the right to distribute because of conflicting licenses (which means they are not allowed to distribute anything because they would break one, or the other license), you're always free to add a clause, "Should any conflict between the licenses be observed, the license terms as outlined by the GPL shall take precedence."

This concern seems a bit silly though -- both GPL and OHL have the same open source goals, and any conflict would most likely result a relatively quick release on one side or the other to re-introduce compatibility; for the situation you outline above, one simple solution if GPL satisfies all the criteria of OHL, would be to recommend to the owners of the OHL license to release a new version that reads something along the lines of "This license allows you to drop all requirement as specified by any prior version of the TAPR OHL license, provided that you include and license all works previously covered with the GNU Public License version 4, or later".