Using GPL for hardware is a bad idea

Hmmm ... the OHL smells like it is a patch for the GPL because the Free Software Foundation does not believe in the existence of hardware.

That's a really inelegant hack - a technological solution to a social problem. I think we really need to have a word with the FSF. Convincing them they need to upgrade the GPL will be easier than convincing our fellow users to start using another license as well as the GPL?

Unless you'd rather have this conversation with each and everyone of your ten thousand fellow RepRap user-developers?

You know that funny sign? [reprap.org] That's there becuase I screwed up. Someone offered to upload 500 gears to the wiki, and I said "Cool, that should be LGPL, rather than _foo_license_". Result: no upload.

---

Back to threat models.

I think I may have convinced you that RepRap isn't worried about people undercutting us. And we're not going to attack our fellow user-developer when they are slow or even forgetful in sharing their souce code or other files with us. (We're the nice guys.)

So, I think the threat model RepRap needs to worry about is one of our fellow RepRap user-developers accidentally or systematically replicating some existing existing fabrication trick which happens to be encrusted with "intellectual proprty", that is to say patented.

I think this will happen even if it has not happened already. How do we deal with it?

One thing we can do is simply not talk about it. I think an IP drone would start chasing his tail if he found himself in RepRap-land. "We're not a business, we're a research collaboration!"

Or is there a law that we can't roll our own CAD models and share them as part of our research?

After all, we're passionate about documentation.

---

-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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a really inelegant hack - a technological
> solution to a social problem. I think we really
> need to have a word with the FSF. Convincing them
> they need to upgrade the GPL will be easier than
> convincing our fellow users to start using another
> license as well as the GPL?

Hack? It works. What care we about elegance. Heck.. just read much of the source.. lots of hacks... but... if they work, and can be fixed eventually, who cares?


And, I'm not suggesting we convince anyone to use a dual license, only that we educate them and give them the information needed to make intelligent decisions based on how they choose to release their own contributions, as well as the suggestion that RepRap use a 'hack' until they can find the elegant solution.

Hack? It works. What care we about elegance. Heck.. just read much of the source.. lots of hacks... but... if they work, and can be fixed eventually, who cares?

For small values of "works". You want us to "educate them and give them the information needed".

How do we do so?

15 meter tall letters of fire on the front page of the wiki?

Passive aggressive notes on their wiki pages?

A single page on the wiki?

Form letters?

Polite personalized notes to each and every one of our 10,000 fellows?

How many hours a week are you willing to dedicate to writing helpful personalized notes?

In other words, who's going to bell the cat? How many hours of your time a week are you willing to spend on a user education campaign? And is this a good use of your time, or is research more fun?

And isn't it more fun to fix the GPL if it is broken?

---

-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!

LOL. I'm not sure why I'm still in this conversation, having said and raised the points I thought needed raising. But -- you're right -- broken stuff is more fun than boring unbroken stuff..

..anyway, since you ask...

> For small values of "works". You want us to "educate them and give them the information needed". How do we do so?

1. Clarify the legal 'licensing preference' position and language. Given the context of RepRap as a 3D printer that prints objects, the language here, specifically the part that says "People can take your stuff and build composite stuff and it's still covered by the GPL" is misleading and wrong... people can take your stuff, build composite stuff, and it is NOT covered by the GPL (unless by build, you mean run 'make' to build firmware and software.) Language could either be changed to state the true current position: "People can take your files and software and build better software modules, and it's still covered by the GPL". Better, add the clause I suggested in a prior post that discusses the legal issues and lack of license concerning the actual bits and parts that can be printed on a printer, even if they use GPL designs and files. If you prefer, reinforce the open source philosophy that users are encouraged to fully disclose all modifications for hardware they've printed and given to others by including there modifications. Suggest that if this aspect of "open source hardware" is important and contribution is hardware based, that the users consider licensing using TAPR OHL, since GPL would be a poor fit for a hardware design and documentation only contribution.

2. Better, in source code containing RepRap model files, STLs, build documentation, electronic schematics/images, material manifests, etc. license them under the TAPR OHL license. As these files aren't used to 'build source code', the GPL doesn't really have much bearing there anyway, and may have some use if someone tries to use and distribute any RepRap component while claiming proprietary designs, software, or patents would protect them from disclosuring their changes or modifications.


That would be a good start. Did you have any better suggestions?

NOTE, on the subject of 'education', a while back when I went to the [reprap.org] site, with 2 or 3 clicks from the home page, I could find a link to the sourceforge url, or links with discussion on the software packages to download. When I tried this yesterday, it took me to the main wiki page (probably good if that's where we are trying to consolidate), but for the life of me, I could not figure out the magic sequence of links to click thru to to get to the sourceforge source code packages. I ended up going to google and doing a search for 'sourceforge reprap' to find it -- it seems new users who want to build a mendel would not know the magic search string to find this site. Shouldn't all the "Here is a 10 part step process to get everything you need, starting from nothing", including links to bills of materials, links to software needed, links to build hardware instructions, etc be one of the top level pages? Thoughts? (Should I create a new thread, or did I just miss the obvious button on the wiki somehow?)

LOL. I'm not sure why I'm still in this conversation, having said and raised the points I thought needed raising. But -- you're right -- broken stuff is more fun than boring unbroken stuff..

Oy. I'm not the one building a RepRap out of a double pendulum.

---

You still haven't persuaded me that the threat model is sufficiently serious that we need to put up scare text/tinker with the gpl and confuse our fellow user-developers.

You have not persuaded me that a threat model exists. Are we worried about someone forking RepRap? I think it should be clear now that our docs and community start to drift back to us.

I'll see if I can try to make my point of view clear. But I do not think we need to work very hard to "protect our intellectual property", to coin a phrase. My mood a day ago whipsawed from high dudgeon to a zen-like joy when you and Bre forced me to step back and look at the entire playing field.

---

Yes, Adrian does like to bury his files. I'm not sure why. You're the third person to ask "where are the files?".

We've had two professionals (web layout and technical doc) parachute in and volunteer to help us, so I really should go fix email so that we can coordinate.

At the same time, I should take 15 minutes to address your files query. And perhaps Bre's files query. It would be the compassionate and polite thing to do.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2010 12:12AM 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!

This is rediculous, Sebastien. You should join the discussion on the om mailing list.. same dman topics, slightly more developed. Or are you still a forum purist? :-)