Deleting usefull information from the Wiki

Excellent work Matt, thank you.

---

Most of my technical comments should be correct, but is THIS one ?
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, always double check what people write.

... we should add the Policy-link to the forum's and Wiki's start pages ...


*** EDIT *** -- the Wiki has it already, so only to add to the forums entry

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2017 03:42AM by VDX.

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Quote
MattMoses
Hi arthurwolf,

Please do not remove any additional information on your competitors' products (or any other information, for that matter) from the wiki until the rules issue is sorted out. I reverted your recent edits on the RADDS and AZSMZ_Mini pages. I also felt it necessary to protect these pages because you have reverted not only my edits but also those of another admin (VDX).

I am not going to claim that the rules on the new policy page are perfect, but I think it is fair to say that the rules issue is now "sorted out". At least sorted out enough that we can start deleting pages again. I have removed the protection from AZSMZ_Mini and RADDS. I also updated the warning tags on those pages and set the proposed delete date as March 14 2017.

Great work, really glad to see this is finally being taken care of, that's all I was trying to achieve with my edits, and if somebody else is taking care of it I'm even happier than if I was working on it.

I'm glad you are happy with the work, Arthur.

However, now that the policy stuff is codified, I took a moment to go back and look at the AZMSZ_Mini page.
I don't really understand how this page is in violation of the policy. Can someone please clarify?

Background:

Thejollygrimreaper blanked the page on 29 July 2015 and said only
"This page has been removed due to repeated issues around licensing and availability of proper sources"

After that, it looks like Cxandy uploaded schematics and board layout, which should be sufficient for "open source" under RepRap's lowest common denominator standard.

On 31 July 2015 Thejollygrimreaper asked for Eagle .brd file and source code for firmware. As the wiki policy is written, gerber files are sufficient (brd is of course much better than just gerbers). Up-to-date source code would of course be required.

Arthurwolf marked the page for deletion on 20 January 2017, saying that the page does not provide sufficient files to make a copy, and does not provide a license.

But, as far as I can tell, the page seems to provide sufficient files to make a copy - if not what is missing? Is it source code for the modified firmware? Or gerber files for the latest version?? Or...?

I'm fine with deleting the page, we just need to be specific about what is missing.

(Side note: not providing a license can't be grounds for deletion because of the whole lowest common denominator thing...)

Quote
MattMoses
I'm glad you are happy with the work, Arthur.
However, now that the policy stuff is codified, I took a moment to go back and look at the AZMSZ_Mini page.
I don't really understand how this page is in violation of the policy. Can someone please clarify?

It's simple : they don't provide sources sufficient to make a copy.

They have a schematic which is nothing more than generic documentation, they have a partial gerber file with no manufacturing instruction, and they have no proper bill of materials.

If you can make a board from that you have some special super powers.

They are essentially "trying to make it look as if they are respecting the rules, without enabling users to actually make a copy", which should tell you how honest they are. They have been explained the rules in detail, so that's not the problem either.

This is not just not enough to modify it ( which I really think should be something that would be expected but ok ), it's not enough to make a copy, which is the rule.

Not only that but the designer itself says when asked directly they don't care about Open-Source and don't want others to reproduce their design. Talk about community-friendly.

Quote
MattMoses
(Side note: not providing a license can't be grounds for deletion because of the whole lowest common denominator thing...)

No license means you default to copyright, which means you are essentially forbidden from modifying or even reproducing the design.

By the current rules, it's "Open-Source" even if you are not allowed to modify or reproduce it in any way.

So they could be providing sources sufficent to make a copy ( which they don't even do ), and legally forbid you from actually making that copy, but it'd still be Open-Source.

Makes total sense.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2017 06:08PM by arthurwolf.

... could be I'm seeing this "sufficient to make a copy" something different - many boards with complete information and files to reproduce them have bill of materials, I can't get from my local electronics supplier -- but it's no problem for me, to redesign the schematics with parts, I can source locally ... or even change the electronics for more robustnes (electrical safety or such), speed or other optimisations.

So it wouldn't be a "copy", but more a new optimized/modified version of the original electronic design ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Quote
arthurwolf
They have a schematic which is nothing more than generic documentation, they have a partial gerber file with no manufacturing instruction, and they have no proper bill of materials.
If you can make a board from that you have some special super powers.

The archive on the wiki AZSMZ_2.0_Gbr.zip contains eight files including: top and bottom copper, top and bottom silkscreen, top and bottom soldermask, top solder paste, and drill file.
Send these files to any board house and they would be able to produce the board just fine. Super powers not required.

But without a bill of materials, of course, it is pretty hard to populate the board (technically possible given the schematic and silkscreen, but still kind of a pain... people shouldn't have to reverse engineer their drawings).

So what I will put on the page is "missing bill of materials for version 2.0 and 2.1, missing Gerber files for version 2.1".

Quote
MattMoses

Quote
arthurwolf
They have a schematic which is nothing more than generic documentation, they have a partial gerber file with no manufacturing instruction, and they have no proper bill of materials.
If you can make a board from that you have some special super powers.

The archive on the wiki AZSMZ_2.0_Gbr.zip contains eight files including: top and bottom copper, top and bottom silkscreen, top and bottom soldermask, top solder paste, and drill file.
Send these files to any board house and they would be able to produce the board just fine. Super powers not required.

Yes, you'd be able to produce a bare PCB ( note you don't know if it'd have the right copper thickness, or production instructions etc, I know for a fact those are important for smoothie-like boards ).

Then you use your super powers to figure out how to populate it.

Well, that's unless all you wanted is a bare PCB in the first place, to frame in your living room. Maybe that's all this project is about, nice interior decoration. I have a hard time keeping track.

You can dance around it all you wish, the fact is the board designer *doesn't want you to make a copy*. They say so if you contact them directly ( babbling about being afraid of competition ), and they make it clear by not providing all the things you need to do so. The only reason the files we have now are on the wiki is because they tried to cheat the system because the Reprap wiki is a major source of sales for them. They put up those files after their page was deleted, their page was put back up, and when told those files weren't enough they just ignored it ( because the page is live and providing advertising. if you delete it they'll eventually start complaining again ).

Sorry if I'm grumpy, it's just the board creator made it clear a long while ago they don't want it to be open-source, and they have been given like 7 consecutive chances to make it open-source anyway, with as the only result more free advertising for their crappy and community-non-friendly design.

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, and second chances, which is what the rules are trying to do here, but those are not necessary when you've had a full confession for years ... ( and no, I don't have a quote, stupid reprap forum search function sucks, really wish it didn't ).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2017 03:20PM by arthurwolf.

Alright, so it seems the general consensus is that people don't seem to want to delete information from the wiki just for being closed source... but how about flagging the articles at least? Just to inform people of what is going on.

In that same train of thought, how do you flag articles?