So lately I've seen some ruckus about open source, or rather the lack of it or how it's degraded. I'm sad to hear this, and I can't say I agree with all the negative comments I've seen.

Anyways, I'm designing and will be releasing a 3D printer and would like it to satisfy people in terms of its "open sourcey-ness". Basically I'm asking, if you ran into a printer, and it was labeled as 'Open source", what would you want to see or have access to? Some things are obvious but there are less obvious points. Some people include using open source or at least freely available software to develop and design it. For example, some people wouldn't consider a printer designed in something like solidworks "open source" because the paywall creates a big barrier to even just view or edit the files.

Any opinions are welcome, I'm bound to forget or overlook some things worth releasing when I release my printer. but I'd like to minimize those (and of course I'll release them as they come to light). Any thoughts on how to make the design more accessible and inviting in terms of the tools I use for the design (OpenSCAD at the moment so I can fully parametrize the design so inexperienced users don't need be good with CAD, just input a print bed diameter and it does everything else).

my 2c.

Full cad files, doesn't really matter in what (also full set of stl's if contains printed parts)
Full firmware source (no closed source or otherwise licensed blobs or libs etc)
Full electronics design files, gerbers + original cad
Full BOM, with references for obscure parts

Ie enough information for a individual to be able to make one of their own from scratch and be able to edit and modify it as desired (presuming they have the skills and the applications)
related note. Can be Non Commercial just means your not to make it on mass for profit... that's for the designer/owners. Your still allowed to make your own, if your so inclined

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 04:59AM by Dust.

Quote
Dust
Full firmware source (no closed source or otherwise licensed blobs or libs etc)

If the unit includes WiFi then FCC rules prohibit the part of the firmware that control wifi power etc. to be open source, because they don't want people tampering with it and breaking the regulations. So IMO a closed-source library for controlling the wifi hardware is acceptable. Otherwise, I am in full agreement.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 06:33AM by dc42.

---

Large delta printer [miscsolutions.wordpress.com], E3D tool changer, Robotdigg SCARA printer, Crane Quad and Ormerod

Disclosure: I design Duet electronics and work on RepRapFirmware, [duet3d.com].

Ok, that's good info. I've seen some people fussed over the format files are released in understandably. If a design is released as a solidworks or other expensive proprietary format, it may as well be closed source for a lot of people who can't afford the software. For something like the electronics, do you think listing something generically as "RAMPS 1.4", "Duet", "Smoothieboard" is good enough, especially if you don't manufacture the board yourself? These boards have lots of clones/variations and usually they all work but can have slightly different components. Personally I'd consider the name of the board enough as that's what I'd be using, the CAD and Gerber files are of little use to me and most other people.

I've also heard mixed opinions on the non commercial license. I've heard some people say it's not truly open source because of that restriction. Personally I won't be attaching the non commercial clause to my design. If it's a successful design then I doubt the clause would stop anyone anyway, and I know foregoing the clause will make some people happy (I don't think anyone will be disappointed at least).

The Policy page on the wiki says

Quote
Wiki Policy Page
Members of the RepRap community do not unanimously agree on the definition of Open Source Hardware. For this reason, a compromise "lowest common denominator" definition was put in place that defines open source as simply "comes with files sufficient to make a copy".

However, some people really do not like this definition. I do not think it is possible to have a situation where everyone is happy.

There are links to a number of interesting resources dealing with how to define open source down at the bottom of the policy page in the Relevant Information on External Sites section. If you have time, I recommend looking at them.

I understand that you can't make everyone happy, but I doubt anyone would be disappointed if it was "extra" open source, so I'm really asking what would the highest common denominator. I still probably won't be able to please everyone as everyone will have their own opinion on which CAD package should be used or something. I'll also have a look at the policy page you suggested as well, thanks.

Basically what I'm looking for is have you ever seen an open source project and found yourself going 'I wish they included this' or looked at the documentation and found something wasn't covered well. Of course there's downright bad documentation but is there anything in particular that seems to be subpar more often than not?

It should be mentioned here that many Reprap designs are released under the GNU General Public license. I would recommend you do the same. This and many others are "Copy Left", which basically means that derived works must also be released under the same license (ie open and the designs freely available). Bre Pettis take note!

This may seem like a small point but it can have big effects. Adrian Bowyer released the Darwin / Mendel designs under the GNU GPL so all derived works have a "Copy Left" aspect on them. This means that most of all the machines in the world our community builds and sells are GNU GPL. I believe Marlin and Repetier firmware is also covered in the same way. Arduino hardware is also open source, so you don't have to worry there either as its been previously released.

The License is pretty good and there is a quick guide to give you the basics here. I like it because it means people can make some cash from their effort, but not prevent others from improving / selling the designs.

GNU License

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 06:20PM by martinprice2004.

---

Helium Frog Website

I'm not sure you could demand they release source files based on the motion system. Motion systems like the darwin and mendel have been in use since before reprap. If the design is obviously a derivative work (uses source files from the original, or is more or less piece for piece the original with minor tweaks) then it's a different story and they should be releasing the files.

I've got something I'm unclear about regarding the gpl license. I read somewhere that the share alike requirement was added in v3 of the license and wasn't there in v2. This is purely out of curiosity, not trying to sidestep anything. I was originally planning to release my design under a more liberal license but on second thought I don't think I have the right to do so since my printer is a derivative work with what I think are significant changes and improvements. But I still don't think I have the right to change the license and take away rights or conditions the original creator set. (GUS Simpson for those curious). I haven't been able to find out what version of the license it's released under though, the wiki page isn't specific.

I would not worry about releasing a design derived from the GUS Simpson as the design and development was discussed openly on a public forum from 2013 onwards.

Gus Simpson Development

This means that the design is in the public domain and therefore is not a closed design with reserved rights by the author. In addition contributions to the design were made by other forum members, so the design is not the sole work of Nicholas Seward as the development was in concert with others.

If anyone would wish to keep the intellectual property of a design, one of the worst thngs to do would be to discuss it openly on an open source community and ask for contributions from others!

---

Helium Frog Website

... there are some other related questions about licensing of "common" designs or prior art which weren't answered til now.

Neither SCARA nor DELTA type kinematics are new designs - I've used them in my first mechanical setups around 1990 -- end even then, found them described in even older mechanical books.

Here is one of my older "delta-ish" prototypes from 2007: [builders.reprap.org]

There are many "new" ideas filed for IP (and even granted!), which I've already seen as nearly same or pretty similar in old documents ...

---

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
martinprice2004
many Reprap designs are released under the GNU General Public license

Not to be contrarian, but please everyone remember that the GPL usually has no meaning (legal or otherwise) when applied to a "design". There are many aspects of an inventive design that cannot be protected by the GPL and can only be protected by patent. Source

The GPL was designed for software and doesn't work for hardware according to various sources. So I suggest you look at using an open hardware license instead, such as the Cern OHL.

---

Large delta printer [miscsolutions.wordpress.com], E3D tool changer, Robotdigg SCARA printer, Crane Quad and Ormerod

Disclosure: I design Duet electronics and work on RepRapFirmware, [duet3d.com].

Quote
martinprice2004
If anyone would wish to keep the intellectual property of a design, one of the worst thngs to do would be to discuss it openly on an open source community and ask for contributions from others!

I didn't mean he wanted exclusive IP rights or anything, I meant he might want to keep some of the conditions of the license (i.e. share alike) attached to the design. Sorry if I caused some confusion there. I was also going to ask about what dc42 said just above. From what I understand GPL was written with the intent of being used for software and not hardware. I've heard people claiming that it both applied and that it doesn't in the case of hardware. GPL and other copyright licenses (i.e. creative commons often found on thingiverse and such) from what I'm aware don't legally apply to physical products like hardware. Don't know how exactly they apply to CAD files or the like though. Sometimes I feel like these sorts of things haven't really kept up with the times to cover new cases.

Can anyone clarify how exactly the Cern OHL works? I've read that protecting physical products such as hardware without a patent is a bit of a grey area, even releasing it into the public domain can be complicated. My ideal license is something that allows me to release the designs or files or whatever it may be, but in a way that no one else can patent or otherwise prevent me or others from using the design. I'm not concerned with attribution, share alike or policing how the designs are used. As long as I, and anyone else, can still freely use the designs I'm fine with it.