Talk:Diamond Hotend
sources?--Thejollygrimreaper (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2015 (PDT)
As far as I can tell, it is common practice for open source software businessses and open source hardware businessses to release source files together with the first shipment of a product. --MrAlvin (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2015 (PDT)
Also, of the reproducible hardware parts I see:
- E3D cooling towers: see E3D pages for source files
- E3D stainless steel connector: see E3D pages for source files
- Fan holder/cooling air shield: see Diamond_Hotend#Assembling which points to http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:720520 for source files
- The very tip: see Diamond_Hotend#Where_to_get_it - This seems to be the core hardware bit, and they announce plans to publish around the time of the shipment of the first product.
For 3D (colour) printing, the right hardware is important, but for any 3D printing task, it is my experience that the software toolchain is at least equally important. And as 3D colour printing is still at bleeding edge development, I wish for guides of working and tested toolchains, and I see headings Diamond_Hotend#Slicer_settings and Diamond_Hotend#Multi-material_printing_with_Repetier_Host addressing this wish, with references and links to several open source toolchain components, as well as configuration details to make each of these software tools work with the Diamond Hotend.
So until actual shipment of the first actual product, it seems to me to be quite premature to flag this page as "advertising only".
So far this page seems to me to be a "development description page", and so far it seems to me to contain a rather complete presentation of all components, settings and sources of the (functioning) prototype.
--MrAlvin (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2015 (PDT)
I see here: Diamond_Hotend#Revision_History that 10 beta testing pieces have been made, and I find that https://www.facebook.com/groups/diamondhotend is where the small beta testing "community" is hanging out.
--MrAlvin (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2015 (PDT)
we generally don't care very much about what they are doing outside the wiki with regards to whatever funding method they are using to fund a production run thats not really our problem, the wiki page currently doesn't even specify a licence type and doesn't actually say if it's even going to be an opensource project or not, we've seen a number of these types of projects come and go and a lot of time we don't end up with usable sources if any at all (the Alligator board is the current classic example) first and foremost this wiki is intended to support opensource 3d printers and other opensource components used in them, we are in no way obligated to host any content this includes pages built to advertise projects undergoing crowd funding campaigns , we are also in the process of cleaning up the wiki and so far we have come across multiple projects aged in years which have claimed to be opensource but have never produced a single source file despite being sold for a fair amount of time,
on the 30th or April we will look at this page again and make a decision as to the fate of this page , hopefully by then we will have had some communication with the author and come to some sort of agreement on the topic of sources.--Thejollygrimreaper (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2015 (PDT)
- And who are the "we" that you refer to, and how may one get in touch with those "we"?
- Also, is there a guide of how "you" want developers to format wiki pages and minimum content descriptions, so these wiki pages may be open for anyone starting out with a development?
- Would that be something like: http://reprap.org/wiki/Example
- It is my expectation that ALL information on reprap.org is licensed under GPL. This is what used to be said on the front page when we (Rapatan and I) first used reprap.org to publish the MetalicaRap pages, as our own wiki (labitat.dk) at that time was covered in its entirety by the "GNU Free Documentation License 1.2" and MetalicaRap HAD TO BE a GPL license.
- Hmmm.. I now see that it is changed to: per page option and the specific license it is part of the {{Development}} template.
--MrAlvin (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2015 (PDT)
- "We" i refer to is the Administrators of the wiki and forums, and yes the example you link to is the preferred format but it is really up to the author--Thejollygrimreaper (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2015 (PDT)
Hi, I am the author of the Diamond Hotend page. I apreciate the work being done by board and admins cleaning up and keeping this site on a high level of standard.
- This is what documentation that we have at the moment as it is still a work in progress. The page was submitted with Prusa i3 Hephestos and Printrboard in mind, I cannot recall having ever seen those pages being marked as advertisement?
- Could you please specify as to what differences between the pages makes you consider this one subject to removal?
- Would I need to copy all the source files to the reprap.org mediaserver to make it count as documentation?
I can see how some pages on this wiki are outdated, does not fit or comply with the general consensus on reprap.org but I do fail to see how that would currently relate to this one.. Of course there should be mention of a license type, this will be added shortly also the mention of the Kickstarter campaign could be removed. --RepRap.me (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2015 (PDT)
- normally the Advertising tag is used in situations where a page is created and points to an external site where there is either the option to buy the product or back it in a crowd funding campaign but however doesn't supply or link to sources, in the case of the Prusa i3 Hephestos and Printrboard valid sources that can be used to make a copy exist and are linked to externally.
- the main differences is the availability of sources, those pages don't qualify as "not opensource" or "advertising" as they freely link the sources ,the reason we put a date that the page is subject to removal on is really to get the author(s) to actually respond, previously to using these tags requests for sources usually went unanswered or very poor attempts were made to release sources that technically complied with the minimum requirements but realistically weren't actually usable in anyway practical way. a lot of the time external links to sites selling the product don't necessarily have the blessing of the author to be added and the author may not be paying much attention to the page , we do go through most of the links and remove the invalid ones and links to sellers known to be troublesome and carrying counterfeit goods.
- you don't necessarily have to remove the kickstarter link, just make the sources available even if it's a jpeg of the drawings, you can host the sources anywhere you like all thats needed is a link to it. once the sources are available the tags can be removed and all is well
--Thejollygrimreaper (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2015 (PDT)
- Like MrAlvin points out I believe those links to sources you are referring to have been available all the time. The only drawings not yet published (of the nozzle itself) WILL be made available after the campaign has ended. Unfortunately you have chosen a deletion date that lies before the end of the Kickstarter campaign, can we do something about that?
- Anyway sources should be more clear now that the "infobox" has been added (thanks MrAlvin) and updated.
--RepRap.me (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2015 (PDT)
- I've shifted the date forward, MrAlvin is correct most of the sources are available however they aren't linked to on this page which from a new user perspective gives the impression there is none.--Thejollygrimreaper (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2015 (PDT)
- @Thejollygrimreaper (talk) thank you for clarifying and for updating the cut-off date. I believe in open source principles, and recognize that there is a tight balance between allowing original creators a reasonable opportunity to get development costs covered, and still maintaining actual and true open source information timelines (which allows others to very quickly build upon the designs).
