Talk:Prusa i3 Rework Introduction
While investigating the genealogy of some Prusa i3 printed parts, I was unable to find any OpenSCAD source file for the various printed parts of the i3 Rework. Now, this is unfortunately in clear violation of the GPL license under which the original parts were released. Until RepRap France comes clean and publishes their OpenSCAD sources or other source material and provide proper attribution for the printed parts of the i3 Rework, it cannot be considered GPL-compliant (as they claim). To all effects they have stolen the IP from others and decided to make it proprietary. :-(
With all the forking of projects we have in our community, we need to do a better job of outlining what makes this fork different than the original. Could someone who knows put details on what makes the Prusa i3 Rework different than the original Prusa i3?
- There is some information (in French) on the github page, here is a quick-and-dirty translation:
- Improvements with respect to the original version:
- * Extruder parts modified to support a Magma Hotend.
- * Changes to the "Fan Duct" to achieve better cooling of the Hotend.
- * Changes to the "Y Corner" to improve stability.
- * Changes to the "Y Idler" to add a system for adjusting the belt tension.
- * Changes to the "X End Idler" and the "Y Motor mount" to support endstops (limit switches).
- * Updated the "X End Idler" to support a 624 bearing.
- * Adding a "Z Endstop holder part" to support the Z-axis endstop.
- Note that "original version" here refers to the original Prusa i3 Einstein, itself a variant of the Prusa i3.
is there any file for the frame?
- I believe that is the aluminum single plate frame design by Josef Prusa and available commercially from a number of vendors worldwide.
Hi all, sorry about the latency and this issue, we just added the STEP sources for simplify any modification. Unfortunately we do not have any OpenSCAD sources. We will try to be more reactive next time (and check more often this page I guess), do not hesitate to contact us if needed.
First of we never used Open Scad to do design the Rework version of the Prusa i3 but a well-known engineer software we are in ease with. The package is AP203. No files have been looted en converted, all of them have been re-drawn (that is why we call it Rework) even the extruder have been re drawn from scratch (you can check the hotend fix which is different from the one of ch1t0). So if we have anything to change let us know by email. The DXF file is exactly the same as Josef Prusa (excepted the brand watercuted on the frame) We sincerely did this job thinking it was enough to be "open source", and frankly speaking the debate to know if step and stl files are open or not, was not really in our mind.
Removed 'Not Open Source' tag
I have removed the Not Open Source tag because the developers have provided STEP files for their machine. They meet RepRap's lowest common denominator for what Open Source is, namely: Comes with sufficient sources to make a copy. It would be ideal (and also in the spirit of Open Source) for the developers to release their CAD files in their native format. However, because the developers created their own 3D models of functional objects from scratch, they are not obligated by the GPL to release their source files. The copyright on the original OpenSCAD files (by Prusa and others) covers only the files themselves and not the design concepts they contain. It is difficult for many Open Source advocates to accept that the GPL has limited reach when it comes to hardware, so this may come as a surprise to some. Before anyone quickly reverts my edit, please look closely at the following sources and provide clear justification for why the 'Not Open Source' tag should return to this page.
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 physical object or circuit under the GPL.
In many situations, copyright does not cover making physical hardware from a drawing. In these situations, your license for the drawing simply can't exert any control over making or selling physical hardware, regardless of the license you use. When copyright does cover making hardware, for instance with IC masks, the GPL handles that case in a useful way.
From the U.S. Copyright Office
102 (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
To put it simply, you cannot license what you do not have. A license is a conditional permission to use: I grant you the right to make copies of my work as long as you comply with these conditions. If you do not comply with the conditions, then your copies are in violation of my copyright.
However, if there is no copyright, there is no need for permission, and no way to enforce the terms. A license without an underlying right is legally meaningless.
For example, adding a Creative Commons license to a door hinge (a useful object) grants you no legally binding control over anyone who uses that hinge. If someone copies the hinge without complying with the license, there is nothing you can do because the copies do not infringe on any rights.
There is also additional discussion in this forum thread