New machine Licensing

Updates and News
21

If I may make one suggestion not related to licenses exactly but related.

If you are successful you are going to end up in a race against the knock offs and clones in the same manner Prussia has. Your strength is in your brand and the community that you have fostered not in your license or patents as you will be constantly playing wack a mole with the offenders and you really aren’t big enough to defend international patents.

In the community There seem to be 2 different groups of mods that I see, people building add-ons to the core design and people trying to change the core design.

I think that providing mount points on your core parts , basically screw holes and a cad profile would allow the add-on group to grow and shrink the need for mods to the core design should cut back on the need for reverse engineering your designs for legit users.

You might even be able to offer some cad mods as a service as a fee service for changes people require to the core, similar to many software authors.

It’s your business not a hobby and you need to pay your bills. Dont listen too much to the people that aren’t helping you along that path.

Just my $.02

2 Likes
22

I have provided blank mounts for the last few revisions now, Step files and drawings were needed. Already have one worked up for the LR3.

Neat idea. I might try that.

I appreciate it!

5 Likes
23

I meant on the other parts not just the tool holder. For example some way to mount things to the legs of the mpcnc or the trucks of the lowrider would have eliminated the need for a lot of the mods to core pieces.

It’s amazing what people can do with just a couple of holes.

24

I definitely try to do that. On the Primo I provided holes on the bottom of the core and all the core clamps. You are right though nothing on the Trucks (figured the stepper or rails was the best place anyway).

The balance is hard, for example, I release a truck CAD file, you will get a ton of resized trucks that may or may not work. People will cut the hole bigger to fit other sized rails not thinking about the corners, belts, printabuility/strength/rigidity, core, or core clamps. Rarely will one part make any difference. They are all dependent. It is very hard, even if I released the entire file set, I promise it is not easy to edit. I am good with CAD but by the time all the edits are made and all the initial revisions the file set is a mess and difficult for even me to work with. People think I can just go in and make it work for 3" rails, it will not, or I would make it available. As a solid example I have not made a full assembly of any of my machines since the first MPCNC I don’t think.

On the other hand, a lot of people are capable of making edits and cleaning up my file set. I run out of interest when I have a working machine.

3 Likes
25

These could also be invalid now. How it happened 7 years ago could be very different today. That is a major part of this decision.

1 Like
26

I’ve read through all this, and it is both interesting, somewhat baffling, and eye-opening.

In a somewhat related note, Ryan, I am very thankful for you, your work, and all you have made available. If anything that I have tweaked and made available on Thingiverse is in anyway viewed as problematic, just say the word and I will yank it down immediately. I don’t want to do anything to go against your wishes regarding your designs.

3 Likes
27

Sorry to keep barking on this one - Prusa do not allow access to their parts store without a serial number (it’s all magically handled by their database). So you can’t buy a cheap clone and upgrade it with genuine parts.

There is a small stream of complaint from the clone owners “my Prusa won’t… or is crap…” on the various groups and they are mostly “disciplined” by the community.

Some form of exclusivity is fine - don’t be afraid to give YOUR customers priority, and suggest that other people’s customers go back to their own vendors for advice!

2 Likes
28

Honestly why can’t the LR3 be a “premium” version of the LR? Use what ever licensing arrangement you need to make some money on that now and open source it later if you want. The design for the LR2 doesn’t spontaneously combust when the LR3 is live. People can still make that don’t want to pay a premium for the LR3. I think that’s a fair compromise.

1 Like
29

Mods and derivates are welcome. For all the previous models, the only caveat is to please select the CC-non commercial share alike license. Unless it is a very similar part, there is no reason to sweat too much.

That’s one of the most difficult parts of the whole thing. Mods are encouraged. Derivative parts are encouraged. Your saw slider is great. The only thing we have tried to avoid is nearly identical parts being printed and sold on ebay.

What Ryan is talking about now is the LRv3, which hasn’t been made public yet. So this clarification is just a side note.

2 Likes
30

No, never. The only time this has been a problem is when someone threatened to re-release every part under a different license. All other issues have been handled with an email, and that is usually over a naming issue or the person part is bad and just causing too many problems. Like Heffe said, mods are appreciated…and loved.

Whoa, I had no idea.

I just do not want to alienate the self builders in this process. I value them equally. I understand and appreciate reuse of parts or just wanting to do it yourself. I am only concerned with low quality non-caring leech parts, trying to make a quick buck.

Interesting perspective. I think there is an issue with this. For the most part, once I see a design like this I can replicate it in a matter of hours. It took me months to work it out, but not that the issues are solved it is no sweat to remake it all from scratch in CAD. Honestly, and I am not that great at CAD compared to a few of the people I have worked with. So one leaked picture and we could have a clone in easily under a day.

I think this is gunna be a test in the Open source world…

3 Likes
31

Here is something I just wrote else where. Sorry, this is just so hard to put into words. I don’t really understand my feelings on this but this seems to be the clearest I have stated it yet.

“It all comes down to get a patent, or release it. Once it is released, you can’t patent it. Open hardware licenses are just guidelines for use with no legal ground. I totally understand it and don’t. If I added a doll on top and made it “dance” and called it a kinetic sculpture, it would be CC-able. Put a router on it and it is not. I am not trying to license a way to join pipes together, I am trying to license the LOOK of my may of fastening pipes together.”

Like I can make all my parts look like a flower and copywrite the design of that, and I fully understand it does not cover the machine itself. Why in the heck can’t the look of my machine be considered a work or “art”. If someone wants to totally redesign the parts to look completely different (yet function the same), whatever, I don’t have a patent, but I just do not want people using my “look”. Is that odd or conceited, what am I missing that makes this not able to be under a copywrite?

4 Likes
32

I just talked myself back into CC…

3 Likes
33

You can’t copyright a recipe. If you add one pound of flour, egg, sugar and butter, it will make a pound cake. That is functional, and part of the natural world. You can copyright the text of a recipe. If you said, “this pound cake will blow your socks off. Toss one pound of each ingredient in and give it a spin!”. That text is copyright material. But you can’t keep anyone else from releasing their text that describes the fact that those ingredients make that cake.

You can’t copyright or patent a chemical reaction. Adding baking soda to vinegar is not something you invented. It is something you discovered. It is part of the natural world. Physics is not patentable.

In my (very non legal) opinion. That means that theoretically, the stl files tell a story. They describe a shape that is a work of art. The actual decimals in the file describe the art. The functional pieces are not your invention. You just discovered them. But the art of writing the recipe is what you created. The stls are your copyright. You can’t take calipers to a mustang and make your own copy and not have legal trouble. But you definitely make your own car. It can even have 4 wheels!

In practical terms, from the little reading I have done, it is not very easy to keep power over stls. Even if you are in the legal right. And the legal system is complicated and expensive. FWIW, the risk is on the infringer. You won’t ever have to spend a dime on a lawyer. But if you are willing to take the nuclear option, they have to pay for legal (at least if you can reach them).

In reality, I would bet that this would not ever get decided in a court. Both sides would agree before it ever reached a judge.

In the court of popular opinion, licenses like CC have power. And so does the license page on v1engineering. Those explain what you want to happen with your work. If that is morally acceptable, then most people will back you. If that is not legally acceptable, then it won’t matter until the rubber hits the road. At that point, both sides have already lost.

In total, the license may not give you firm legal footing. But it should reflect what you want to say about your design.

3 Likes
34

Agreed.

I understand the points you are making. Back to open because there are no other viable options.

1 Like
35

So I think I am sort of trying to ask for is, you can make my cookie, you just can’t have exactly 7 chocolate chips showing, that makes it MY cookie. Still feels like a gray area, but in terms of baking that would be a ridiculous ask. So I guess that is a ridiculous ask in the machine world as well, patent a new idea or it is just a machine like any other.

36

@vicious1, just some thoughts, not about Licensing but more on get some money back for your work…

When it comes to make money around a free project it almost always turns around the associated services.
Premium support, video formation access, webinars, all that can help consumers to “masterize” the product.

I think there is a lack of offers when it takes to run a CNC, at least 3 that could lead to premium services:

The build :
I found the documention very complete and i didn’t encoutered difficulty on my build.
But some people might prefer step by step videos with explainations, maybe a time payed access to build video library could help you making some money.

Troubleshooting :
Small recorded sequences of most common issues and solutions to fix it.

Do making things :
Last year I subscribed to wood working online lifetime formation of a famous French wood worker, he has a lot of projects for beginners to confirmed and you can buy for the project you want(build a sheld, a workbench…). Video are great quality and the content is very rich, each formation is about 60 hours+ of videos. He deliver the plan for a project (pdfs, sketchup) and explains it in the first course.

He also offers dedicated forums for the payed “students”.
Learning with a goal is easier, and the A to Z project formations are just, in my opinion, awesome way to onboard free user to pay for something that worth the value as they will learn by being leaded by a professionnal/passionate/expert…what ever you prefer to call yourself.
I paid 400€ for 2 of it’s formations without any regret.

Now about CNC machining, we do have lots of sources to find objects/SVG, DXF we can work on in a CAM Software.

The thing is that software factory is not an easy part and we have seen numbers of people, on various cnc forums, that loved to build their open source CNC but then give up or get to much lost on how to use it and ends to try to sell there cnc.
Not enough time to get involve or not enough inspiration, we often says you are limited only by your imagination, can be frustrating for someone that lacks of imagination.

I think a premium access to step by step didactic videos of a small panel of project would be just awesome.
Projects declined for Primo and LowRider, and with 3/4 skill levels.
Small format of videos( 10/20 min max) and several for a project to cover it all, explaining pockets, tabs, direction of maching if the project need it… every thing you know without having to ask yourself but that could causes pain to bebinnners.
I know it’s a hudge work, but starting low and growing it months over months you could build something cashable.

1 Like
37

I am horrible with that part.

I have such a hard time showing my projects. I might try making some stools soon, maybe I will give it a shot. I will warn you I am a better engineer than skills teacher.

5 Likes
38

The Stumpy Nubs woodworking magazine channel on YouTube… The guy who is the lead on that has hired a skilled woodworker to make (and film himself making) the projects because the lead guy doesn’t have time to make a lot of projects anymore. Maybe you could bring in a ringer! Lol

4 Likes
39

That would be a lot more fun!

1 Like
40

I have not read this in full but I do see the way it’s going. If it were me I would avoid patents, they are very expensive, require maintenance fees and in reality if someone wants to copy it they will find a loop hole in your patent. I work with this quite often designing suspension seats for boats. We actually even have government agencies that try to knock off our designs with patent loop holes and it’s not even worth trying to fight it.

You could sell your stl files for small amounts to make a bit of money, on the kits you sell you could print in a unique serial number that you could trace for support.

At the end there are a number of approaches, each one has a loop hole or a weak spot. Your strength is your customer support and the volume you sell. It will allow you to stand out over time and the idiots that want to steal your idea and make money themselves will die out themselves and you will remain strong with your network.

1 Like