fixed
7 Likes
2 Likes
ā¦ are still clinging to the open source hardware model and finding clever ways to inflict their standards on others! 
The more I think about this the cleverer it becomes. A few filament manufacturers are on board, a few printer manufacturers seem to be supporting it, and it might end up being a shot fired back at the proprietary filament kids (you know who you are) to prevent them getting traction.
None the less Iām looking forward to seeing what sort of hardware retrofit is coming in the new year - then I might actually buy some stickers just to control my inventory!
5 Likes
Another compromise in the open source hardware evolution perhaps?
Prusa seems to be working hard to tread a very fine line here. Thereās nothing we couldnāt measure of course, but ā¦ the licensing explanation is interesting and quite clear I think.
Hmmm, GitHub - OpenCommunityLicence/OpenCommunityLicence, OCL is what I have always wanted since day one.
A small handful of people passionately hate this idea. I am so interested to see how this plays out. I wonder how many YouTube videos are going to touch on this new license.
5 Likes
Interesting.
I Just downloaded the F3D and STEP files for my Core One L.
3 Likes
Is that the kind of anti-Prusa āthey preach open source but donāt release all of itā hate?
I donāt get the community hate.
I donāt get the āunless you release the cad files itās not open sourceā hate either. It smacks to me of lazy untalented people who just want a free ride, but if thereās stuff (like the CoreOne frame) that is easy to copy and doesnāt hold any particular IP value I also donāt get why the reluctance to release stuff?
Apple release detailed drawings of all of their products for the benefit of accessory makers, why not cad files?
I donāt get a lot of stuff!! 
Itās a long read, (the original article) - I am considering changing all my licenses just to give a small amount of momentum to the project.
2 Likes
The share alike part is odd, but someone already opened an āissueā about it.
1 Like
Maybe Iām not understanding and fully appreciating the positive impact of these changes. But OCL seems like incremental step forward beyond non commercial for most Makers. And, Prusa will continue filing patents to protect their growth and existence.
Butā¦ Nothing meaningful is being done at gov policy level, or by enablers (e.g. Amazon and ebay) to aggressively stop bad actor behavior of stealing/trolling IP. That seems to be the real immediate and long term problem for Makers, Designers and Companies struggling to compete on price and execution?
3 Likes
I bet those are all people who havenāt created something cool ever or donāt need it to liveā¦
5 Likes
Interesting topic. I think this is something that inevitably plays out everywhere, with all kinds of products and even in subcultures without a product where itās fame and recognition instead of money or profit.
Patent issues aside, it had to only be a matter of time before someone like Bambu came along and nailed the marketing side, appealed to normies, and took all the profit and praise, leaving most people ignorant of what came before and the shoulders theyāre standing on.
It sucks, but on the other hand it progresses things forward as 3dprinting become so mainstream surely?
It must feel a bit surreal for people whoāve been into them for so many years as a niche thing seeing it blow up like a new craze, kids getting A1s for Christmas and that.
Also I see there are open source alternatives to AMS, like BMCU and so on, I wonder how that will play out.
1 Like
Maybe, maybe not. The explosion in consumer 3D printing happened because key patents held by companies like Statysys expired so suddenly anyone was free to make a ācomputer controlled machine that extrudes heated plasticā. And thatās where reprap began.
If (insert company here) innovates and then patents and ring fences all those improvements based on work that others have done it only benefits them not everyone.
Likewise, they donāt tie you into a cloud service because itās good for you, itās good for them.
Prusaās licence model makes perfect sense to me. Youāre free to use the designs, even if youāre a business. The one thing you canāt do is use them to compete against me by selling them.
1 Like
If they do fence off any software or hardware innovations, aside from leaving a bad taste in peopleās mouths, would it really make that much of a difference at the current stage in 3d printing development? Some groundbreaking innovation, of course, or as you mentioned, the ability to heat plastic and extrude it which basically covers 3d printing in general, but little innovations, would it not just be Apple & Android at this point? Iām sure thatās a cliche analogy but it makes sense.
Apple have their eco-system, small innovations they patent or lock down, but Android basically has their own versions or ways to do the same thing regardless, so the actual effect on consumers is not that major.
I guess my point is - yes, itās kind of a scummy business move when building off what an open-source community has created, but I donāt see it having a massive impact unless they 1. create and patent something groundbreaking that cannot be replicated at all, in any other way, or 2. somehow manage to get universal patents on existing technology at the base level i.e a machine that extrudes plastic. How likely#2 is I donāt know, but surely there are mechanisms in place to prevent it (I know this whole topic centers around that, but itās more āwhat ifā than anything concrete as far as I can tell)
The improvement in Slicer software over the last few years has been extraordinary. I think that has had a lot to do with the open source nature of Slic3r which Prusa forked about ten years ago, and subsequently other brands followed and have really been driving each other.
Your comment implies that development might be at some sort of plateau, but I think the opposite is true - watch the next year or two for new materials, new speeds previously thought impossible, and multi tool, multi axial printing hasnāt even started really.
Would it make a difference? I think you only have to look at the reality of the independent CAM software developers to see how difficult making any great leap is without a community behind it. I may be wrong of course, this is not my area of expertise, but that is my observation.
Statsys jealously guarded and took legal action against people for infringing their patents. Itās also worth mentioning these were patents they bought or acquired through taking over companies, not their own development.
So say Bambu got granted a patent for a quick change hotend using inductive heating and magnetic coupling. Or a system for managing multiple filaments. They could do what stratasys used to - take competitors or āinfringing designsāā to court and who has the money to fight a big company? Even if theyāre right it would ruin them to do it.
Not just them, anyone else too as the Prusa blog post notes - someone got granted a patent for a design they saw online and then tried to sue is currently suing the original creator for distributing their own work!
1 Like
The open-source community isnāt going to stop developing because Bambu close off their development right? So, the worry is that Bambu come up with something first, patent it, and thereās no way to do the same thing?
No thatās not it at all. Of course companies can innovate and protect their genuinely novel and innovative work.
What they more often do, and Iām looking at you makerbot, is take others work claim it as their own and prevent others from using it. Or charging them to do so. Or stifle rivalsā by filing vexatious claims against their work.
This has all happened before.
Are there not patent mechanisms in place in which someone can patent something but grant license (free or for $1 or whatever), essentially preventing others from patenting it for profit and closing it off?
I feel that would be the simple solution.
Sure, it means the open-source community or company has to go through the hurdle of submitting a patent application, but compared to having the idea stolen and closed off, itās a small annoyance.
I guess that comes back to what you said though, scummy businesses and vexatious claims, needing to fight in court.
The reality is that the patent system is broken then? Because as cynical as it sounds, I feel itās inevitable that a company will come in and try to take everything as their own eventually, itās how you prevent it or deal with it that matters.
1 Like
Nope. Put simply, patents are country based )If you havenāt read the article above itās enlightening) so itās all too common for companies to take other peopleās work, and patent it in (insert another country here), then take action against the original designer/manufacturer. A year or two ago, a couple of large printer manufacturers even started patenting open source designs - I donāt know how the current case between Stratasys and BambuLabs has progressed nor who is right or wrong, but thatās a good example of things not working in a simple world.
2 Likes