Dang, too late.
I asked Brook if he was cool me using the wheels on a table idea for the LR, it came out unique otherwise. I asked Bruce about the Zen, it has very little mechanically similar. I got permission to make my interpretation and they were extremely different from the original inspirations. How that happened is I did not study the machines at all, I did not give myself the chance to glean any insights, yet I still gave them credit and added to maker community by introducing something unique, or at least a unique way to do it.
Donât bother with these trolls. Just donât reply to any of their emails or other contacts, they will forget you after a few weeks. And if they donât, then donât hesitate to share with us their contact, itâll be a pleasure to release you from the burden of answering them.
I think Tom is really a huge dickhead for not telling his fans to calm down. Aside from the fact that everything was his fault in the first place, his relative silence on the matter is ethically despicable. Crushing the little guy who tries to make a living while he knows that he was actually in the wrong (his comment under the video clearly implies that), thatâs just so low.
3 Likes
There is no reason to take it down!
If Prusa ever contacts you about it, just take it from there. If it ever comes to that, you have the opportunity to show them the respect in your reply, that you wish Tom would have shown you!
But i doubt that they will ever be bothered. There are so many other derivatives of the i3. It does not matter to them.
2 Likes
This.
1 Like
As long as the Ender 3 exists, I think your good buddy. Try the best you can to do what is right and makes you happy, but at the end of the day it is what is legal that really matters. Itâs takes a certain finesse to walk both the moral line and the legal line, and in the back ground even the most moral people on the outside skirt the legal line on the inside. This falls back to the saying, âNever get to know your Idols.â
Youâve done something really special here and should be very proud of yourself. Learn from this, because it will happen again, but also move on and let things blow over.
It might be a good idea to make a video explaining your side. The secret of a video is it humanizes you and lets people connect and understand.
Just remember to stay happy and positive.
In the end, just remember people forget easily.
1 Like
A quote from here: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2223/using-the-lgpl-as-an-open-source-hardware-license
I spent quite a bit of time looking into this, and there is not really a useful solution. For some general background try https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/open-source-hardware-and-law1In a nutshell, GPL (and all other software licenses) rely on software being something that can be subject to copyright. In general hardware can not be copyrighted, because copyright is only granted to creative or artistic works, but with some weird exceptions like software, IC masks, yacht designs (!). âUseful articles or utility worksâ are not generally subject to copyright, but some powerful industrial lobbies got some concessions, as otherwise a software âworkâ would not be protected under IP laws, although specific software algorithms can be patented.
So anyhoo, software is an oddity in copyright laws, but âcopyleftâ licenses can turn copyright law to its advantage. There is no such ability with hardware. The only way to protect a hardware design is to embody a patentable idea that the design relies on. âData filesâ for engineering use are not software, and are not âcreativeâ (in terms of the law), so it is unlikely they have any form of protection. That doesnât stop many companies attempting to claim copyright on data, the threat of legal action even if unfounded in law is often enough to scare people off.
Legally, you can use copyright to protect your drawings, but you canât protect the actual circuit, nor the PCB layout, and therefore you canât insist on share-alike clauses to be followed. What we are left with is a âsocial contractâ, i.e. a statement that a design is shared for general use but please be nice and share your modifications.
There are some OSHW specific licenses, such as CERN, OSHWA, OHANDA, these have the same drawback as GPL, copyright gives little protection to hardware designs. But they can be a nice way to stamp your project as being in the OSHW spirit.
tldr; use GPL or LGPL, CC-BY-SA, MIT, etc as you like, as a statement of intent, but realise they have little legal teeth. Other OSHW oriented licenses are equally ineffective to protect or control the use of electronic or hardware designs.
It would seem that RepRap hardware (The original design that the Mendel is derived from I believe) isnât really protected by the GPL its licensed under at all. What is important with all these licences is that members of the community show respect for them.
2 Likes
Iâm sorry, but eyeballing something and making a new one isnât what I (or any sane person) would consider to be a âderivativeâ work. If I see a Honda I like and proceed to scratch build a whole car, thereâs no fscking way my car is a âderivative workâ and neither is your 3D printer design.
In order to run afoul of the GPL, youâd have to start your part design process based on an STL you imported into your CAD software.
Donât get wrapped around your own axle - people talk out their asses on the Internet on a daily basis. Itâs like a requirement or something.
Ryan you do good work and thereâs nothing wrong with stuff youâve created. Ignore the shitbirds and move on. Youâve got more important things to do with your time. 
g.
2 Likes
Dui, I was I could speak so freely online. Best I can do is vent to anyone that will listen in person.
Because he part of a successful company it is okay to not follow the license, or just switch it to GPL? I am willing to switch it but I have to look into it further and verify a few things, especially cross contamination. If any parts co-exist GPL pertains to all projects with GPL parts. Same reason we are serving some pictures in the new instructions from my server instead of github. There needs to be clear separation. This is why I took it down. There might be one part I used in both, but it was made for the MPCNC first.
That is what happened with the MP3DP, under my own admission I feel it is a derivative. I have half designs and sketches of all kinds of printers that one is clearly a prusa/mendel. In trying to respect the license, enforceable or not, It has to be GPL.
That was Tomâs point exactly. I donât feel that is in the spirit of the non-enforceable licenses we use. I made a copy, every single part was 100% from scratch (like Tom said) and unique, not even compatible in any way. If you sat them side by side and told a person new to 3D printing they were both Prusaâs I am sure they would feel that way, if you told them it was not they would call it a copy. I did copy it, in homage, but I did not honor the license. I need to figure that part out.
Unfortunately Video is not my forte at best would be a blog post, but that keeps ending up looking bad. I canât present my side without getting into it again. Starting it fresh, new ammo for the mob.
I can put them back up GPL but if anyone starts asking for files and all that I am not devoting any time to it and will just take it down. I designed that first one in a version of solidworks I donât own any more. Putting up my files will help next to no one. Someone will then ask for compatible files, step or something, and I will have to convert all the files for both projects. Why do I have to do that, because GPL says you can not hide the source in any way. Using outdated proprietary software could be perceived as hiding the files. I guess I should I did agree to that license by copying the design. All this because some person wanted to make a prusa derivative with a belted Z axis, and wanted my files to do it. They still felt 100% that were making a âprusaâ using my files.
If anything, taking it down and while you reconsider if it violates the license shows you have integrity. You didnât publicly attack anyone, pitch a fit over it, and make a video of you dismantling the printers out of spite. I wish I had downloaded the files before you took them down, but I think you made the right call to take them down and consider all of the implications.
2 Likes
I see some of the same arguments that were used to defend Tom are now being used here to defend Ryan. While the cases are completely different, and I do not believe Ryanâs parts are âderivativeâ and I do believe Tomâs part was, the muddy and subjective (absent an actual legal battle) nature of it meant that Ryan taking the MP3DP down and re-examine the licensing was the ideologically consistent action to take.
1 Like
The blurb on this site about the MP3DP says itâs your take on a prusa i3. If that means you have to make the license match then maybe you should. Then in the future if youâd rather not update the project further because it isnât worth the time then donât. It is kinda shitty for someone to try and nail you on a license because they want your parts though.
1 Like
There are two things going on here that are related but separate: Doing what is legal and being a mensch.
As far as what is legal: Copyright doesnât cover useful objects. Objects âinspired byâ, âan homage toâ, and âvisually similar toâ are not real legal categories so all arguments using them have zero legal standing.
Now, as should be obvious to everyone, not everything that is legal is ethical so âcommunity standardsâ, ârespectâ, âreciprocityâ, etc. step in to help fill the gap and that is largely where this discussion is now (since, as stated above copyright has nothing to do with it in a strictly legal sense).
The most important consideration now is what is the intent of the designer. In the case of Prusa, it is pretty clear he doesnât care a whit about people making âderivative worksâ (in the conceptual, not legal, sense) so respecting his intent is pretty easy (the few narrow limitations re: GPL and his STLs hare already been mentioned and donât enter into this). In the case or Ryanâs design his intent was that people respect the spirit of NC-SA. Very clearly Tom had/has no interest in doing this so even if he is legally right I think he runs very much afoul of the community standards that I would like to see applied.
I appreciate Ryanâs desire to be consistent in his ethics here, but if you make your conscience the slave of everyone on the internet with a keyboard and an opinion you are destined to go mad.
1 Like
Maybe this will give you guys some insight into my stance. When I was a paid engineer I was pretty good at basic CAD, but not some sort of genius. The reason using the files to me is BS is I never would anyway. I do everything in my power not to use others CAD. I look at references and get critical dimensions, books for specific numbers of things (hole diameters, rib ratios). Using someone else CAD file sucks, it is only done with extremely minor edits or to ensure things like preexisting molds do not have to get changed. I made the LR in a a day or two and that included sketching it first, then printing parts. I can copy anything by eye, quickly, much more quickly than referencing another file. Sometimes editing a file is easy and works but typically it does not. Something like the Prusa mk3 has been revised to print well/fast, that just makes it easier. I can see why every single choice was made. Something like a sculpture and I would never ever be able to replicate it in months. A well engineered part lacking many artistic choices is an extremely basic part no matter how complicated it looks. Using a file or drawings as a qualifier is brutal to me as I never use them anyway. So saying I didnât copy it is simply not true.
The prusa printers seem to be released as open SCAD files, proving I have not touched them as that is Greek to me, but I 100% have always said it is a derivative. If a sculpture copies the David, he is doing it by eye, from scratch, is it not a copy? Even if it looks completely different he intended to copy it, so it is a form of a copy, a derivative. In my eyes.
I am not upset or getting defensive, I think we are making progress. We are narrowing down this grey area chipping away at it from both sides now. MPCNC, MP3DP.
So I guess I am saying it is intent. If you intend on copying something you are. If you are purposefully looking for a loophole âfrom scratchâ you most certainly are copying. In the patent world you can submit it referencing previous patents to make sure it is different enough (form or function). We do not have that. Also patents expire, open licenses donât (that I can tell).
5 Likes
That is just it, my horizons have been broadened. More than 4 years and no one has challenged my intent with my use of license. They all knew what I meant in using it (just donât sell it). Now I see there are some other implications. If I am going to base my livelihood on this system I need to understand it. no one knows the spirit of the license better than the users, you all. I can always go back to everything I touch being patented and having rich people pay me for it. I am here because I want to make a difference and I this this licensing thing is a big deal.
If it works and people could retain some monetary rights, I strongly feel more large companies would let the DIY/hacker/makers do what they wanted, be more free with components. Open source to a hardware based corporation that can just keep paying for patents and own it outright for 20 years makes zero sense to let anyone copy and sell it. But if they simple could not sell it maybe we would get more things released for us creative types. The world should not have to be open source or patent. This in between market is probably by far the largest if it worked. I get pissed when I am told it has to be one way or the other and people are okay with that. This is encouraging patents, not sharing.
6 Likes
If I go open source and base my income on a paid support model, what incentive do I have to make it easier to use?
4 Likes
What is important with all these licences is that members of the community show respect for them.
This is it. Community.
Only reason Tom 234K thinks he can congure up a OPCNC is because some subs would follow him to the death. Not all of them, lol maybe 30%?
Ry guy,
100% of the peeps here want, have, or are building what you poofed into existence. Greenbacks come your way because of this, not the license.
So this is a war of tribes.
VHS didnât win because itâs better, or open, or had a tuber channel.
Licenses and patents are hunkydory and all, but at the end of the day, your trying to protect a copy machine.
I can copy it, you can, lots can.
This WILL happen.
Can you stop it, will the the license or you hold under the weight?
For how long, 5 years....10?
If this is the goal, lawyer up, and defend the license. Itâs no longer something you can guess at.
so as far as I am concerned 3D printers are now public domain and their implementations are their right to choose license
Otherwise, make cool shit, the eyes will pop, and mouths will salivate.
Nothin last forever, but keep the peeps fed, and you will eat as well.
If popular opinion is lawyer up and defend it or let it happen I will just go back to working for rich people/corporations and let them do just that. I did feel like I was part of a movement but feel as if I am being pushed out because I do need money to continue this project.
I think a vast majority of all these machine users have zero care about there ability to sell my parts. The ones that do want to sell them are the issue, they arenât âdoing it for the causeâ, they are just leeches. That is why this is not a bigger deal to most are saying I am just petty and controlling and they want more free stuff, I feel 99.999% users of any of these machines donât even care what license it is. Hearing âopen sourceâ is a buzz words and seems better so if you saw two identical items you would probably buy the one that said open source, IF the price/performance was really close. Other than that the better cheaper item will sell. The ender or whatever it was clearly violated the Marlin license for a very long time, didnât matter to hardly anyone as dictated by the staggering amount of sales. When did they change and listen, when people started pulling them off the shelves and sending them back.
People are pissed about Lego, that is a patented design. I am sure they donât really care that people are making giant 3D printed versions, but they are legally obliged to protect the patent it or lose the license. That is the alternative. How is that better?
Iâm not sure where youâre getting this from Ryan.
When I look at what people here are saying. They are saying, the CC-NC is your right, and itâs doing what you want. They are saying you didnât violate the prusa copyright. They are saying they are here to support you. They are saying that they are working hard for you because they believe you are doing the right thing. They are saying thank you for giving them reach. They are saying thank you for giving your time. Read it. Internalize it.
If you need to know whatâs legally correct, for your business or your personal risk, then you need to talk to a lawyer. It may not be as expensive as you think. My guess is that they wonât have an easy answer for you. But maybe they can at least give you a corner to fight from. You can take the risk and just make an educated guess. Risks are all around us. There isnât a really pressing reason to get that answer though. At some point there might be, but not today.
There have been a lot of people who have put in a lot of hours into this community. There are a lot of people who no doubt want to put in a lot more. We want you here. We need you here. We also want what youâve built to stay here. The shop, the forums, the designs, they are awesome. This is the core of this project. Keep it up. Push it forward.
But youâre free to go anytime. Your time means more to you than anyone else. Iâm hoping this is just a low point. Time will tell. Youâve been at this for 4 years, and itâs been a tough three weeks. I imagine part of you just wants a way out. Dealing with this is far from your dream job it once was. Be patient, calm, focused, and make sure that if you change course, youâre doing whatâs right for you.
5 Likes
That was just in reply to DuhhUhhâs post.
I am not planing on going anywhere, just trying to figure out how to do thing from this point forward in regards to the MPCNC. I came here for the MP3DP issue and somehow putting it out there I solidified my CC-NC stance even further. I think I need to clarify some things on the license page a bit because of it.
The MP3DP needs files to get released again. I will try and put some time into it later to get step files, if it is a hassle I will not be releasing it. I spent all yesterday on this and wanted to get out firmware and finalize the Community docs.
2 Likes