Open sourcelie deleted, shame on you?

I've seen it all. An open source forum deleting a thread questioning the credentials of some of the open source projects?

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:34PM by VDX.

This is a moderated forum and I received many complaints about the thread, more than any other that wasn't simply spam. It contained no useful information and was abusive to several people so I deleted it.

It seems to be your point of view that open source should not be used as selling point until the source is actually released. Fine that is your view, but nobody else in this community seems to share it, so move on.

It also seems to be your view that some people sell things too expensive and others too cheap. We all think that about various products and if we don't like the price we don't buy it, simple as that. Prices are determined by market forces. You might not like it, but that is how it is, open source or not.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

fyi opensource n00b even under the stricter gpl3 licence no source code is required until the product is delivered. heck under a apache licence you can basically stall as long as you want. that's how google stopped drive by night android manufacturers from craming a tablet OS on to a crappy phone and ruining androids reputation. really if your so dedicated why don't you design your own printer that clones tantillus like how the wallace clones printrbot?

erm, "passinglurker", don't heat that up again please.

---

Most of my technical comments should be correct, but is THIS one ?
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, always double check what people write.

very well I'll lay off

I think you are wrong nophead. And in doing so have lessened the reprap message.

I asked a valid question. If you didnt like it than fine. I also had to defend against some users who had made their mind up before reading the post. It is apparent some will always attack.

It seems the reprap message is making money at any cost.

Again by deleting and not closing the thread it shows you in poor light. Im sure you needed to protect your friends.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:35PM by VDX.

This reprap community has turned into a clique who attack anything that isnt open source and may affect their bottom line.

Take the comment on the rapcraft indiegogo campaign:

Quote

scribblej said 26 days ago

You say “spirit of open source,” — but how open is your source? It seems evident you’ve borrowed VERY heavily from the Prusa design, your extruder appears to be Greg’s Wade’s design… what do you give back?

The worst thing about this is that it was used to derail a valid project. A project who have already released some files unlike golden boy sublime.

And there are many examples.

Shame on reprap.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:36PM by VDX.

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

Gerards, I'm not going to answer to your question because I'm not sure about my opinion.

Instead I'll talk about the way you write : I'd rather see you cease using personal attacks, name calling and generally attempting to make people out of their mind. You're not helping your point there, people that may agree with your ideas will get turned off by the way you express it.

By participating in those forums you kind of have agreed to respect other people. Your idea about where to draw that line might be somewhat different, but if the general population here is averagely getting annoyed by your posts, you might want to consider changing your tone a bit. Or face the consequences (which can include whatever moderators see fit).

---

Most of my technical comments should be correct, but is THIS one ?
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, always double check what people write.

I'm sure if you looked at the post the intention of others were not to answer the questions put but to derail it. They succeeded and nophead in his wisdom ended any debate by deleting it. I can defend every post.

Again it raised valid points. Is a 1500 dollar reprap valid. I feel sorry for those who are paying over the odds for a kit with no merit. Especially given the slight of hand of how it was originally sold.

Also makerbot, why make it difficult by using closed source software to distribute your files. I still haven't managed to open them.

Where are the proper bom for all open source machines? Ultimaker etc.

Sitting on innovation slows down the open source movement. Unfortunately crowd sourcing has poisoned the reprap waters. Quick money is the aim.

Look at bukobot, a printrbot by any other name. The aluminium don't do anything for stability. But people are going to get one in four months and be disappointed.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:36PM by VDX.

But, this isn't an open source forum. It's a Reprap forum. Deleting the thread was a logical thing to do if it was distracting from the purpose of the site.

Perhaps interested parties should make an attempt to attend or make a submission to the Open Hardware Summit this September. While the words "open source hardware" has debatable meaning, having an Open Source Hardware organization and logo of approval, along with them clearly defining the prerequisites, can only help. You can have a say in their definition.

If their definition of Open Source Hardware jives with yours, then just look for the logo on your favorite project, which isn't allowed if they're not following the definition. And if that definition is insufficient, perhaps you could spearhead a completing certification?

It is an open source movement. All parties trade on being open source. Maybe two years ago the updates would come first. Now it's a business from the top down.


.org should be redirected and they should use .com



Also another question is when people buy their open source printer off crowd sourcing, what are they backing. It seems with the lead times in these campaigns by the time they get a printer there have been three more better ones released. They may think they are getting the cutting edge but I doubt they are. I don't actually think reprap is as cutting edge as it once was due to the delays.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:37PM by VDX.

I have seen the Bukobot in person. It is nothing like the printrbot. As long as he releases the files when he starts shipping, I don't see the problem. How is it stifling innovation? Him not releasing files is not preventing you from doing your own research. I am working on a variant that I have not released files for, is that stifling the RepRap community? I don't think so.

---

Help improve the RepRap wiki! Just click "Edit" in the top-right corner of the page and start typing. Anyone can edit the wiki!

Of course it is. Think about it.

I like Diego and wish him the best. But it's old technology. How can 25mm aluminium profile have and stability in the way he has used it. It has small plastic feet for balance.

It is the printrbot but it solves one problem but adds another. An extra 10$ in profile and he would have a better machine. Did you pick it up?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:37PM by VDX.

To the original point/thread that was deleted - I have some thoughts.

I'm one of the newer lurkers here and am currently working on a 3D printer and electronics offering with the intent of (hopefully) starting a business with it too. My partner and I are still very ambivalent on the issue of open source development - having seen some of the designs ripped off in just this community, it is very discouraging to developers.

I can tell you first-hand - developing even a clean, simple 3D printer is no mean feat. My partner and I have already invested hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in development and testing. Although our designs are largely original, we'd very much like to contribute back to the community that helped start our own efforts, but not at the expense of undermining or own business plans.

So - the big question - is releasing source documentation with some lag and still marketing your product as open source (and attempting to leverage that appeal) appropriate? I'd say yes, it is...and here's why:

A: There are several practical reasons why releasing the info post-date is simply the only real option. It takes time to organize the information, to upload it somewhere, present it, etc. While a lot of this information/design work should be vetted before asking people to fork over cash for a product, the reality is that the last 10% of the work making all that data presentable takes a LOT of time - and demanding that it's done up front will likely discourage many from doing it at all. If you want to make sure someone does it first - just wait a little bit - all of these businesses/start-ups fully intend to keep selling their products - you can buy it later when it is finally released if that's what you want to do.

B: Releasing source data upfront multiplies revision update work. If you release a bunch of alpha files up front only to revise them 2 or 3 times each after the first real customers/unwilling-guinea-pigs start to comment back about issues - you're adding more problems than you're solving...for everyone. In my opinion it's both responsible and totally reasonable to release source docs only after they're verified in the field.

C: Practically speaking - there has to be a buffer for the community to see real progress. If you're content to wait years for a tinkerer to get something right in their spare time and post every little update on the way - that's one way to do it. If you want to see real investment and progress - people need at least SOME reassurances that tangible development expenses will not be wasted. Given that as soon as the documentation is released, people have given up all protections and market advantages - very few people are going to be willing to take that chance up front.

For our own efforts - I'm not sure yet if we will be offering an open source/hardware printer. I'm not entirely convinced that the "open source" marketing advantage even exists in the first place.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2012 04:42PM by JazzyMT.

Open source is marketing. Also your design will be ripped off. if this community takes a disliking to you then they will attack. See rapcraft.

I with you luck though.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:38PM by VDX.

gerards1111 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure if you looked at the post the intention
> of others were not to answer the questions put but
> to derail it. They succeeded and nophead in his
> wisdom ended any debate by deleting it. I can
> defend every post.

I read it partially. Not the most interesting debate IMO (again not for the idea, but because of the tone).

Really, defend every post ? Even the one where you posted a private message you received ?
Whatever its content was, you had no right to publish it in a public place without the consent of the author.
If its content was not appropriate in your opinion you should have reported it to moderators instead.
Dunno for yours, but in some countries it is actually illegal to do that.

Hope you get why your non respect of common rules (privacy) is deserving your point of wanting to make people respect another set of rules (opensource) ?

---

Most of my technical comments should be correct, but is THIS one ?
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, always double check what people write.

I can. His stance was hypocritical. He took it to pm to slag off one of his reprap buddies. Also the complaint is years old about nophead. Maybe why he deleted instead of closed.

Why did sublime do it privately?. To defend his bottom line.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:38PM by VDX.

if you ask me reprap is no about being an open source hippy its about designing a printable printer via a brutal system of survival of the fittest. so stop flaming and vote with your wallet either support a dev that follows your beliefs or invest your time and money into designing your own improvements and mutations yourself.

the crowd funded printer is just a printer that has attempted to adapt to its environment by turbo charging its evolution with a money it may pay off or it may go the way of the pinch wheel extruder and the automated build platform

nophead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to be your point of view that open source
> should not be used as selling point until the
> source is actually released. Fine that is your
> view, but nobody else in this community seems to
> share it, so move on.

Well now, I agreed with him, so not quite noone. Kinda heavy handed deleting the thread, could of locked it.

If it's controversial, it's not worth flogging a dead horse, but it doesn't seem in the open spirit to just delete views opposing the consensus. I would hope people are intelligent enough to discuss controversial topics reasonably, but perhaps not.

There does seem to be a rather grey and unspoken area here though. On the one hand, a guy who sets up a reprap.com website gets universally panned, but others who claim to be open source but do not release source files get a bye. It seems to come down to whether the person involved is "one of us" or not.

But I guess people rather just keep ignoring the elephant in the room, in the end it makes little difference how a project is styled.

JazzyMT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm one of the newer lurkers here and am currently
> working on a 3D printer and electronics offering
> with the intent of (hopefully) starting a business
> with it too. My partner and I are still very
> ambivalent on the issue of open source development
> - having seen some of the designs ripped off in
> just this community, it is very discouraging to
> developers.

I think that typifies a general attitude, and a general misconception of Open Source. If someone exercises the rights that you have granted them under an open licence, then that is *not* "ripping off".

It should be strongly noted that Open Source *does not* restrict commercial usage. In fact, it specifically allows it. So if people are basing any form of commercial enterprise on an Open Source licence by restricting it's commercial use, they are using the wrong licence.

This exmplifies two of the problems gerards identifies, people who take advantage of an Open Source licence as the licence is intended to be used are criticised for doing so, but people who advertise an open source license which they actually disagree with and don't really want to follow through with are not.

The fact that the likes of Google play fast and loose with Open Source doesn't help, and should not be used as a model. The problem with saying "we'll publish when we are good and ready" is that may be "never", in which case one can cliam to be Open Source and never publish source. A maxim of open source software is "publish early and often", that includes alphas, betas, everything, not just "finished" designs.

Open Source licenses have a very limited legal basis, and practically are not enforceable, so advertising as Open Source is only really stating a desired intent. An Open Source licence means that you are stating an intention to allow other people to use the idea and make money out of it. If you do not want that, do not publish as Open Source.

Poeple in the "RepRap community" apparently accept that "Open Source hardware" is not really expected to be genuinely Open Source, and that Open Source hardware has different rules to Open Source software, but now that meme is established it probably is resistant to change.

I'll mention again that the "official" Open Source Hardware licence specifically allows unrestricted and commercial use, and that should be the benchmark for an Open Source hardware licensor.

I thought to have to be classed as open hardware, you need to provide everything, including schematics and sources, suppliers. None of the reprap products could be classed as this except the original Darwin/Mendel.

Publish early and often would be the ideal.

Bobc it's going to get cold in here and maybe thy may turn off the light.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:39PM by VDX.

Sorry - you're right. I should clarify - I didn't mean to imply that "ripping off" the design was illegal. And there are legitimate reasons to encourage cloners in the true open-source ideology. It is a concern for a developer to be undersold by an overseas cloner though - enough of a concern that apparently very few are willing to risk it up front.

I would also point out there are really zero legally enforceable aspects to an open hardware "license". If you give away your design - it's really gone. Unlike the software community which can at least claim copyrights if you don't release under GPL - there really is no equivalent intrinsic protection for physical designs. You could potentially apply for a patent if you have a truly unique and original idea, but it's both expensive and complicated and could still be ultimately overturned in court.

As a mechanical engineer - protection of "proprietary" design information is really the main guiding principle I've lived by over the last 10 years of design work. The concept of "giving that away" to competitors and the rest of the world alike is still just south of insane to me. Maybe I'm just completely missing the point, but if the open S/H community wants to grow, maybe there needs to be other considerations too.

What you need to do is hide the design until such a time you make back some revenue. Or make it cheap enough there would be no profit in copying it.

The Up was ripped off and sold as a new open source design by many on here. No one would admit to it but it's blatantly obvious. That is why this delaying of source designs is even more hypocritical.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:39PM by VDX.

gerards1111 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What you need to do is hide the design until such
> a time you make back some revenue. Or make it
> cheap enough there would be no profit in copying
> it.

Yesterday you were arguing that to increase the pace of innovation designs must be released immediately and today you are saying that the people likely to devote significant financial and time resources should instead hide their designs? Which is it?

I know, how about a compromise? How about you not have a hissy fit when someone upfront and transparently promises to release their non-derived source files after they have had time to ship their product? The files will be released to the world earlier and in the event the promise is not kept you can go after them.

btw. I also believe it would of been better off to not delete the other thread. This topic is useful to discuss out in the open.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2012 07:01PM by billyzelsnack.

My argument is with those who promote their designs using open source but without releasing the files. Secondly the nasty underbelly of some reprap users who feel they have to attack the genuine open source innovations, such as rapCraft because it conflicts with their interests financially.


I answered his question which wasn't about going open source hence not conflicting with the argument. Please keep up.

It nice you took your pm stance public. Don't worry we are all friends here.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:40PM by VDX.

UGH do we really have to do this?
I agree you should not claim to be open source if you do not intend to release files.
I disagree that there is some requirement that they should be released before the product is, and someone above called out several reasons for that.

OpenSource on it's own is meaningless anyway, until you specify the licensing terms it's just a buzz word.
There is a HUGE difference between GPLV2/GPLV3/BSD and Apache licenses, what do you even consider Open?

But really what's the goal here? is it to advance the state of the art in printer design, because OpenSource doesn't do that.

A friend of mine is researcher in Xray Crystallography, he complains constantly that the problem with research is that no one publishes what doesn't work forcing everyone to make the same mistakes over and over.

My personal viewpoint is based on that, I don't care about the Source (as long as people aren't patenting everything left and right), I have no intention of printing someone else's design anyway, I'm more interested in the why? and what did and didn't work than I am the specifics of a design. Those are the things that allow rapid evolution and none of that is a part of the OpenSource release.
My first attempt at a 3D printer design failed because my "novel" belt design has a design flaw. The flaw is not obvious from drawings and I'm absolutely positive I am not the first person to try this particular layout, it would have saved me weeks if someone else had published their results.

Sites like this where people openly discuss ideas and their development process are IMO far more valuable to the evolution of reprap than any open source release, coming here and attacking some of the sites biggest contributors is counter productive IMO.

You talked about Cliques in the other thread, it's what happens in any community, go try and commit changes to the Linux Kernel, or LLVM, or whatever, getting your stuff accepted in those communities is as much about playing politics as it is merit. Open Source is just not the ideal you seem so attached to.

gerards1111 Wrote:
> I answered his question which wasn't about going
> open source hence not conflicting with the
> argument. Please keep up.

I'm slow. How was his "question" not about going/related to opensource?

Read the last paragraph starting as a mechanical engineer.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:41PM by VDX.

Have you read it?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 03:41PM by VDX.