Is the gpl liscense enough protection?

I couldn't find a discussion about this elsewhere on the forums, but I really need to know more about how the gpl and open source licenses work in general.

AFAIK it works because the author or development team retain copyrights on the source code, where in our case the source code are the RepRap models and g-code run time instructions.

What prevents Company X from making a strikingly similar product and closing down the "source"?

RepRap is unique in a lot of ways because it has already several people who have turned it into a viable business / product.
As far as I know MakerBot Industries, Bits from Bytes, A1 Technologies, RepRap Source, etc... all bite into the open source dream and haven't caused any problems.

Is this the case?

As I understand, there is nothing novel about the reprap except that people can build it at home. The general technology has been around for decades and we are copying the stuff that has expired patents.

"What prevents Company X from making a strikingly similar product and closing down the "source"? "

If I release something as open source (whether MIT, BSD or other free license), there is nothing that anyone else can do to close down my source. They may close their additions to my source, but they can't ever issue a takedown request and make us close source that we've opened.


The GPL (which the entire RR project is under) even goes a step further, and says that after I give you this source code, not only is the version that I gave to you free, but any work that you put into it also has to be released under the same terms. This is the self-propagating "viral" effect of the GPL.

So because RepRap is virally protected, it's not legally possible for someone to use anything from RepRap without GPL'ing their entire project.


If people violate the license... well... that's what the Free Software Foundation is for -- for going after people who refuse to give away their stuff, yet want to benefit from GPL.


--clint

However, there isn't anything stopping someone from recreating a "strikingly similar" product and closing it, as long as they can show that all development was done outside of the existing RR project. But depending on how "strikingly similar" it is, it could be hard to argue it didn't come from the RR project.

So say I wanted to create a wedge shaped rapid prototyper, in a diy kit, based on common tubes/rods found at Home Depot. As long as I can show that all of the electronics and software where designed/written by myself, and the plastic peaces don't look like anything from the RR project. It would be considered a project all in of itself and can be either close or open sourced. However, as soon as I grab electronics, software, or part models from the RR project, my project also falls under the GPL license.

Make sense?

You can make the parts and sell the parts but you can't claim domain over the ideas behind the parts. The Bits-Bytes kits do that. Makerbot might even do that. don't know the specifics.

I suppose it also depends on the complexity of the project. Lets take toothpicks. You have an open source toothpick project that has exact details about how to make toothpicks. Lets say there are several easy way to make toothpicks. If Johnny wants to take an improvement to the toothpick idea, like adding a loop to make a needle for thread, he could do so but he would have to replicate the project to make it closed source.

In software, the sheer magnitude of the package is partial protection, as its difficult to reproduce the project without a lot of work.

However, in hardware where the complexity, relatively, of the project is smaller, this issue can become a problem. For example, lets say you designed a novel way of transmitting optical data for long distance point to point communication. Its opensource so you don't patent it. Company X says, "hey thats a neat idea!" and designs their own product that is closed source.

It actually comes down to an interesting philosophical question. Do you care that you don't get directly compensated for the efforts of your labor? For most people, this stuff is just a hobby, but to do this kind of stuff full time requires making money for food somehow. The original question had to do with protection, but poorly defined what was being protected.

The GPL protects the effort that goes into designing a good open source project from being directly copied, but it doesn't restrict the free flow of ideas and knowledge.

From experience and history, an idea by itself is useless without the will or ability to enact it. (Look up how many lone inventors pull off their great ideas, or how often two competing technologies will not always result in the best technology coming out on top.) To be successful in open source, its unfortunately not the ideas that you can come up with but your ability to enact them which gives them value.

Ah, thanks for the comments. I'm working out how to build an open source business that is itself opensource without just throwing away effort. What its coming down to is that once I generate ideas I won't have control over them or necessarily get credit for them, however the designs I produce will be protected and will remain open. To make an income, I'll be relying on my ability to sell as a service the production and distribution of products. Its odd, It would like GM having a huge car manufacturing plant that anyone could walk into, copy from, or inspect from any angle, but if they want a car they have to either build their own plant or pay me to build a car for them. Either way its going to cost something.

Again, thank you for the comments.
Lawrence

Your analogy is a good one in regards to physical products, but brakes down when dealing with virtual products like software. Not everyone will have the skills, time, or raw resources to build a car, even given the specs. However, almost anyone with access to a computer can copy files. I say almost anyone, because I'm constantly having to help my mom copy them.

If your future business is on the software side, there are other licensing models where you get the source code with the purchase of the product; but not the rights to give or resell that source code or anything compiled from it. The Minix kernel is licensed in this way.

The great thing about the "open source" licenses like the GPL is you gain the skills and creativity of any interested party. The downside is finding a way to make it profitable.

Best of luck to you.

The greatest value of open source is exactly what it says.
The REPRAP has been described in a manner that any-one can build one from a a kit, or collecting components & building stage by stage This is the way I intend to go.
I have been following the developments for several months now & am keen to see one working & chat the owner/builder.
My big gripe is I do not like the plastic connects & conglomeration of rods.
As I have not got access to a REPRAP i have to buy these bits".

I will go got to a solid base of Aluminium square tube filled with concrete as are a lot of machine tools these days. I also hope to design a set of interchangeable heads, "maybe some-one else will beat me to it." This will allow a combi! 3d printer/small mill, engraver,router & maybe a hot wood burner.
Cheers guys John Mcm

I'm familiar with the concrete filled steel tube idea, but not the aluminum square tube one. Do you have some documentation or a link as to why exactly they do this? I'm already aware that it dampens vibrations, but I'm more curious about example machines and possibly data on how well it works.

Protection is not as important as people think. In fact, patents do inventors more harm than good. Inventors spend way to much money on patents, when they'd be better served to simply develop their projects without patents.

Companies will try to steal ideas whether they are patented or not. Filing a patent only serves to give those companies your plans. Also, those companies routinely search patents to find ideas to steal.

Software can be copied for free, but hardware costs money to produce. Even if you give the plans to people and even give them the PC boards, people still would need to buy the electronic components which cost more than buying the device you made, not counting labor.

There's also the fact that people are lazy and not technically inclined. Even if they can get it free with a little work, they'd rather buy it. It doesn't hurt your sales if a bunch of people copy your work, in fact, it tends to help your sales.

My plan for my open source company, is to make money off of the hardware, and use that money to finance software. The software will mostly be free. There are many reasons for that.

Lawrence, it does sound like your thinking is quite similar to mine. Let's talk, I sent you a PM with my contact info.

Tony