Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 06, 2014 03:07PM |
Admin Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 730 |
Quote
Adrian Bowyer (in September 2012)
What this whole debate has highlighted for me is that perhaps “open source” is too misleading to slap onto a product or business ethos. Perhaps a new term should be coined to specifically remind people that such-a-business supports open source to the full extent permissible whilst retaining a sustainable business. Say… sustaina-source… (apologies)
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 06, 2014 06:01PM |
Admin Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 1,063 |
Quote
MattMoses
A lot of these arguments boil down to semantics, i.e. what exactly does one mean by "Open Source". Here is a proposition:
"Open source hardware" has a fairly well established definition, so let us reserve "True Open Source" for companies that fully comply with that definition.
What Ultimaker is doing is not true "open source", but it is much friendlier than what other companies (Makerbot, for example) are doing. So let us call Ultimaker "Open Friendly". Adrian Bowyer suggested (somewhat jokingly, in this thread) the term "sustaina-source"
Quote
Adrian Bowyer (in September 2012)
What this whole debate has highlighted for me is that perhaps “open source” is too misleading to slap onto a product or business ethos. Perhaps a new term should be coined to specifically remind people that such-a-business supports open source to the full extent permissible whilst retaining a sustainable business. Say… sustaina-source… (apologies)
So,
Let us call Lulzbot and companies like it "True Open Source".
Let us call Ultimaker and companies like it "Open Friendly".
Let us praise them and get on with our lives.
Oh, and let us call Makerbot and companies like it "Traditional".
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 07, 2014 04:52AM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,616 |
Quote
jebba
How much did you get for your -NC board?
Quote
jebbaQuote
TraumflugQuote
jebba
A -NC license isn't open source
This is something I consider to be cynism, at least in this context. It means hiding designs is prefered over publishing them.
Did I say that?
Quote
thejollygrimreaper
I propose two new simple license types: FAS-NC ("Freely available source - non commercial) and FAS-AU ("Freely available source - any use")
Quote
Adrian Bowyer (in September 2012)
What this whole debate has highlighted for me is that perhaps “open source” is too misleading to slap onto a product or business ethos. Perhaps a new term should be coined to specifically remind people that such-a-business supports open source to the full extent permissible whilst retaining a sustainable business. Say… sustaina-source… (apologies)
Generation 7 Electronics | Teacup Firmware | RepRap DIY |
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 07, 2014 10:41AM |
Admin Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 730 |
This is a nice idea perhaps, but how is this any different from options already available with creative commons licenses?Quote
thejollygrimreaper
I propose two new simple license types: FAS-NC ("Freely available source - non commercial) and FAS-AU ("Freely available source - any use")
Quote
Michael Weinberg
from What's the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing
One way to avoid some of these thorny copyright questions is by distributing objects and designs with permissive licenses such as those provided by Creative Commons. Unfortunately this solution can break down when applied to physical objects beyond the scope of copyright.
To put it simply, you cannot license what you do not have. A license is a conditional permission to use: I grant you the right to make copies of my work as long as you comply with these conditions. If you do not comply with the conditions, then your copies are in violation of my copyright.
However, if there is no copyright, there is no need for permission, and no way to enforce the terms. A license without an underlying right is legally meaningless. For example, adding a Creative Commons license to a door hinge (a useful object) grants you no legally binding control over anyone who uses that hinge. If someone copies the hinge without complying with the license, there is nothing you can do because the copies do not infringe on any rights.
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 07, 2014 03:14PM |
Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 1,381 |
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 07, 2014 05:09PM |
Admin Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 730 |
I wouldn't say Intellectual Property law can be "summed up". It's very complicated.Quote
A2
Does this sum it up.
As far as I know, yes.Quote
A2
CC licenses are operative only when applied to material in which a copyright exists
Not necessarily, because an object can be copyrighted too (a sculpture or a work of art, for example). There is a distinction between "Creative Objects" and "Useful Objects", with creative objects being protected by copyright and useful objects not. Michael Weinberg's article explains this in detail, with many examples:Quote
A2
NonCommercial (NC) or NoDerivatives (ND) licenses prevent selling, modifying, or requires attribution of a copyright document, not the manufacture of objects.
Quote
Michael Weinberg
from What's the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing?
The ends of the copyright/patent spectrum are fairly easy to describe. Abstract sculpture? Protected by copyright. Breakthrough new hinge? Protected by patent. But what about things in the middle? What about things that are kind of artistic and kind of useful? More specifically, what about things that have some artistic features and some useful features? Can they be protected by copyright?
The law addresses these questions with a seemingly straightforward process called severability. If an object has both artistic and useful features, the copyright does not extend to protect the entire thing. Instead, copyright protection is limited to the artistic features that can stand alone – assuming there are copyrightable features that can stand alone. It protects those features by “severing” them from the rest of the object. If the artistic and functional features cannot be separated, the law errs on the side of keeping useful objects available to everyone and excludes the object from copyright protection altogether.
Clearly this is not so! If there was an approval process, we wouldn't get into these arguments all the time!Quote
A2
To use the term Open Source the document (not an object) must go through an approval process.
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 08, 2014 04:41AM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,616 |
Quote
A2
Without a patent (object/method/design) a CC, OS, or OH does not prevent any one from manufacturing what has been described, or gives rights to the creator to stop the manufacturer of described objects.
Generation 7 Electronics | Teacup Firmware | RepRap DIY |
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 09, 2014 06:20PM |
Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 1,381 |
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 09, 2014 06:21PM |
Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 1,381 |
Quote
Traumflug
Attempts towards enforceable hardware licences exist. The most known ones are the CERN OHL and the TAPR OHL. They're not based on copyright, but on plain contracts. Unfortunately, neither of these two has doing business in mind. Likely, because for their creators money doesn't matter (TAPR are hobbyists, CERN is paid from public sources).
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 09, 2014 06:23PM |
Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 1,381 |
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 09, 2014 07:26PM |
Admin Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 1,063 |
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 09, 2014 09:01PM |
Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 661 |
Quote
Traumflug
The question is, why do you do things open? Very likely not to give the copiers a headstart over your own production. Instead I think you do it to be attractive in a market where the "open source" tag counts very much. As such, it's a marketing move.
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 10, 2014 05:46AM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,616 |
Quote
A2
So it appears to me that most of the Reprap products are using the wrong licence, e.g.:
Quote
A2
@Traumflug: what one is more appropriate for Reprap products.
Generation 7 Electronics | Teacup Firmware | RepRap DIY |
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 10, 2014 06:16AM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,616 |
Quote
vegasloki
I don't think that's a fair representation of what they are doing. Just because it doesn't fit your definition of what open source is doesn't mean what they are doing is marketing only. Lulzbot provides a value add by manufacturing and supporting the design in addition to making it available for others to build. Whether or not you agree (and it's fine if you don't) isn't relevant to those that want to go that route and buy something from Lulzbot.
Quote
vegasloki
I bring that into the discussion to point out that any perception of a benefit of claiming to be open source is exaggerated. While the merits of open source and the infrastructure that supports the movement is involved in the marketing of the machines, it's an exaggeration to state that marketing as open source is any great advantage.
Generation 7 Electronics | Teacup Firmware | RepRap DIY |
Re: A Promise is a Promise — Ultimaker April 12, 2014 07:14PM |
Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 80 |
Quote
A2
Is there a Reprap wiki guide of how to choose a licence.