October 9, 2019 at 6:05 pm #117341
Yup I tried those exact ones. I will put in on the master and see what happens.October 9, 2019 at 9:42 pm #117378
It doesn’t help to rehash what’s already been said. I think we understand both sides. I don’t think Paul will change his mind that he won’t release parts CC-NC and Ryan won’t change the license, or his intent with the license. I, for one, respect both sides and see the validity of both opinions. If they are incompatible, then so be it.
This should have benz the enz of this license debacle. Well put words in a sharknado of huh?s and poopchutes. This and Paul’s words have been well placed and reminds.
The danger comes in using the shorthand that Paul (and/or others) “can’t release their designs” vs “won’t release their designs under the original license due to philosophical differences” vs “won’t honor the original license”. All three describe the situation, but color and prejudice the scene very differently to those who might not be fully versed in the whole quagmire (don’t fool yourself, this is a quagmire).
Quagmire indeed 🙁
What if I made an MRI machine that you could source from the hardware store in any country, does it have to be open source for it to be better? What is wrong with anyone being able to build it for free, but only me sell a few parts of it? There is nothing stopping people from starting a pay it forward deal. You are very legally in the right and encouraged to give them away for free. Except everyone that has asked permission to do that wants to recoup the cost of plastic, power, and there time….that is not free. The “open source” companies everyone keeps citing state very clearly there products are better and higher quality than what you can source elsewhere.
Sorry, this is too bananas and kiwis for me. CNC vs MRI machine is a whole different bag of snausages. Stiff to grep meatbags standing to build a DIY MRI machine, and even mouth breathers would sprout a thought before being radiated by their buddy.
I made machines that work on shitty quality parts so that is not an issue…on purpose. I think we are very much on the same side of this except me having the sole right to sell the parts I designed. I really do not understand why so many think that is bad. Nothing is hidden, humanity is not being held back by hidden ideas, or the lack of a lower cost from the lack of mass production.
FYIyeye this is why Iz here. I’vebuprofen many times how sucky sucky Iaz at moosuring, buzzering inside or outside the boarders, and lost every miniscule hope of cuttting a curvy wizzdoodle.
Having a machine that is less shitty than I is the goal!!!!
So if you had to make a choice right now would you keep it the way it is, or me go open source but only work with 8.25mm belts, off sized US hardware (thin square head), a custom made rail with a diameter 26.1mm, and a custom spindle only I sell, and software I designed to work on a custom board?
I can tell you right now I would make more money and spend at least 50% less time helping people build it with $4 import electronics, and steel water pipes, and random metric hardware they swept off the garage floor.
Poking the bear a bit? Anybody want this? Bueler…….Bueler…….Bueler…..?
Saying what you mean keeps getting reversed for meaning what you say. Which maybesorta why thread is soooooooooo .
I just don’t think 99% of the people actually care beyond a buzzword. It is the few fighting for a buzzword that are making this ugly.
That’s sorta correct! 100 points!
Alex I’ll take Solving World Hunger for $300 Oh…sory
Ok so this………
Am I missing anything here.
To clarify my intent with this license. Under CC-BY-NC-SA I can stipulate looser restrictions, and do so.
You can freely modify all parts provided you keep the same license, this is Share Alike. This is a common thread with most licenses.
You will have the same rights with your parts as I do with my parts. I have no special rights over your parts.
You can resell parts you have purchased from me, but not my parts you have printed yourself. Think used book, vs photocopy of that book.
You can use my parts and machines to generate money/trade/value in anyway except selling/trading my parts directly or indirectly. Meaning you can make a video, use it in a commercial setting, or make products with it, but you can not sell something and include my parts “for free”.
I don’t know about this. I wish the question had just never been asked, but there is something funny here. Ryan still owns the original models. In the ways that they are similar, I think he would still have license on those parts. You can’t add a ‘J’ to each part, release the CC-BY-SA-NC and then start selling them. If you added a sonic screwdriver tool mount, that would be your part to do with what you wanted, and Ryan wouldn’t automatically have the right to sell them or to stop you from selling them. Somewhere in the middle, there is a line.
Now that I’ve thought that through, I think you should strike that line from the bullet list, Ryan. You’ve already given enough detail for 99% of the use cases.
The case I see here that would be an issue is something I’ve thought of doing when (or if) we get a makerspace up in town. I’d like to offer a 3D print class where the students are handed all the parts for an MP3DP and tasked with assembling and debugging their build. Once complete they prove their skill by printing a new set of parts that are used for the next class. The makerspace charges a reasonable price for the class and the students get to keep the printers they built. The potential issue is in the “The makerspace charges a reasonable price for the class” part. You are charging for some of the parts (hardware and controller) and charging for the instructor, but are you charging for the printed parts?
I would not consider that “safe” without permission. That is a for profit company. That is exactly how everyone presents that to me in an email. “Hey I want to offer printing parts for “free” and charge only for filament and power, (and usually) a small fee for my time (or wear and tear)”. Not fair in my opinion. Case by case *maybe* but the potential for abuse is really high. I think asking for a bulk price for parts would be a better option, or having them bring in their own parts.
The worlds largest marketplaces do not require my mark and all have swiftly removed any offending parts. While we might not agree on the legality of the license they all seem to agree it is enforceable. At least they err on the side of the designer and license holder and make the seller prove it is legal to do so.
this …..hits me right in the Southern Hemisphere. The major malfunctions I own are mostly in their golden years. I may have had the previe of being the 3rd or 4th owner. So I got lots o holes I need squared up now, if you please.
If I purchased said “robotic spinny cuttin death machine of my dreams” from you, in my dumbfoundedness I wudth most likely slippy fingaled the thingy and bustd it to bittys. Never minzeys I just prints the broke onz. Huh? Nowz Iz cauntz sellz itz oosed!?!? Serrizzbuzalflingalmanz…
If I fully DIY said “uh too tired that stf up ther” I Crosby StillZ and Nash sellz itz oosed!?!? How the creampie could you whip that? Craig has a list, u know dis.
Makerspaces can’t help members build your DIY robot spinny thing of ow ow ow,….uh…..oh…..gooowowzrs..uuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh/whyOlordhavetheesmitenzurbros?
LotO more to say but too dis’d en tired.
Delete if dub postd…fipinforumbugOctober 11, 2019 at 6:18 pm #117594
So since it’s come up, if the MP3DP is a derivative of the Prusa because you saw a prusa once then designed a printer, then what the girl from twitter posted above is saying she’s gonna build is definitely a derivative of the MPCNC: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2368805 “This is 3d printed CNC router, strongly inspired by MPCNC and MPCNC LowRider.” I mean both cases seem the same right?
As for the girl from twitter, maybe jump in and suggest if she is going to spend time and money on a machine like that she should go with the original that also has a strong support group to help get it up and running?October 11, 2019 at 7:56 pm #117600
IDK who the girl from twitter is, but the cnc artisan 3 has been out for a long tine and crucially, it’s released CC-NC.
1 user thanked author for this post.October 11, 2019 at 9:47 pm #117609
As for the girl from twitter, maybe jump in and suggest if she is going to spend time and money on a machine like that she should go with the original that also has a strong support group to help get it up and running?
I’m not sure if the creator of that has some sort of support or not. I don’t really feel it’s my place to pull people away from the choice they made.
So since it’s come up, if the MP3DP is a derivative of the Prusa because you saw a prusa once then designed a printer,
I understand I am holding myself to a stricter standard about this sort of stuff than most seem reasonable, but it is what I feel is right. If others do not think they drew inspiration from something that is on them, until it is more similar than dissimilar to something I made than I will say something.October 13, 2019 at 12:52 am #117702
The fundamental problem with NC license is very simple: NC licenses are controversial.
One source is a clash with open source “non discriminatory” philosophy, the other part revolves around how people perceive the phrase “commercial use”. Everybody understands it a little differently. The smart people who wrote CC licenses know that (they even conducted a study) and NC family of licenses are explicitly designed to keep the definition vague. The official recommendation is to clarify a use with the author if there is any doubt. Now this is all nice and tandy when there is a single author but once you get to a place where multiple people contribute to the same work it gets weird real quick. CC takes a stance that explanations published outside of the license are not part of the license. Thus while it is generally permitted to relax what is considered commercial use (and Ryan has done so in multiple places), these extra rights that he has granted are not necessarily “viral” and thus may not apply to derivative works thus even if Ryan says his files are OK to use in a commercial machine shop, derivatives such as the Artisan 3 are not necessarily bound by that statement. I haven’t seen a single big multi-contributor project that uses an NC license. If someone knows about one, please enlighten me 😉
Now all this is not a problem for a lot of people and frankly most people don’t even understand the difference. The license does limit which parts of the MPCNC ecosystem are open to contribution. So far parts are not. One can argue to death if community contributions to the parts would make up for the risk of losing one of the possible legal levers against eBay sellers. Trademark is a lot more potent weapon there and I believe Ryan said he is working on getting it.
Now that said, the new community documentation repository is CC-BY-SA and is picking up steam.
I encourage everybody who has an opinion and a burning desire to contribute to go and make the docs better.
This is the part where community can help the most in the short term and kudos to Ryan for setting it up with a contributor friendly license.October 14, 2019 at 7:46 am #117840
Since people were asking about youtubers who might want to build a V1 machine:
<script async=”” src=”https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″></script>
Looks like she has a filament sponsor already, and is planning to build an Artisan 3(?!) which, to my knowledge, has zero community attached to it. Anyone interested in pitching in for an MPCNC hardware kit to offer? Or has there been enough youtube ‘exposure’ for 2019?
^^ Girl from twitter for reference
I guess I said all that to poke a hole in my own argument that if you were inspired by the Prusa when you created the MP3DP so it should be considered a derivative. I’m probably just being pedantic at this point while beating a dead horse.October 14, 2019 at 8:18 am #117849
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.