Tom is about to do his build…

New Home Forum Updates Tom is about to do his build…

This topic contains 444 replies, has 71 voices, and was last updated by  Janus 3 hours, 4 minutes ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 181 through 210 (of 445 total)
  • Author
  • #113091


    I’m not defending the position, just trying to explain where the error could be

    Completely understood. Maybe I worded it a little wrong.



    I still think the problem is really marketting. I know you hate that word, but it’s really about telling your side of the story.

    Prusa is “open source” and they protect theur product through:

    – proprietary parts, sensors, bed, controller
    – reputation.
    – rapid innovation, at least through the mk3
    – pay for support (which is the traditional Linux model of profits).

    E3D seems to me to be benefitting more from:

    – reputation, especially regarding competition’s quality
    – marketting. They seem to be out there often compared to their influence. They just make extruders, why does everyone know them?

    Keep in mind that prusa and e3d are 2-5x more expensive than their generic competitors.

    You are providing (because of your store):

    – New designs (this is MPCNC #4, right?).
    – Ad free forums.
    – You can’t take credit for our contributions, but I guarantee if I was forced to use FB to support folks or I had to buy 3D printed parts, I wouldn’t have been hooked.
    – Your support. Which, to my knowledge, isn’t limited to people who are your customers or even to people who are following your instructions.
    – A fairly priced shop to allow people to kick start the project.
    – A commitment to using hardware available almost anywhere in the world.

    I can’t think of another company modelled like that. IMO, instead of looking away when someone says “closed source” or mistakes this for open source, you need a clear, optimistic view on your business model and you need a term that doesn’t bring up the opinions of CC-BY-SA-NC. (Maybe you could have your own license? Is that bad advice?). Then, when it comes up, you can be proud to tell your side of the story. Sharing why it’s advatageous, and there’s no reason to argue about it. It’s making a good first impression on this subject. I don’t think you’d start a first date with the fact that you never make the bed and your medical history. Why start a conversation about open source without a compelling argument?

    I don’t think hp printers have this kind of fan following of volunteers offering support in forums. Your model has altruism built in. It encourages support, which in turn, encourages more support.

    I can’t imagine this working differently. If there was a paywall forum, I think you’d be mostly on your own supporting inside there. If you designed some custom part and you were the only one who could make it (mk53 bed) then you would again lose some altruism from your fans. The status quo has been set. You need to be careful going back.

    If you went completely open, there’s a good chance you’ll still get a lot of business (at least better than hp printers). I think the educated consumer would still find their way to your shop. The part that would suck is the other sellers that will make themselves look like you, and convince naive customers to buy from them instead. Add to that problem, the guy that can ship for cheap inside the EU or South America. It would be risky, to say the least. It might be easy to be convinced you would lose much of your US business and all of your international business.



    I think the best possible outcome is if Tom does a video explaining how the licenses really work, maybe even admitting his mistaken legal interpretation as a trap people shouldn’t fall into. And maybe, just maybe, he might suggest that creators rights should be respected.

    That sounds pretty far fetched. What a wonderful thing that would be. I would even accept that with a righteous judgement of closed source.



    That is why I come here for advice. I am in a bubble and I do not know what this all looks like from any other perspective. I do understand this is my home turf but I also feel these forums contain some ridiculously intelligent people and I am sure most of you know much more than I do on all fronts and merely guide me most of the time other than tell me how to do things.

    It is also why I ask questions publicly here, so others can see what it takes, and to help form an opinion about his style of biz, or if this is how they should or should not do things if they choose to release a “thing”.  I ask about everything, PM’s, spam, forum software, style, beta tests, boards, software.

    Heffe that is a pretty solid condensation of this thing we all have going here, and it sounds like keep it this way is a very solid option. My favorite for sure. Lets just hope this is truly fizzling out and vendors/imports do not start selling OPCNC kits.



    Did Tom release the files?

    What do you think of the term “Available Hardware” or “Accessible Hardware”? We need a little logo to compete with the Open Hardware one. Maybe a gear combined with a shopping cart :). Some kind of term that we can just use those words to describe it. Something that will keep you committed to the principles you have so far (reasonably common parts, manufacture (print) it yourself if you like, but only the designer can charge for designed parts). The fact you support strangers and pay for the forum is more a part of your store benefit than part of this agreement. If you could find better language for the license, you might consider writing your own. IDK if you could find allies in this that could help with that. FSF probably want to write GPL v4 instead. Just having a similar license with a different name would go a long way. CC has a lot of criticisms.

    Part of that thought process would be to consider how it could be abused by others (you want to make sure completely prioprietary companies aren’t using the term). How would a company like lego or sparkfun or prusa compare?



    It would end ups somewhere between what we are currently using and a patent. We have found a few glaring grey areas. It would be easier to get a cc v5 I would think. But for the same reasons I think this is a huge deal it seems all of use that have cool stuff on Thingiverse (and other CC NC users) seem to be vulnerable in what I believe to be a previously unchallenged area. I do think each version of the CC is getting less human readable, which is not helping.

    Would it be any different that a patent, that was available for public use? Patents are easy to get, just expensive. More importantly Stratasys has severely tainted that word in the maker community already. I fear anything other than a free for all is not going to sit well for more people than the current CC?

    This is so dang hard to wrap my head around.



    I know you’re doing your best to prevent the NEXT problem, Tom may have just been pontificating since he did remove the file (that was unprintable anyway).

    I think the more offensive thing was to not try to correct any of the issues he was having, and then knock the machine.  Aluminum, after not even getting wood going????  And starting on plywood straight away???? Arrogant for sure.

    2 users thanked author for this post.


    It seems like your copyright is still solid. The only thing the “Available Hardware” name would give you is a shorthand for your faq. “Is it open source?” “No, it’s Available Hardware”.

    Any changes to your license are still going to be doing the same thing. Allowing liberal use of your files, except for other people charging for using the files or their derivatives. It would not be cobering what a patent would.

    Getting a patent doesn’t mean you have to use it. Lots of open source companies have patents to allow them to keep their inventions free. Patenting using bearings on pipe with 3D printed connectors should be yours (unless its already a reprap machine), and you should let anyone use it. Your design is still protected by copyright. Anyone who makes a similar machine fron scratch and it’s not a copy should be able to do that and charge for it, right?



    Available hardware, because you are free to use it for commercial purposes, just not sell it. I like that. The CC allows for adendums so this would be within my right to specify it being more open that the license I have chosen.

    I would like to figure out a way from getting feature blocked as well. I am still not clear this is a possibility but if it is it could get ugly fast. I also do not want to imply I own derivations, just seems odd I could get feature blocked.



    I don’t think you can get feature blocked. And you do sort of own derivations, in that you can enforce the no commercial clause on derivations.



    IANAL 🙂



    You know…that acronym could really use some work. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHahah



    Maybe Not A Lawyer, NAL….



    I didn’t invent it, FWIW.






    I had an eye-opening experience years ago playing Ultima Online. I was taming animals to build experience and I was accumulating a larger and larger collection of pets. I tried selling pets and I kept dropping the asking price lower and lower with not a single taker. Finally I started giving away animals for free because my zoo was becoming a nuisance.

    I expected nothing in return but people again and again gave me items of value in return, worth far more than the price I had previously been asking.

    This really shook me because if people are rational economic actors, this is impossible. And yet here it was happening.

    I mention this because goodwill is a very slippery thing yet it can make a huge difference in behavior involving money. It’s not economic behavior (according to Jamie’s definition of economic). People are not rational with money, sometimes in a good way, but it is fragile.

    I don’t have a solution, but just to re-emphasize, this needs extreme caution.

    1 user thanked author for this post.


    Maybe just the smiley made it creepy.

    you do sort of own derivations, in that you can enforce the no commercial clause on derivations.

    Ughhh that sounds kinda ugly. That is a window from the Open source side fro me I suppose.



    But that’s exactly what happened with Tom. You used your ownership of the original to enforce him to use the NC license, or not publish.



    Shoot Jamie, I understand that to the fullest. That has been my life for the few years. I never expected anything, but feel like I have more than I could have ever dreamed of out of this. The fine balance is something I can never forget. I can’t sleep some nights In fear of something I said could be taken wrong and everyone turn on me, or substitute any other drama that happens. Heck I am scared to even give any idea of how much I sell in fear that some will think it is way more than they thought and I don’t need help, or lose people because I am smaller than they think. Every time I say, I am just one dude in a garage… I get worried I lose some sort of bigger reputation some might hold of V1 Engineering Inc, or that I have a garage so I am doing better than them….



    You used your ownership of the original to enforce him to use the NC license, or not publish.

    To me that sounds so much uglier than, I enforced the license of the parts. I guess I truly and honestly don’t exactly feel like I own the parts parts. I am forced to use things like “mine” for clarification but they would not exist without everyone here, all the customers, donators, guru’s, users, and other forms of amazing people helping me to get this far with it.



    Ryan,While the community is great, and while you get the help of many here, it’s because you 1) created a great “product”, 2) provide help when needed to people who use your creation inside of  the limits you set, 3) managed to make the forum a great place where people get help AND where people can provide help and support.

    The community you praise is here thanks to you, your designs, your dedication and  your respect for “us”.

    So,  I think I’m speaking for many here when I say that you’re more than fully entitled to say you own the parts.

    6 users thanked author for this post.


    For what it’s Worth, Tom posted a video about the design/copyryght issues.

    I’ve not (yet) had time to view it.


    Also, note the first / pinned comment :


    One note on the video: While I was editing this one, I noticed that I had originally misread one of Ryan’s tweets. The video is edited to reflect that, but its tone is still a bit harsher than I’d like. All things considered, the MPCNC is not the right project for me, but I still wish Ryan all the best with it.


    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  thesfreader.


    Yeah. Of course youtube has some harsh comments. There are clearly a lot of people who dont understand what’s going on. Too bad there’s no way to reach any of them.



    Someone should take Tom’s video, and change the ending to say, “Actually, copyright exists for a reason, and I’m sorry for the potential damage I’ve done to this community and Ryan’s personal business”. Then release it with CC0.


    Mark Selig

    Let me throw this out there with some background on who I am and what I do first.

    1.  I am a drafter not an architect.  I have been drafting since my software I use was in DOS.  Yes that long ago.  I am old.  I have worked with Large Precast projects to include a Federal Prison, Super WalMarts, Super Targets, and Large commercial warehouses.  I have worked for multiple home builders across the nation.  These home builders are National Builders that build homes all over the place.  I, While working for the builders do designs that they sell.  I am an employee and thus am paid for the designs.  These plans are their property.  I have also been doing home designs on the side all these years.  Most floor plans out there are nothing more than a variation of other floor plans with just a few tweaks to them.  Most of the big builders copyright there floor plans, and at one builder that I worked, part of my job was to make sure each floor plan and elevation design created got copyrighted.

    OK Enough about my background.  A copyright is only as good as this in home building… If you change 10% of the plan you can then call it your own.  Do I agree? NO  But that is how the courts have decided it works in home building.

    Now on to a comment on V1 Engineering, and the lowrider I am personally building.  While yes I am building this to create my own designs, and I plan on tweaking my own parts if I feel they need it, (And at this point, I am so new to this I would not know if something needed it or not) the first thing I would do is to contact Ryan and ask several questions.

    1. This is what I propose to do to my machine.  Is this a sound idea?
    2. Do you mind if I model it up and see if it works to fix my problem?

    Then once I would create something, if it worked I would do documentation, and send info on what I did, and how I did it to Ryan.  The original design is his, so to me it would be the right thing to do, to allow Ryan to decide if what I created for a fix to my machine was right, and if it should be released to the public, or if it was just what was right for my machine.

    That being said, My Machine is at the point where it moves around, and I have drawn a square and I do not like the Zip Tie belt holding option.  Does it work, yes, do I plan to address that part on my machine down the road, yes.  Only because I have had Zip Tie failures in the past.  I also see flex in the belts, and yes the way to fix this would be to put a long ball screw or something down ILO of the belts.  Mind you that is not something I plan to do with my machine.  Why, because this is a  Hobby machine to create parts for me, and if the part works when I am done, close enough for me.  I am not doing machine work with it to make machine parts to sell.  If this is your solution to get into being a job shop to do machine work, go buy a bridgeport mill with digital readouts and learn to machine manually and work your way up to buying a commercial machine.  This is not a commercial machine. This is a hobby machine designed to do light work and from what I can see that is it.  It is not designed to be a machine for commercial use.

    All I can say is do the right thing.  You want to change someones design, ask first.  You are not the first person to have a problem with something, and I am sure Ryan has fielded 1000’s of questions.  Maybe he has a solution to your problem already.  Ask first.  If he does not have a ready answer, and the forums do not have a help for you either, then, create the fix, and take the fix to Ryan and let him decide if it should be released.

    Enough of me on my soap box.

    5 users thanked author for this post.


    That’s very responsible of you, Mark. Truthfully all you have to do is post them with the same license and you’re fine. If you post what you want on the forums, Ryan (and others) will talk through it with you.

    (the other pet peeve is when someone says “improved” and shares no evidence that it’s better).

    2 users thanked author for this post.


    And, FWIW, there are alternative designs to get rid if the zip ties on TV already.



    So going to preface this by acknowledge I’ve come here as a brand new user because of Tom’s videos (though I’m as newer to Tom’s content and had been wanting to Build a MPCNC for a while), however I’d also like to admit that I’m somewhat personally confused over this whole situation and who’s right and who’s wrong, and I don’t think it’s as clear cut as either side is making it out to be. I’m also not a Lawyer, and terrible at legal things.

    From what I can tell Tom had some obvious issues (although minor until we get to the chattering) building his machine, such as the nut traps, etc. I’m also pretty sure from what I’ve seen others say (and demonstrate) that the Spindle he’s trying to use probably isn’t right for the job, at least with the current setup of the MPCNC. Which makes sense considering it was designed primarily for tools similar to the DEWALT DW660 and is completely understandable. I think Tom probably could fix a lot of the chatter issues he’s having in round about ways if he wanted, although the obvious solution is to swap the tool, but I understand he doesn’t want to do that for various reasons.

    The legality behind Tom’s redesigned parts, and Ryan’s reaction to them however, is the huge sticking point on starting this project for me. As a Maker, I pretty frequently hack up my own designs from scratch which are required to be compatible/interface with pre-existing designs, and have never had any negative reaction to releasing them (and if I design them, why not share?). But this discussion on Twitter has me wondering if something needs to be mounted, or designed in a certain way, is it a derivative?

    The example I keep thinking about are wheels on a car. I’m sure we all know that pretty much every rim mounts using a handful of different bolt circle diameter configurations which have become ‘standards’. Does this mean any rim designed to mount on them, ever if the rim itself is created from scratch, is considered a copyright infringement because it mounts using a typical BCD pattern? To me, that doesn’t make sense, but I could be comparing Apples to Oranges.

    The way I see it, is the part Tom’s designed has to have a certain configuration to work with the MPCNC, but it was designed from the ground up, which makes it (in my inexpert opinion) his design, to be released as he pleases. That said, Ryan, I completely get why that makes you nervous. Similarly, if you were to go design your own part taking “inspiration” but not directly copying from his, I don’t believe he’d have any claim over it to “block you” as other people have said.

    From a completely “outside” perspective from both V1Engineering Forums and Tom’s Channel, I feel it’s probably worth pointing out that in this case, Ryan is perceived poorly (and in the wrong) throughout the Twitter exchange, it’s understandable why people would side with Tom who seems to be just trying to help the Maker Community in his own way.

    I think ultimately, and sadly, the only way to truly settle this will be to involve a Lawyer who knows what they’re talking about, and use that to protect yourself, your business, and your reputation going forward. You’ve got something cool here, so I hope you can work through it and work out where things truly stand.


    PS. Sorry for the essay!

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  Leon. Reason: Added final line
    2 users thanked author for this post.


    Thanks for the insight Leon. You’re doing us all a favor of giving us your perspective.

    As a Maker, I pretty frequently hack up my own designs from scratch which are required to be compatible/interface with pre-existing designs, and have never had any negative reaction to releasing them (and if I design them, why not share?). But this discussion on Twitter has me wondering if something needs to be mounted, or designed in a certain way, is it a derivative?

    Ryan has always been very supportive of redesigns and making your own parts for this machine. I think that’s a huge misconception that’s being propogated. The #1 reason any of this matters is, there are people who will print the STLs from thingiverse, sell them on ebay, and then direct users to come to v1engineering for support. This causes a big impact to Ryan and his sales, especially internationally.

    If Tom had just used the same CC-SA-NC, or what have you, license, this would have been praised and not been a fight at all. The fear is that Tom will redesign the entire machine (which he said he would do), release the files in CC0, and then ebayers will start taking large portions of business from Ryan and we’d end up with a bunch of angry users in the forums.

    None of us are lawyers, and it would be great to have an honest legal opinion about it, but I’m guessing it would come down to having to actually push the whole thing through at a huge expense on either side. That won’t ever happen, so in my mind the sticking point is the moral issue.

    I spend far too much time here in the forums helping others. My reason for being here is because of the free parts of the project. The fact that you can print the parts yourself and go to a local store for much of the rest, is huge for me. It’s for that reason that I support a lot of people on these forums. Many people getting support here aren’t paying Ryan a dime, and I love the machine and community enough to support them for free.

    Ryan, supports everyone regardless of if they bought from him. He pays for this ad-free forum from the site, and his business allows him to a) sell start up kits, which really help people get moving and b) design new revisions, contribute to Marlin, write instructions on building the machine and also about doing things with CNC in general.

    In my mind, this is what Ryan is protecting. I don’t think Tom even mentioned the shop in the last video, and he doesn’t know about the ebay sellers that have made an impact in the past. He also doesn’t mention the high number of remakes and designs on TV to make compatible parts. It all would have been fine if Tom had just done CC-NC. I, for one, am OK with him leaving the project (it’s sad and a missed opportunity). If he wants only to make parts that are CC0, then that’s his restriction, not Ryan’s.

    7 users thanked author for this post.


    The example I keep thinking about are wheels on a car. I’m sure we all know that pretty much every rim mounts using a handful of different bolt circle diameter configurations which have become ‘standards’. Does this mean any rim designed to mount on them, ever if the rim itself is created from scratch, is considered a copyright infringement because it mounts using a typical BCD pattern? To me, that doesn’t make sense, but I could be comparing Apples to Oranges.

    No. This is more akin to someone taking some wheels (let’s say Enkei RPF1s), opening a CAD program, copying every single measurement from the wheels into the cad program, then changing the location of the valve stem.

    4 users thanked author for this post.
Viewing 30 posts - 181 through 210 (of 445 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.