Tom is about to do his build…

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

Tagged: 

This topic contains 560 replies, has 78 voices, and was last updated by  HighProbability 1 day, 1 hour ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 211 through 240 (of 561 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #113350

    Tim
    Participant

    As a fan of both creators this whole situation is terrible and i think made far worse by occuring out in public and over twitter which can really makes words and actions come across nastier than a person intended due to the format. And would put a lot it down to a cultral diffrence between what is expected in the 3d printing community and what Ryan whats for his project which is entitled to direct as he wishes. I think the best thing for the future of the mpcnc project would be talk to a lawyer (Lawful Masses with Leonard French might be a good place to start) to gain a better understanding of your rights regarding this project and what does and doesn’t infringe as based on my understanding of ip law i think Tom may be in the right here legally. Aside from this i can see Ryans moral arguement regarding his livelyhood and issue regarding the integration of community work into his own design makerbot had some issues with this in their early days the best way to combat this would be a very clear disclaimer on why you use the licence you did and a request that people use the same licence for parts this kind of message will be adhered to by the vast majority of people even if not legally required and i think would have sidesteped this whole situation as i cannot imagine that Tom has any bad intentions when he used the CC-0 licence. Personally i release everything i do as cc-0 automatically as it’s the most permisive licence and had i designed a part for teh mpcnc would likely have done the same thing without thinking.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113352

    Aaron
    Participant

    Unfortunately, I think maybe it’s time to move on. Most of the fanboys that only want to stick to one side of the story, were never going to build a V1 machine anyways. And if they did, they probably wouldn’t buy anything from the store anyways.

     

    The damage has been done, even changing to an open source license at this time will just seem like caving in to the bullying.

     

    I take issue with the CC license itself, and maybe it needs to be updated instead of being able to be blanketly applied to anything on thingiverse/myminifactory etc.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #113353

    Tim
    Participant

    Unfortunately, I think maybe it’s time to move on. Most of the fanboys that only want to stick to one side of the story, were never going to build a V1 machine anyways. And if they did, they probably wouldn’t buy anything from the store anyways.

    The damage has been done, even changing to an open source license at this time will just seem like caving in to the bullying.

    I take issue with the CC license itself, and maybe it needs to be updated instead of being able to be blanketly applied to anything on thingiverse/myminifactory etc.

    agree fully

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113357

    frosty
    Participant

    What’s the deal with copyright and 3d printing?

    This PDF is a few years old (2013) but it does a good job of breaking down the Copyright/Trademark/Patent differences and examines what is (and is not) protected by copyright and how courts have tried to determine what is an “artistic expression” and what is a “useful object”.

    The Good/Bad news according to this analysis is:

    1. Tom (or anyone else) cannot “feature block” Ryan by releasing CC0 versions of parts with certain features .
    2. Ryan probably can’t do anything to prevent Tom (or anyone else) from creating and releasing “workalike” parts.
    3. Ryan can still protect trademark/copyright against 3dprinting services ebay sellers and the like (provided they are printing MPCNC parts and not TRCNC (Tom’s Ripoff CNC) parts, that is) since they are using his copyrighted files directly (not producing the perhaps uncopyrightable object by other means).
    4. Even if the MPCNC design is 100% “useful object” and enjoys only trademark protection because it has the V1 logo all over it, releasing the files undera  licence with explicit restrictions of use _may_ confer some degree of control over the use/reuse/misuse of the files by other means.

    I, like almost everyone else here, am not a lawyer so take all that with as much salt as you feel necessary.

    Also, like almost everyone else here, I’m not an impartial observer but I don’t think Tom ended up looking like any sort of hero nor Ryan like any sort of villain at the end of the day. If anything I’d tip the scales a little bit the other way in the “YouTube celebrity vs. guy slaving away in his garage” matchup. People are clever (youtube and twitter commenters excepted, perhaps) and just because Tom has a big bullhorn doesn’t mean his word is gospel.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #113365

    Tim
    Participant

    Already seen people in the comments talking about creating a new design….

    1 guy said it would use aluminum extrusion (wow, it’s like you’re missing the point or something!)

    1 guy said he would use rack and pinion drive (wow, it’s like you’re missing the point or something!)

    1 guy said “i will construct a printable CNC, and everyone will be free to modify it. It will take a long time, because i didn’t draw many 3d designs”

    lololol

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113369

    Aaron
    Participant

    I swear no one bugs the guys at millright even though two of their designs use open source things (v wheels/vslot/grbl).

    #113374

    K Cummins
    Participant

    Already seen people in the comments talking about creating a new design….

    1 guy said it would use aluminum extrusion (wow, it’s like you’re missing the point or something!)

    1 guy said he would use rack and pinion drive (wow, it’s like you’re missing the point or something!)

    1 guy said “i will construct a printable CNC, and everyone will be free to modify it. It will take a long time, because i didn’t draw many 3d designs”

    lololol

    Sounds like the nerdrage is still burning brightly. Feed not the trolls, and their passions will flicker out when the next spark of contrived outrage is cast out for clicks…

    Note: I’m not saying that Tom was stoking the flames of controversy for clicks, but it can’t have hurt him.

    Second note: I stopped watching his videos after I realized he had no intention of actually following directions, or using commonly available resources (such as this forum). I knew he was doomed to failure once I realized this, and life is too short to watch train wrecks for entertainment.

    #113375

    Barry Ashcroft
    Participant

    I watched Tom’s video about the MPCNC he was working on and it made my mind up on whether I am to build one myself. I’ve been following the project progress over the last few years and have been impressed with many of the machines built and the project itself. I have never had an issue with the project having a BY-NC license but it was something that could be incompatible with a CNC project I want to be involved in.

    A little preface to all of this; I am not a lawyer or legal expert and nothing I say should be taken as evidence or advice etc… however, my experience and opinion come from both a commercial and open-source software development background. Working with licenses whether they be GPL or CC based is never easy – these are cookie-cutter licenses, a one-design fits all. There are always going to be problems, especially when a license is used for something that it is not intended for. We saw this with creative works before CC where GPL was used – this drove the need to create a new license type.

    What I am reading on both sides of the camp is a lot of blame and vitriol from fans of both sides, each blaming the other. We also have interpretations of licenses and what is determined to be ethical. A couple of quick points to consider:
    1) The law (or what is legal and enforceable) is different in each country. What is legally binding in the US may not be enforceable in EU/Germany (where Tom is from). This is important as each person will be interpreting what is allowed based upon their laws. This is why in many licenses a caveat is included that in case legal dispute X court in X country will be used.

    An example of this happening that could be of concern for all is the Stormtrooper armour from Star Wars. In the US it is protected by copyright, trademark and anything else they can get to protect their IP. This was fought through the UK courts for many years but Lucasfilm lost as the design for the armour and helmet were deemed to be industrial. This was all because the ‘original’ maker of the costumes was making unlicensed sets and selling them. End result? He could continue selling them from the UK, but could not sell in the US (or possibly elsewhere) as they were protected. For MPCNC this could mean that the parts can be protected in a way that is not enforceable/an option outside of the US.

    2) Cultural differences are always at sway. This applies not just across the globe, but in our towns and neighbourhoods. We all have a view of what is acceptable, what is wrong and where various lines should be drawn. This does not mean that taking such a stance or viewing the world in such a way is derogative to someone else. If anything it usually means that both sides are trying to do the best for whatever it is. In this case, improving MPCNC. There is a disagreement here on several levels; about what makes a part derivative, when does a project stop being a derivative of the parent and can be it’s own, and what licenses should be in use… We have two cultures or communities, approaching the same problem, but from different sides. There is discussion – and let’s be frank, some heated discussion on both sides. The discussion leads to an argument (which isn’t where we shout and fall out), instead, we see constructive points raised that have implications not just for MPCNC. However, the Fanboys come out and stoke the fire and what was positive is now seen as an attack by both sides and people get riled up. This is all based on our culture – the way we view the world and by those who have influenced us.

    3) Ethical, OK this will be a short one, but this will be formed based upon what is legal, what is cultural and what feels right. I’ll throw in how invested you are into a project in this specific interest. If you are committed and suddenly the project you love is ‘attacked’ you will be quick to defend and this, in turn, can offend. This initial attack may be valid, or it could be misinterpreted but either way, it can escalate quickly.

    Can we all please take a step back and calm down. It is obvious that Ryan and Tom have different goals for MPCNC and through this experience, Tom has realised that the project is not suited to his long term goals – a fully open source project where he can contribute freely is better suited. And the same holds true for Ryan. There are lots of reasons to keep control over the parts, design quality, product protection and revenue protection to name a few. He is entirely free to decide what is acceptable and to enforce the license as he sees fit. In cases where someone is unhappy with the license to the files and wants to release their own then it is up to Ryan to defend the license. If the other person is unhappy, they have two choices – change the license to comply, or withdraw the new files. Either action should not be seen as a sleight on its own. If someone refuses and claims that this is a new work then ultimately Ryan will have to decide whether to enforce the license and that is where things could get tricky. This is where lawyers get expensive quickly and the loser not just out of pocket, but possibly losing the protection they thought a license of a patent held (or vice-versa obviously).

    I don’t know what the answer is, but I know where we need to be at. Regardless of whether MPCNC is closed or open, regardless of perceived intent, regardless of how wronged we feel, this risks damaging not just the two communities of Ryan and Tom, but also the wider community at hand. How many projects won’t be started because of this? What about all the good that Ryan has done by bringing CNC to an affordable level, or the same with Tom and the 3D printer community? The two camps need to working together to create pathways for the next generation of makers as well as supporting the current.

    I don’t think either side had ill intent, both just wanted what is best for MPCNC. I think a lot was lost in text-only communication and while I find Tom’s video had a harsh edge it was fair at raising the issues surrounding licensing in general and I hope will spark a conversation where we have a license affording the correct protection to open hardware whether fully or use-dependent. I feel the withdrawal of the newly designed part was to comply with the license. I get the impression that both Ryan and Tom acted defensively, both protecting their values and stance towards their project, and that this could be misinterpreted by both sides of the camp into aggression when none was implied or intended. I can see both sides regarding the part but for me, if I take apart and modify it then it is a derivative piece, but if I make a new part from scratch, even if it is cosmetically the same but adds new or improved functionality – then if this is a new design, built from scratch, I can then choose the license. This is based on my interpretation of the CC license which is in turn influenced by my background in open source and investment in the project. Knowing this and Ryan’s stance on releasing compatible parts I know that this is not the right CNC project at the moment. This is not a sleight on Ryan, his work, or the community – it is an incompatibility with what I hope to achieve in a CNC. That may not be true forever, we will see.

    To close, there is no right or wrong here, I just hope that both sides look at what has been said by everyone and can take this in the way I am sure it was meant. We all just want what is best for the project.

    7 users thanked author for this post.
    #113376

    Nick
    Participant

    I’ve been a fan of, and user of my MPCNC for a couple of years now.  I’ve also been a fan of Tom’s channel for about as long.

    I don’t hang out on the forums, but have certainly received help here numerous times over the years, including directly from Ryan.

    I saw Tom’s video this morning, and was very disappointed, and quite confused.  This thread has cleared things up a little for me, but I’ve never spoken legalese very well.

    What I can say is that, while I understand Ryan wanting to protect his designs, and his business, there’s a bit about closing the barn doors after all the horses have bolted.  And in the day and age of the internet, and 3d printing, and cheap manufacturing in China, it almost seems like tilting at windmills to try and keep a hold on something like this.

    Maybe you can keep control, but at what cost?

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113378

    Nick
    Participant

    Pardon me while I delve into an anecdote from my own life:

    I work as a 3d artist in video games, and I do woodworking on the side.  A few years ago, I drove up to Santa Rosa to buy a big Jet Edge Sander from a guy off craigslist.  When I showed up, the guy was my age (mid 30s) with a gorgeous shop, including a laser cutter, full cnc, etc.  I always ask why someone is getting rid of a given tool when I’m buying used, and that question here led to a long conversation.  You’ve probably seen some cutting board on Etsy/ebay/whereever with the periodic table engraved on it along with the punny line, “I use this cutting board periodically.”  This was the guy that first made one of those.  He came up with the line.   Originally, he had made a couple using a laser cutter at a Tech Shop or some similar place nearby.  They had become so popular that he ramped up production, invested in his shop, bought his own laser cutter, etc.

    Soon after, the clones started showing up.  He had a copyright/patent/trademark/whatever (again, I have trouble grokking the differences), and so he immediately started fighting to keep control of his product.  He’d contact each clone shop and file cease & desists and whatever else, all while continuing to make his originals.  By a few months later though, the legal shit had become his full time job, and he basically didn’t have time to make things anymore.

    Another month or two of that, and he was done.  He couldn’t handle it anymore, and stopped trying to be the owner of that design.  It had escaped him.  And he had started to slim down the shop, hence selling the edge sander.

    Now, all of that is shitty.  He came up with a good product, that people loved, and he SHOULD be able to own that outright.  But it was basically just an idea, and is something easily replicated by anyone with minimal tools today, and thus, it was doomed to be.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #113380

    Jason
    Participant

    Well Tom’s video swayed me.

    To finally buy a v1 t-shirt and send a small donation to Ryan.

    The amount he’s given to the public and this community and the amount I’ve given back just feels way out of balance.  I still feel like it’s a bit lopsided but I’ve been slacking on the ways I used to help support this community due to life getting in the way so this will have to do.

     

    5 users thanked author for this post.
    #113387

    Here’s what I posted on YouTube:

    I’m so disappointed that a project that I expected to be a great example of collaboration and creativity devolve into a squabble over ownership. I just finished my MPCNC build because I first found out about from Tom’s videos at MRRF. I don’t do Twitter and missed this on the MPCNC forum so I am flabbergasted that something you spent so much time and energy in you are wiling to just shut down and walk away. Did you foresee this copyright issue coming into play from the beginning? Was this a setup for making a statement? I understand you have your values and you have every right to champion what you see as a priority. It is great that you spent so much time on the build stream. Wow. that was so helpful. You really are an influencer. This experience makes me realize that I have to continue to do my own homework better. I spent two years studying the MPCNC project and step by step learned about how these machines work. I was ready to build and mine turned out great. Very rigid. One final thing, I agree that the whole metric/imperial issue is a problem especially around the nut traps and tubing. This confirms an important principle for me: the internet makes everything look accessible. In fact, where you live is a huge factor on what you are capable of doing. Still, I don’t recall instances in other builds in Europe where people had all these issues.

    Sorry I am late to this since I don’t do Twitter and missed this topic.
    Go back and watch Tom’s video on when he dumped Onshape. That is a good indication of where his priorities are. Tom’s videos tend to have a less forgiving edge to them in general. My whole take on this is that he didn’t seem like he was enjoying this at all during the series of streams.
    I just think that if he knew from the start that the CC attribution would be a real issue in the end, that is pretty manipulative. Then again, controversy drives views.
    I will do my best to get a video up on YouTube demonstrating how solid a build this is, FWIW. I hope we can all do our best to support Ryan and all he does for this effort.
    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #113394

    George M
    Participant

    <rant>

    I want a CNC.  I can’t afford an XCarve like all the cool YouTube makers, but I have a 3d printer and a fair bit of know how.  I plan on building a MPCNC.

    With that being said I saw Tom talk to Ryan in an old MRRF video and I could tell Ryan’s enthusiasm over his creation and the prospect of a large YouTube presence putting it out their for everyone to see.  I wonder how much communication there was before Tom started the project? Obviously he didn’t like some things that are spelled out on the website (size of the pipes, using metric hardware instead of #6).  Then Tom decided “I can do better” and decided to do so.  That’s his prerogative.  He’s even free to release those files for others to use.  All that’s asked is that Ryan’s original work is respected by offering the same protections the original design has.  Heck, depending on how you look at it, Ryan can’t incorporate those designs into the parts he sells without permission. With that being said my opinion (because they are like a**holes) is this:

    Tom should’ve talked to Ryan going in, not a (hey can I make videos that will make me money since the design is NC) but really get to know Ryan and understand where he is coming from if Tom had issues with the type of license used. Maybe Tom would’ve decided to skip trying to make the project altogether understanding it was designed for imperial hardware and such. Instead he basically took his ball and went home and made a show of it in his video when he didn’t get his way.

    Ryan should’ve privately messaged Tom and made sure he understood why Ryan wanted to license type respected and asked Tom to keep the convo private after it was resolved. Hindsight being 20/20 and all.

    But, here we are.  Now what? Again my opinion

    Tom should upload a new video regardless of if he takes down the old one, if he truly feels that he came across “harsh” stating that just because he doesn’t agree with Ryan in this regard, there is no reason to be belligerent towards MPCNC and V1.

    Ryan should talk to a lawyer to make sure he is on the same page as the courts regarding his license. Honestly what has happened has happened and there is no need to converse with Tom on it further until Tom makes the first move.

    Ryan shouldn’t make the design of the 3d printed parts open source, if he doesn’t want to. (I’ll give my opinon using my acute business acumen later /sarcasm)

    Tom shouldn’t design an OPCNC out of spite.

    Ok now that I said that..

    Where does the MPCNC fit in the market? If someone is a hobbyist maybe? If I’m a professional sign maker or whatever and need a CNC machine I’m buying a professional level machine with all the features and support I need.  If I’m a “prosumer” (think side hustler possibly a YouTuber) then I’m buying an XCarve for those same reasons, but I need a lower buy-in since I don’t have a large budget or the time to troubleshoot a scratch built machine.  Then you have the hobbyists (think tinkerer or small YouTuber).  Those fall into two categories, the “I just need it to work when I’m done” and the “I like a challenge and/or the idea of it being cheap as possible.” Those are where the MPCNC come in.  One of those groups will fire up their 3d printer, print out the official designs, order a parts kit from V1 and put it together.  The other will fire up their 3D printer, go to ebay and order the cheapest electronics they can find and then tinker with it until it works (or give up).

    Ryan’s customers are that first group of hobbyists.  They will buy from V1 for the same reason they would buy a Prusa over a clone.  If it goes wrong, they don’t have to worry about the tiny differences between their clone and the original and they expect quality components by going to the original designer and not gearbest/alibaba/ebay/amazon.  It’s been said here before but that’s the truth.  When someone buys a chinese knockoff that has horribly printed parts and cheap electronics and wants you to “fix it” then you have to tell them to pound sand.  That doesn’t mean that the forum can’t exist and the members here can’t help people get their self sourced machines working, it just means the people that want an xCarve but bought a cheap MPCNC clone kit because they can’t afford one have to be put in their place.

    I’m unfortunately in that last group of hobbyists (mainly because I don’t want to wait until I have the $$ and want slightly different results than the official kit’s electronics would give me). I still plan on building my MPCNC.  Yes, it will have some modifications done to it outside of Ryan’s design.  But, I plan on ordering some merch and making a donation when I can.

    </rant>

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #113395

    Jethro
    Participant

    Have no clue how to block someone on YT, but I left a nice comment 🙂

     

    #113401

    Paul Campbell
    Participant

    Hey Ryan,

    Just caught up on this after seeing Tom’s latest video. In my defense I’ve been busy printing parts for my build.

    For what it’s worth I have never come across a licence I’ve been happy with so if you see weaknesses in your current choice, no biggie. A different licence would just have different issues. I must confess I think your licence choice limits the product but completely understand why you’ve chosen it. Sadly have no answers. For me it isn’t a showstopper.

    My comment to Tom on his video:

    ‘What annoys me about this whole debacle is that you set out from the beginning with the intent of building a “stock” machine which you expected to “improve” over time; once the machine was built and working. Instead you dived into designing new parts before working on the snagging – and walked out into a licensing minefield. Disappointed that I (or indeed you) wasted so much of my precious time watching the content to be honest.’

     

    4 users thanked author for this post.
    #113402

    K Cummins
    Participant

    Good lord… Reading through the comments on Tom’s last video (still didn’t watch it) sounds like the progressive left tearing down liberals for not being extreme enough. Quibbling over the NC vs CCO license as if it somehow completely hobbled their creativity or ability to share their modifications with the community…

    I wonder how many of them are also “sovereign citizens”?

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #113405

    Jeffeb3
    Participant

    Let’s please keep politics out of the forums.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113407

    Rick Stephens
    Participant

    Hi.

    I own a TronXY X3.  It has been modified quite a bit and I now love it.  I would share what I have done, not to make TronXY mad, but to let others who have one make theirs better.  My process was simple:

    First, I looked for someone else to have created what I needed, using Thingiverse or a TronXY space.

    If not successful, I took the original, analyzed it, sketched it when necessary, and went into OpenSCAD and made another.

    If I did not do an analysis of the original, how would I have been able to create something better?  And why should I not share what I have done?  Share being the key word.  It has no negative impact on TronXY, and, in fact, may improve opinion of their product.

    Stop thinking about software and licenses.  Think about a car.  I buy a Ford.  The brakes squeal, even when I use OEM parts.  I see the problem and think about how it might be fixed.  I do an analysis, create a solution, manufacture the solution, install, it, test it and determine that it works, solves the problem of the squeal and tell others.  I don’t think about Ford in any of this.  I do post my solution in the forums where I am a member.  Nothing says Ford can’t take my idea and make money from it.  Anyone could take my idea and make money from it.  I don’t care.  My squeal is gone and Ford, if they care, can profit from my work.

    I watched what Tom did every day.  I was not impressed with what I saw.  Tom has a tendency to push through a problem that I would have stopped on.  But the design and choices made by the products would have also stopped me.  I thought the zip-ties where inadequate to the task.  So did a lot of viewers.  I personally would have been embarrassed to have released a final design that used them like it did.

    I would have thought that the folks (folk?) at V1 would have loved the marketing they got.  All of it wasn’t good – so fix it or tell us why you chose not to.  Don’t argue about licensing.  People will by your product from what they saw, especially if they know that improvements are so easily possible.

    You had Tom as a testing laboratory.  I don’t think you understand how much money that was worth.  You had a free, extra YouTube marketing site. Again, I do not think you understand how much money that was worth.  Taking criticism is not easy.  Being is business is not easy.  I don’t think you get to pick only one of these.

    #113411

    K Cummins
    Participant

    Let’s please keep politics out of the forums.

    Quite right, sorry…

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #113417

    Jeffeb3
    Participant

    Stop thinking about software and licenses. Think about a car. I buy a Ford. The brakes squeal, even when I use OEM parts. I see the problem and think about how it might be fixed. I do an analysis, create a solution, manufacture the solution, install, it, test it and determine that it works, solves the problem of the squeal and tell others. I don’t think about Ford in any of this. I do post my solution in the forums where I am a member. Nothing says Ford can’t take my idea and make money from it. Anyone could take my idea and make money from it. I don’t care. My squeal is gone and Ford, if they care, can profit from my work.

    In this example, say you wanted to improve the front headlights, so you “improved” them, while releasing the files CC0. Then imagine that you also boasted you were going to continue down the car and “improve” each part, releasing each one separately. Now imagine you’re happy in your completely remade car and all of a sudden people are selling “improved ford” cars on ebay.

    Now imagine instead of ford, it’s one guy in his shop, and this person is doing a lot of excellent things for open source (contributing to Marlin, creating open source CNC tools, supporting non-customers as well as customers), sharing his design (albeit with a NC license).

    That’s how I see this working. It’s greatly unfortunate, but if Tom had continued unchecked, I guarantee you there would be ebay sellers of 3D printed MPCNC or OPCNC parts. They would be poor quality, the forums would be full of irate customers, there would be sales of old versions and there would be a ton of terrible information out there. (BTW, This sort of thing has happened before). If that continued, the impact would have been great, and it would be risking Ryan’s livelyhood, these forums, the heavy hitters in these forums, and their contributions.

    This business model is a symbiotic relationship. The community gets a lot of benefits from Ryan. Ryan gets a lot of benefits from the community. Both Ryan and the community are threatened by the resellers and the CC-NC is the only possible compromise. We (mostly) are very happy with this, and to put it bluntly, we didn’t ask Tom what he thought about the license.

    You can edit the files all you want. You can share them all you want. You can start a business using this machine, or have one in a university or makerspace. That’s all in the license FAQ. What you can’t do is sell the parts without Ryan’s permission. You should respect that if you’re going to be editing the parts.

    5 users thanked author for this post.
    #113425

    Pat Richards
    Participant

    I must admit this is a difficult situation and unfortunately I can see both sides of this issue. On one hand Ryan has done a great job with this enterprise on the other hand the ability to mod and customize designs is  one of the attractions to 3d printing.

    Part of me thinks that Ryan underestimates HIS value I bought several parts from him to support what he was doing I really wonder how much of a threat the nefarious”e-bay sellers” are after all didn’t they help launch the early 3d printers via reprap?

    ts tough because to use a  software analogy I see the project being forked now. Ryan and MPCNC has established the road map it will be easy for others to travel that road independently….the community loses when software is forked IMHO and I suspect it will here as well.

     

    🙁

    #113427

    Rick
    Participant

    I think I’ve finally caught up on this.

    Honestly after the first summary and skimming Tom’s video, I thought you were being a bit of an ass nitpicking “one part”.  After reading twitter, comments here, watching the video, comments on the video etc I changed my mind.  Tom’s channel is getting removed from my youtube subscriptions.

    I can’t say anything new that hasn’t been said but I just want to give my support out loud.  Your machines are great (when you follow the instructions), your license is perfectly fair and you have every right (morally and legally) to protect them and profit off of them.

    None of what happened here will change my mind on making all mpcnc related purchases through your shop and strongly recommending your machines to others when/where I think it’d fit their needs.  I’m still planning on more builds, and hopefully adding a lowrider to my arsenal soon as well.

    It’s a real shame that you’re being bullied by a somewhat famous youtuber but I think you have a core group of customers and supporters that know how well your designs work, know how great the support is, and won’t be ran off by this drama.

    There’s no way for this not to bother you and discourage you, I get that, but try to minimize it as much as possible.  I think your core is solid and we’ll continue recommending your machines and shop and hopefully growing the number of builds out there.  Maybe consider a carefully worded summary when emotions are calmed?  It was “easy” to go by what Tom said at first and think you were in the wrong.  It took effort to read through everything and realize he was the wrong one (in my opinion).  A summary might help damage control?  Or maybe its best to just move on.  No clue.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #113430

    Tim
    Participant

    I watched what Tom did every day. I was not impressed with what I saw. Tom has a tendency to push through a problem that I would have stopped on. But the design and choices made by the products would have also stopped me. I thought the zip-ties where inadequate to the task. So did a lot of viewers. I personally would have been embarrassed to have released a final design that used them like it did.

    Respectfully, the zip ties are perfectly adequate. Most every machine here is using them.

    Meanwhile, Tom’s part goes against one of the main ideas of the project… it isn’t 3d printable by the majority of people. It features a large unsupported horizontal area that 95% of people wouldn’t be able to print well enough for a belt to just perfectly slide into.

     

    Also, @vicious1 where is the donate link?

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Tim.
    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #113432

    Matthias
    Participant

    This is my comment on Youtube, and made a donation to v1engineering:

    I used Ryans STL Files to build my MPCNC. I ordered the motors, electronics and belts from China, because the shipping was too expensive from the US to Europe. Then I asked for help in Ryans forums. He helped quickly and was very friendly. Everything I got from Ryan was, in fact, absolutely for free. But as I learned today in this video, free is not free enough. You know what? This makes me sad. I made a donation for Ryan today.

    Keep up the good work!

    Best Regards from Switzerland

    Matthias

    10 users thanked author for this post.
    #113434

    Rick
    Participant

    Ryan has saint like levels of patience.  I see the belts and zip ties picked on continually by people that have never built or used one.  They have no idea what they’re talking about.  I thought it was a bit weird/cheap looking at first too.  Printed a mod that had a tensioner.  I ripped that thing back off of my machines and stuck with the zip ties because they work perfectly, they’re easy to adjust, and easy to snip off/replace if I’m changing/adjusting something where that’s necessary.  I honestly think its a brilliant design now that I’ve used it on a few mpcnc’s for a while.

    4 users thanked author for this post.
    #113436

    Jeffeb3
    Participant

    Also, @vicious1 where is the donate link?

    https://www.v1engineering.com/donate/

    It’s under Shop->Donate. Ryan won’t promote it, but I will :).

    5 users thanked author for this post.
    #113439

    Tim
    Participant

    Also, @vicious1 where is the donate link?

    https://www.v1engineering.com/donate/

    It’s under Shop->Donate. Ryan won’t promote it, but I will :).

    Thanks Jeffe. I’m clearly blind 🙂

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Tim.
    #113442

    Stop thinking about software and licenses.

    But this is precisely what the issue is, a major disagreement over the implementation of a copy protection protocol. Creative Commons seems to avoid the whole idea of “copyright”. It agrees that things can be copied and it even celebrates that. But it doesn’t eliminate the idea of copy control. Ultimately, that’s what I think Ryan is doing. He wants to control copies of his work. The CC license allows for this type of control. Tom S. wants to apply a different type of copy control, basically none at all from the way I look at it.

     

    #113443

    Jason
    Participant

    Respectfully, the zip ties are perfectly adequate. Most every machine here is using them.

    Meanwhile, Tom’s part goes against one of the main ideas of the project… it isn’t 3d printable by the majority of people. It features a large unsupported horizontal area that 95% of people wouldn’t be able to print well enough for a belt to just perfectly slide into.

    My zip ties are 3 years old and still going strong.  I did have to tighten them up a bit after the first few months as the belts stretched in but haven’t touched them in two years.  Mine are looser than Tom’s belts, on a larger machine (36″x48″) with an older design (The original pre-529 revisions) out of a softer plastic (PETG), and I have a considerably less stiff toolmount (the old hicwic quick change) and I’ve only had chatter like he did on two occasions:

    1. When I picked totally wrong feeds and speeds for the material
    2. When I forgot to put the screws into my quick change mount and the tool wasn’t firmly attached to the machine (oops)

    Based on my experience – Tom had tunnel vision because he didn’t like the zip ties (I seem to remember him commenting that he had cheap zip ties so I’m guessing they gave him some difficulty on parts of his build I didn’t get to watch.)  but the bottom line is they work.

    Tom’s “solution” not only would be harder to print (even with support how is the precision gap that holds the belt going to print in that orientation?  And if you print it on it’s side so the belt lock is facing up how is the rest of it going to print accurately?) but leaves no solution for adjusting the belts.  Even the Prusa which uses similar belt traps as screw based tensioners as well since one tooth either way is often too loose or too tight unless you get extremely lucky.

    It’s also rather disingenuous of Tom to present this as an argument over one part.  He posed the rendering with the hashtag #OPCNC and a screen shot of parameters in F360.  He further commented:

    Screen-Shot-2019-09-11-at-12.51.03-PM

    Indicating that his plan was to re-create everything as parametric designs that could be used for any size tubing and in an earlier tweet said it would be “MPCNC Compatible”.  Which could very easily lead to people expecting Ryan to support a machine built from parts that aren’t his design and may have other issues.

    As for Tom’s claim that the piece looks the way it does only because it does what it does…just look back at the history of the MPCNC – that very piece used to look very different.  Heck it does on my machine which predates the current design:

    20160521_223809

    Same function but radically different look.  If you’re going to start from scratch…then start from scratch.  Heck even Tom’s design would have been better off with a fillet under that belt trap to make it printable without supports (well, the bottom of it…the top is still going to be a pain.)  Even Ryan took a different approach and came up with a radically different look on his own redesign.  But then again he’s the creator of the machine and understands the engineering he put into it and not just trying to modify existing parts.

    I doubt Ryan would be happy but I also doubt he would object if Tom were to create a new machine from scratch that is 100% parametric and can use 3/4″ EMT and 608 bearings for it’s motion platform.  But let’s be honest, what Tom was doing was anything but starting from scratch.

     

    And let’s be honest here about Prusa and e3d.  Yes they release their designs open.  But you’d be hard pressed to recreate their products yourself.   The e3d v6 heatbreak is documented and easy to copy…but very difficult to duplicate as well as what e3d produces, just compare some of the clones – the internal finish is nowhere near the same and that makes a HUGE difference in performance.  And the Prusa?  Yeah it’s an open design but they’re moving more and more into parts that while openly documented aren’t easy to reproduce or available.  Try building a mk3 from scratch with parts made to the same quality without spending more than it would cost to just buy the kit.  Their initial designs – yes, very easy to duplicate and many did.  But Prusa didn’t stick with that very long.

    Yeah, Ryan could move his design in the same direction.  But what he’s is in many ways more open since you can build his machine with parts easily sourced at low cost off the shelf in almost any country.  His source may not be as open but his machine in many ways is more open than the current Prusa designs as far as reproducibility matters.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    4 users thanked author for this post.
    #113448

    Jeffeb3
    Participant

    As for Tom’s claim that the piece looks the way it does only because it does what it does…just look back at the history of the MPCNC – that very piece used to look very different. Heck it does on my machine which predates the current design:

    Isn’t it a little early for the wine, Jason? 🙂

    1 user thanked author for this post.
Viewing 30 posts - 211 through 240 (of 561 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.