How to enforce open source for machines

I don’t mind about credits and I am happy to see people copying design  but can somebody check how we could enforce copied and modified machine designs to be open-sourced as well ? In software I’ve been always in favor of GPL or LGPL but no idea how to enforce this on machine designs.

thanks

that might be a nice task and a good exercise for the ‘Headquarter’ to have project wide policies  , @davehakkens.

In practice machine builder/machines could get a sticker, ie : “Open Source” or whatever encourages folks contributing to the public good in the long. There are increasingly significant & important systems in this world built on this mechanism in the last 4 decades.

thanks

@deeemm , yeah; there are not too many (but look at their used project page) and one stands out nicely in many ways : publiclab DOT org, an open knowledge exchange platform with pretty much all done; interesting though if you look at their funding page, lots of backers from the industry and the pool of knowledge as well their crowd is amazing; basically a deluxe version of one-army & PP.

sorry: stupid forum software doesnt allow links.

@antoinex Good work.

The CERN license is definitely more appropriate. Specifically the way in which it deals with derivative works. It’s very much like a GPL for Hardware.

I’m surprised it’s not more widely known / used.
/DM

Hey there,
at the end we decided to license all our upcoming designs in the next years under the CERN Openhardware license. Sure, there is no need to license a simple shredder framework design or such but please understand as soon if there is months or years work in something (often underpaid), creators may wish to find their contributions in the hands of a basic & legal framework, also following particular ideas. I consider the license fairly liberal and it’s right on target for my taste 🙂
thanks again everybody
g

sharma-sagar Ahh ok I understand. 🙂

I personally think if you have a complete design for something then it is better to create your own repository (GitHub or Sourceforge etc) and release it under a license that aligns with your particular beliefs. This way you have control.

But as I mentioned earlier in the topic, in my experience there will always be someone who wants to take advantage of your designs for their own gain and this is in a way unescapable once your design is in the public domain. The only real way to beat this is to provide the same service for less money.
I see you are from India, I get some manufacturing undertaken there and can say that you are in a very good position to be able to do this, as your manufacturing costs are much lower than elsewhere. If you ship parts instead of complete machines you also do not need to meet any CE requirements. You can easily beat those vendors at their own game.

Of course you can also consider that for every machine that a vendor sells there are probably multiple machines built by DIYers. It’s all about balance.
Then there is the big picture stuff, that all machines built, whether built and sold by a vendor or by someone making it DIY are all helping to reduce the plastics problem, so no matter where they come from they are all positively contributing towards the overall goal.

yeah; let’s move on; there’s quite some work ahead; a new PP HQ; an open-source PP; one-army for real; and machines which could make it into the shelf 🙂

@deeemm btw I am not the one wronged, I’ve got nothing to lose, instead this thread is discouraging me to upload anything here if at all I make something in the future. I hope i don’t turn so bitter and cynical

@deeemm oh no, you’ve got me wrong, i only added the swear as a comedic effect because the discussion was getting tensed and awkward.

But I see my mistake that it doesn’t translate in reading and only seems funny in my head

I dunno, it seems to me from where I am standing that everyone has the wrong end of the stick. No disrespect but PP is NOT RepRap, no matter how passionately people might want it to be. It could be, but it isn’t and never has been.

sharma-sagar I’m all for constructive criticism, but swearing and shouting at people because they do not agree with your opinion is not polite conversation. Passive-aggression like that is not on.

It’s funny how aggressive people get when they think they are being wronged.

questioning & thinking isn’t exactly welcome here; instead you will only hear ‘go and do that & that’ despite it hasn’t much sense to it 🙂

then there are other who are basically doing mental gymnastics and bringing in laws and copyright practices etc to justify the parasitic behavior that “some” makers on bazar are doing.

Are you referring to my input into this discussion?

can you answer the question(s) instead ? And please don’t call this HQ, for this you would need ‘heads’ first; i can’t see much of it. To me there is no HQ needed at all; there are many PPers who do way better work than others; it just doesn’t find it’s way to the project source …

@plastichub on this forum I’ve met incredibly helpful people like @peter-bas and @xxxolivierxxx , who go above and beyond to help people on the forum with slightest of difficulties that they are facing, then there are other who are basically doing mental gymnastics and bringing in laws and copyright practices etc to justify the parasitic behavior that “some” makers on bazar are doing.

There is only so much research that the PP HQ can do, so if you have made anything that is an improvement or can make the entire process of plastic recycling simpler or effective and if you are selling that on THIS FUCKIN OPEN-FUCKIN-SOURCE PLATFORM then don’t be a shitty person and hoarde the information and share it with others so people in remote areas can FUCKIN benefit from it. How is that hard to understand? Why do everyone needs laws and rules to not be a shitty person? And most of all how is that unfair? Whatever you made wouldn’t have been possible if the website hadn’t put this info for free in the first place?

It’s like someone found a cure to cancer and just wants to sell to millionaires

I still don’t understand what the problem is with :
1. adding 2 fields in the bazar : Is Open Source, Original Version Link; teaching also people that this project wasn’t possible without open-source; just as you would raise awareness for organic food or the plastic problem. The creativity of some here to justify non-action is astonishing. You would not have internet and many other things without GPL like policies btw. Sure you can’t enforce but we can at least say it’s like any open-source project aiming for public good.
2. Adding variants and alternatives to the PP machines on the public website by users & contributors; Just as many open-source oriented platforms enable users to enrich the ecosystem and project it self by providing a plugin/addon/app store. I’ve wrote a post about and it got deleted btw. Instead like with v3 users and builders have to keep biting on outdated designs and a huge pile of hilarious claims; at a big expense of contributors rectifying and correcting this on a daily base. I bed with you there won’t be any hints for a pizza oven or a roller sheet press in the download kit. Instead we have to keep writing this to users ourselfs.
3. Impl. democracy by a simple poll system; that way machine builders can actually add their experience more easy; hard earned in real productions.

I am not sure anyone of you ever contributed to a GPL oriented project but I can tell; as it is now; we don’t meet a single base line of it; far from that. It’s going to be rotten as **; you keep promoting people with propriary ripp-off products in the bazar and leave us huge efforts needed to fix your work again.

And it’s not true; we have to pay Eindhoven with bazar fees; hilarious ones; we are not ok with those taxes for this poor outcome. we call this scam, looking your claims.

I seem to have stepped into a pre-existing argument here.

sharma-sagar The moral aspect is clearly defined in the project license. There is actually NO requirement to share derivative works. There are other more suitable licenses that could have been used if this was the case.

Whether the MIT license has been specifically selected for this reason, or if it is simply an oversight, only the licensee would know, but given that this conversation is happening, it will be interesting to see what license the V4 designs are released under. There is now an opportunity the change things with the V4 release should the license not follow the project ethos.

plastichub is correct – all of the risk of selling a pre-built machine is worn by the vendor. It is they that go to court if someone is injured by a machine, not PP. This liability costs money, liability insurance is not cheap. Nor is the risk of losing your house / car / business / savings if you choose to operate without it.

If vendors choose to modify their products to get an edge in the market then good for them, there is currently no requirement for them to share such refinements. If this does not follow the ethos of the project then the license should be changed. However it should be considered that vendors have embarked on machine supply under the current terms, and there is therefore no moral issue with vendors protecting their intellectual property as it is their right to do so under the current license.

I can see that you feel passionately about sharing design changes but I think that you need to talk to the licensee about this as the vendors are doing nothing wrong, not from a legal perspective, nor from a moral perspective.

‘my whole point was not the legal aspect but the moral aspect’ : exactly; mine too

@xxxolivierxxx @plastichub my whole point was not the legal aspect but the moral aspect

Meaning the question shouldn’t be “do they have to share?” instead “wouldn’t it be good if they shared?”

@btmetz you seem to miss the point. As Olivier said, no one can force anyone to release their design, nor can anyone be asked to share thier profits, coz the legal infrastructure is not set up that way. Im just saying that have you all considered the possibility that if everyone is keeping their design to themselves while making it harder to replicate, and at the same time using the whole free open source platform, the whole PP project MAY die, due to insufficient innovation, modularity, and “open-sourceness”  if that makes sense.

Any way no one can kick you out, i was trying to make a point because if you go through bazar PP you’ll see some stuff that anyone would think how is this allowed.

To clarify – my earlier comments relating to the GPL also apply to any other software license.
Hardware is generally covered by patent law, you cannot own or create a patent for a design for which there is prior art. So if there is a previously existing publicly published design in any format this then becomes evidence of prior art.