How to enforce open source for machines ?
This topic contains 57 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 2 years ago.
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.
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.
I think, unlike software, literature, or art designs, for functional mechanical designs unless you go through the patent process, once you put it in the public domain by posting a design description, it is open source no?
I was about to start a topic about the same issue titled “Is Precious Plastic still Open-source?” good thing someone else is also interested in it.
I reason why I wanted to start a topic about this is because I see few makers on the bazaar selling machines which are clearly iterations of the Precious Platic machines ( which others are totally intereseted in) without releasing the plans for others who maybe live in far away countries and cannot afford the high European prices and shipping charges and would save couples of hundred euros by making on their own or locally. I think its a disservice to the PP communities hard-work of the past 3-4 years by using their platform to sell machines, the basis of which platform is open-source. They use the excuse that they have not compiled the plans or that they are testing stuff and that things may change in the future but I think its just an excuse to get away because these machines are lasercut which famously need actual designs to cut stuff.Also they can put a disclamer like the one on Thingiverse that the user should implement on plans on their own risk coz the maker is still figuring out stuff. Also I saw someone selling plans, actual 3D plans, I mean how could they?!?
I think Dave and others at PP shoud look into this and make putting plans of things mandatory before adding an entry to sell stuff on PP Bazar
i think design and plans of all the stuff should be mandatorily open-source and only the actual products and machines should be sold not the plans. Coz this whole forum wouldnt exist if Dave had put up a paywall for his machines. Heck you dont even need to sign up to download plans.
and honestly I dont mind people making money off the plans but then just take your business elsewhere. This is an open-source forum. What part of OPEN-SOURCE do people not understand?
@s2019, @sharma-sagar: yeah, good question. I have no glue about all this and I know this discussion could go quickly sideways. Let’s give Eindhoven some time, wait and see. I have no resources to cover this but in short; we should follow Dave’s initial thoughts and promote the open-source spirit, in whatever way. No doubt about for some it’s a quick way to earn some extra cash; it’s ok until 20000 people want to get on the same bus and do iterations but nothing in return. Some are better equipped and can actually ADD value; I just would like to see what they added…
As last resort, I will hurry with my expose on PP as one field study on global scale and dedicate an article for Hackernews in hope to get some more input for free. At the end it’s easy: a sticker, nothing more, so people can vouch on the spirit rather than on people cashing in just… Patents (30K) are useless if you can’t defend them (50k), btw.
thanks guys, really.
@plastichub yeah something like a Original Contributor type thing. But Ithink if the decisions is left upto them most people wouldnt make their design open source but will still use this platform. So I think PP HQ needs to take a tough stand to enforce this, we may lose a couple of makers but this will benefit the PP community and the whole cause of plastic recycling in the long run.
For the machines, I would think that PPHQ would want to know what is being sold on the Bazar, for safety and effectiveness at least. Requiring a posted design description should be a fair requirement or if applicable the list of changes from the standard design.
For the product vendors, adding a “how I made this” summary to the product description should not be a hard requirement to meet.
I wonder how many of the vendors ever posted content in the forum.
ok; i guess we’re on our own and a badge in the product pictures should do fine for now; ‘open source’ , drawings are good but component sources in top would be top notch but that’s all still far from just adding in the bazar another custom field ‘open source’ as it’s done for ‘according to the drawings’. so this could be simple and effective tomorrow morning, in less than 5 minutes 🙂
case is closed for me now , whilst at it, eventually the new designers of the new bazar can add implementations of a green policy.
@davehakkens, well, i guess it’s another sad day for contributors when it comes to simple things like values, privacy, democracy. We’ve been always wondering why we have pay taxes to the establishment/authorities… for this results; no offence; it’s just f** weird why every other project has protocols just not PP Eindhoven.
@sharma-sagar, yeah, may be we can proceed with the topic you already had on mind. after sleeping about; you’re quite right. having long-term plans for PP I am also worried where this boat is actually going – or what we ‘contribute’ to. Often we feel it’s like an abandoned cult/prestige project; but ok; just our opinion – and some others on social media.
I’ve been involved in open source for many years, in various areas and across several different disciplines, and without fail, where products are sold that are based on open source community designs, it inevitably ends up the same. There are always vendors that do not want to share their derivative designs and do not want to contribute to the wider goals of the community.
Such actions are completely in contravention of the original license (assuming that the license states that any derivative works are also released under the same terms) and whilst there is no enforceable copyright laws applicable (actually there are, but let’s face it they are not really commercially enforceable) there’s no risk of prosecution or fines. There is no recourse. It is a zero risk activity for people who want to do this. They shamelessly earn money from other people’s work.
Where people profit from such designs without contributing in ANY manner whatsoever, it is basically taking advantage of the project and putting it at a disadvantage. It takes revenue away from those vendors that do contribute, it prevents the community from being able to take advantage of such developments in their own projects, it hampers project progress. Its unethical and it’s not in the spirit of open source.
Penalising / banning vendors is not the solution as it does have a wider impact to the spread of the project itself, similarly forcing vendors to upload designs is very hard to police and introduces additional work, which again takes people away from doing other more beneficial work.
It is much better to take a positive approach and focus on those vendors that DO contribute, for example by having some kind of awards / rewards / achievements that can be earned / won / awarded for positive community contributions.
In essence Precious Plastics is an ethical endeavor, and so it should reward those that act ethically, not just in regards to the plastics problem, but also in regards to open source and community support. The knock on effect is that those vendors that display such rewards will be viewed with a level of trust, which in turn drives more business to them.
Take this to another level and have some kind of annual community excellence awards and these badges of honor also start to drive community contributions. In this way, what is good for business is also good for the project as a whole.
I freely give away the PP blueprints, but my personal new frame design I will not release. It cost me a LOT of money to design my shredder motor frame and it is still a ongoing process. Mainly because I had to build something that looked professional and able to be assembled in my shop with basic hand tools.
Some guy the other day contacts me and flat out demanded I give him my particular frame blueprints layout drawings etc.
Are the existing blueprints not good enough for them? That is how I built the machines based on Daves designs until I developed a new frame.
So, no… I gotta earn and eat too.
Guys; calm down. I haven’t spent too much in such productions but general rule of thumb in this very DIY, semi-professional world:
1. design and produce your machines
2. release the plans; also subject for comments, feedback in the community (outside of PP)
3. re-iterate; the ‘competition’ will be always behind anyways 🙂
please, also consider this a niche business or better: volunteer activity; we rarely can’t pay all bills with that and seriously; if you picked this project up; the goals and rules were clear from the beginning but as often forgotten on the way to ‘much bigger’ goals (v4). It seems that the whole thing slipped out of Dave’s hand; time he takes over back the leadership or better, at least puts a senior/veteran in such regards in place 🙂
btw. most serious vendors release their plans; it just makes it soo much easier to integrate and buy; we wouldn’t have part libraries for CAD otherwise.
btw; the more we fragment designs the less likely we have a solid candidate for certification any time soon; not to mention being able to develop add-ons like a PET grinder, auto-reverse module, etc…. Iterations of foreign designs in CAD and on the customer site are absolutely necessary to get a real product out for the public market and just in case you don’t know : there is a huge unsatisfied market for Fablabs, waiting to get PP machines out of the garage and in their shop.
If the design is yours and not a derivative works – ie not based on the previous PP design then it is yours do with as you please. You do not need to share it or release it.
However if it IS a derivative works – ie is the the PP design, but it has been modified, then under the open source license that the original design was released under, your design has to be put into the public domain, your design has to be released as open source, irrespective of how much it may have cost you. There is no avoiding this, it is the entire premise on which open source is based.
I have not seen your design so do not specifically comment with it in mind, but the requirement that derivative works are released under the same license as the original design does seem to escape many people.
@deeemm there isn’t a GPL for hardware and the open hardware licenses around are immature and insufficient to enforce anything. As you already pointed out, we can (lol) introduce rewards and create awareness in the community that there are contributors who do the extra-mile. As it is now; Eindhoven collects ALL the money and IMO spents too much on nonsense – also on the shoulders of the community – and there isn’t apparently any attempt to change things or provide better support for machine & product development outside of Eindhoven. Certification : 20-30 % asks for CE certification; you’re basically not allowed to sell a machine in the EU without. Those are pretty expensive, especially looking at the amount of machines and components. That can be only fixed if we crowd-fund the process but yet, without open-source minded people around that whole story would remain an adorable experiment 🙂
Actually, assigning the bazar vendor a community rating might be a good incentive. Who would want to be rated zero?
Will the real @davehakkens please stand up
Seriously will someone from PP HQ reply to this topic and make it clear what their views on this issue are. Ideally Dave would be the best person, since all licenses are in his name and thats what ultimately matters. But anyone is welcome to reply here and give their opinion, just so we know what the general consensus is.
there are not that many options; indeed but a poll to vote on ‘yes, it’s an open source project’ (that would be the first time); inside out just as people join a software project, contributing because of certain values reflected in the license. What we have now is a ‘open single source of truth’ project; you can’t even commit small simple things; a one way project where we have even people selling thermo-couples for 80E or an injection-heatband set for 700 Euro. It’s kinda rotten. Of course this is a free market and platform but as one-army lacks contributors because of a silly project description with too many bold claims, I can confirm : there is need for action and improvements and those are not too hard to do. A simple poll and a few new custom attributes in the bazar and we’re set.
I am talking specifically about the files for this frame. Does this look like anything in the videos? NO
Sure the PP shredder unit attached to it is open source, and I share those blueprints freely. I even sell just that part seperately.
However I got some yahoo going to me directly DEMANDING I give him my blueprints for that frame as well.
I cant even get y’all to acknowledge our work over here in the Philippines and now I got some random dude wanting my blueprints and apparently according to one guy money?
Ah yes Sharma, because profit is evil. Since you seem to be in charge around here lately. To affirm your stance I suggest you send me some paperwork by registered mail kicking the Philippines out of the project. You can DM me for the mailing address.
@btmetz, please don’t consider open-source bad for your business; it’s quite the contrary; look; it’s just like with software; If I can build on your design; ie: making addons; count on that you get this all for free; that’s the whole idea 🙂
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.