We've just launched our map. Add yourself by clicking here!

close

How to enforce open source for machines ?

Tagged: 

This topic contains 57 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Anonymous 3 weeks ago.

1
Anonymous

How to enforce open source for machines ?

15/07/2019 at 18:52

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

57 replies
5 subscribers
0 saved
1 likes
sort on most likes
warrior
18/07/2019 at 01:50
3

@btmetz
No need to add more fuel to the argument buddy. The design is yours, you don’t have to share it with anyone, period. If anyone wants to force you to share your designs, just tell them to F*** themselves.

If anyone wants to take the original PP shredder design, build a shredder, paint it Pink and sell it as a “Premium Shredder” for $20.000, go for it.

If anyone wants to modify the original PP designs and keep the modified designs for themselves, who cares.

If anyone wants to make a clothes pin mould and they don’t want to share the designs because they are looking to make profit out of it, and then someone reverse-engineer the mould and shares it with everyone? Sorry, you should have waited for the patent to be fully approved before showing everyone your product, now deal with with

The point is, people should stop complicating themselves about this open source crap. Precious Plastic was given to the world for free and people can do whatever they want with it. The only thing you should not do is selling the original PP designs, but someone has to be really dumb to buy something that is available for free.

By the way, don’t worry about Dave, he’s well fed and can afford his weekly dose of chocolate. Royalties, tips, and any other fees given to the project are optional, no one HAS to give money to PP if they don’t want to, because the project was never intended to be a money-making thing.

warrior
18/07/2019 at 02:02
1

I’m not sure what licenses people think are in place. The terms page https://preciousplastic.com/en/info/terms.html is pretty clear that nothing exists. Is there some other document that states that something other than individual goodwill is in play?

Edit: typed this before I saw Olivier’s post. It appears consistent

warrior
18/07/2019 at 02:11
2

@xxxolivierxxx I would like to nuance the last part of your statement.  from the beginning there was a profit motive, but not by Dave personally.  The guy has done some amazing stuff given what he has to work with.  300k is nothing in the grand scheme of things when it comes to organizing something as big as this.

 

However He said in the intro and I am paraphrasing here, It has to be profitable for those to build the machines and use them for the project to be self sustaining.

 

Hippie art projects will not pay the bills.  We need to produce real things with real value if we are to get others on board to recycle plastic in a meaningful way.

 

Considering that the Philippines is the third largest ocean plastic polluter I have a very big road ahead.   The amount of plastic in the water around Cebu city for example is absolutely mind blowing.  Like a literal soup of plastic.    In order to get more people to recycle this plastic, the machinery to do this must be as affordable and profitable as buying and running a pushcart food franchise.

warrior
18/07/2019 at 02:16
2

@sharma-sagar need I refer you back to the terms and conditions also?

Quote:

Terms

Originally we planned to write one of those long terms and conditions things here. Yep, super boring to read and write. So we made the short version: Everything is free for whatever use (commercial or personal). We would appreciate it if you mentioned our name somewhere though. Oh, and you can’t sue us if something goes wrong. Be careful!

 

……..

 

As far as I am concerned, further discussion on this is a waste of time.

warrior
18/07/2019 at 03:28
1

I don’t understand this thought that profit somehow makes the recycling effort less noble. If we could magically make every workspace (and by extension the machine builders) as profitable as a McDonalds or Starbucks, and there was one on very corner. With people following me to grab the plastic spoon as soon as I’m done scooping ice cream with it. The oceans and rivers would be empty of plastic and I would be a happy man.

I have nothing but respect for the amount of labor the machine builders are willing to put in for a reasonably priced machine.

starter
18/07/2019 at 04:21
2

@plastichub
Actually the GPL does cover hardware (in a roundabout way).

The GPL covers the design itself – the drawings and files that represent the physical hardware.  It’s not an exact fit, as the GPL and similar licenses are specifically developed for software, but as long as the design files are released in a software format then the GPL can be applied.

Of course, you will get some smart schmuck who will argue that whilst the content of their file may be identical to the original design, it is in fact a new file, but once the design is out there in the open domain it cannot be patented by someone else as their own idea due to the legal construct of prior art.
If you release a design under a non-commerical GPL license and then find that someone is selling the product commercially you have full legal recourse to be able to recover damages. It will stand up in court.

The main issue with open source, or even with individuals or small companies, is that to take action against a third party with respect to copyright infringement is not a cheap exercise. If neither party wants to back down and legal proceedings need to reach their reach their full conclusion for a decision to be made, it will run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for even the smallest breach. And that’s where most not-for-profits, individuals and small businesses don’t really stand a chance. It is simply too expensive to pursue.
So what this effectively means is that for small business and not-for-profits, is that open source licensing is little more than a statement of intent. It does not matter if it does not 100% align with copyright law, as you will never take it to court. However, the fact that it forms prior art in a legal sense is all that is needed should you wish to do so.

warrior
18/07/2019 at 04:33
3

there is no GPL license!  This whole thread is masturbatory at this point discussing something that does not exist!  See  the terms under which it was released.  (screams in frustration)

starter
18/07/2019 at 04:37
2

@plastichub
With regards to CE. This is not something that PP need to concern themselves with UNLESS they want to manufacture and sell machines directly to the public.
If you build the machine yourself, you do not need CE approval.
If you are a vendor of machines, who builds and sells machines, then the machines need to meet the safety laws of the jurisdiction that you are selling the machines within. Even if this differs from the jurisdiction in which the machines were built.
If you are an importer of machines that you did not build yourself, you are still liable for ensuring that the machines are compliant within the jurisdiction into which you are selling, even if this means that you have to modify the machines to be compliant.
Now here’s the curve ball. if PP apply for CE certification for their designs, it will only hold true if manufacturers build their machines exactly the same, using the same components and the same assembly techniques. As soon as something changes, the CE certification becomes void unless the change is submitted for approval. Which means the vendor will need to seek CE certification for THEIR product as it differs from the PP product. The issue with this is that most vendors will have no idea that this is the case and will continue to use the PP CE approval with their products.

It is a veritable quagmire and one that would be taken advantage of by machine vendors as the expense of the PP name.
I would advise that machine design, along with controls and safety systems are designed to be compliant with ISO/IEC standards but that final certification is left to the vendor. You do not want to carry liability for third party design misinterpretations. This also has the added benefit of weeding out the vendors that are just trying to make a quick buck and have no regards to safety standards.
In reality, this is exactly the current status quo, as like it or not anyone currently selling a machine needs to comply with current CE requirements. Under current law it is the vendors responsibility. This is clearly defined with current standards.

/DM

starter
18/07/2019 at 04:45
2

@btmetz

there is no GPL license!  This whole thread is masturbatory at this point discussing something that does not exist!  See  the terms under which it was released.  (screams in frustration)

Ahh, yes. Just read the license supplied with the files. it is the MIT license. There are no restrictions in use and no requirement to release derivative works. The only real requirement is that if you redistribute you have to include the original license text. You can argue that you do not even have to include attribution with derivative works.

So @plastichub to answer your earlier question. There is no requirement for people to release designs for derivative works.

/DM

starter
18/07/2019 at 04:54
2

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.

warrior
18/07/2019 at 09:09
1

@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.

warrior
18/07/2019 at 09:14
1

@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?”

18/07/2019 at 10:15
1

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

starter
18/07/2019 at 11:32
2

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.

18/07/2019 at 14:48
0

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.

warrior
18/07/2019 at 15:12
1

@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

18/07/2019 at 15:17
0

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 …

starter
18/07/2019 at 15:41
0

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?

18/07/2019 at 15:49
1

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 🙂

starter
18/07/2019 at 16:09
3

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.

warrior
18/07/2019 at 16:13
1

@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

warrior
18/07/2019 at 16:16
2

@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

18/07/2019 at 16:47
0

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 🙂

starter
18/07/2019 at 16:59
1

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.

26/07/2019 at 20:45
3

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

starter
27/07/2019 at 05:05
2

@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

28/07/2019 at 08:13
4

@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.

Viewing 27 replies - 31 through 57 (of 57 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.