Anyone heard of Plastibot ?
They also seem to be violating a few GPLs.
http://www.plastibot.com/plastibot-mendel-3d-printer/
I have no connection or dealings with Plastibot, I do have some knowledge of the GPL. Our software product has been licensed under GPL for the last 7 years.
If you’re claiming GPL violation, is it because you acquired their product and did not get the source?
If you did not acquire their product, then you don’t have the right to the source.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CompanyGPLCostsMoney
Once one licensee acquired the product, then that person can share the source as he/she fits under the GPL.
While they are certainly violating the probable intent of the Prusa Mendel licensor (share your changes), I have no idea how a license designed for software applies to the plans for a physical object. From a legal enforcement perspective, I don’t think using the GPL is a good idea for hardware.
@Stan_Seibert you’re correct, I know people are now talking about open hardware license.
For now, I suppose we can say an scad/STL file can be the source, the printed/hardware created from it the ‘binary’, like the executable on a software program.
The license they (for sure) are violating is the Ultimakers no-commercial clause for the frame. The frame is obviously a reworked ultimaker box. The contours of the picture match EXACTLY with the ones that ultimaker provides in SVG format.
And I find it very hard to believe they didn’t pull the hole spacings from a GPL-licensed Z motor mount.
I think it’s debatable whether copyright applies to machinery. This is the kind of thing intended to be covered by patent, not copyright.
@Eric_Duprey , copyright is exactly that. The right to copy…
@ThantiK I understand that you wish it to apply to this case but what evidence do you have that it actually does?