From the front
@brett_turnage I am loving your F1 suspension modifcation. One question I had though. I noticed that your files on pinshape are under a non-commercial licence, that isn’t compatible with @Daniel_Noree 's original CC-BY-SA design. Is there are specific reason for this, or perhaps it was a mistake or simply overlooked?
Very interesting question Blake. I went to law school and focused my studies on copyright and intellectual property, but we never covered these created commons specific licenses other than just the Creative Commons specter where a patent or a copyright is lost or could be lost. I assume this is mainly due to the fact these licenses usually never make it to court, and just to comment the specific area: I’ve read lots of commentary on things like recent eBay seller issue where someone was downloading designs and selling them on eBay, I learned that upeople really do not understand copyright in its legal boundaries. So to your question, since I created my suspension I was able to choose which license I wanted to choose when I posted it on different websites, and the one I choose was a non-commercial because I did not want anyone to start selling fully made kits, I wanted people to just have fun printing it on their own. I wouldn’t say there was anything that required me to align my decision of my licenses with what Daniel choose or any oversight on my part, it was just choice. I also have the option to change it when ever I choose, but I don’t really see a need unless perhaps the one that I choose is completely opposite than what I wanted.
Hey @Brett_Turnage1
Thanks for your response to what is an interesting subject. Please forgive me if my responses are slow, as I would prefer to have patient and considered conversation.
I am yet to build the stock F1, so I am not completely familiar with the components, so please correct me where appropriate. If any of your parts are modified versions of @Daniel_Noree 's stock F1 model, then you are obliged to licence your kit under the same licence due to the “Share Alike” aspect of CC-BY-SA. However you could separate your own original components into a new kit under your preferred CC-BY-NC, limiting the usefulness of the modified components to home users.
If you created all the components from scratch, then yes, it is your choice.
I am a freedom lover and the CC-BY-SA licence of the truggy is what has drawn me to get involved in the project and the respective community. I am a professional “Maker” and I choose to licence my designs under either CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, where possible and appropriate. I justify pretty much of all of my personal projects as portfolio items, to expand and promote my skills, with the truggy (and F1 after that) included. It would therefore be illegal for me to print your RS-01 mod as a part of my portfolio, without your direct permission.
Right now, I use my local maker/hack space printer, as I am yet to get a job to justify the expense of a printer, hence the very slow progress of my truggy. I have had to outsource some of the long prints to members of the makerspace that have printers at home. I pay them for these prints. Even if I pay out of my personal (not business) pocket, it would be illegal for them to be paid to print your RS-01 files, without your direct permission.
I know this is not quite the same as the ebay example you brought to my attention, but are relevant reasons why I personally prefer and think you should re-licence your kit under a CC-BY-SA 
I think your best argument is “I can’t print the RS-01 because of the current license conflict.” That is a statement that is apt from what your explaining about having to go to a maker space and use their printer or having to sub-contract out the work, as well as for building your portfolio. That argument is good, and would motivate me to change the license to help you out. I think the legal argument that you making moves things into a different direction possibly away from your intended goal.
I say different direction because anything legal is inherently an adversarial claim—it’s compelling someone to do something based on a stated law or regulation. So when you’re making a legal argument that I have to change it because of the conflict, my response is: (1) the modified parts of the OpenRC F1 vehicle that are included in my files are not integral or necessary to the RS-01 suspension’s form or function—the suspension exists on its own and is independent of the body parts. I say independent because in the description I mentioned new bodies and support for different chassis’, which are being developed and which are coming in the near future; (2) In no way shape or form am I trying to claim credit for designing the body. In the description it states that the body parts were “modified,” so that everything will fit with the suggested electronics that Daniel listed in his original build description on Pinshape—Including these modified parts was for convenience for the end user and no parts that are not modified are included; (3) to end the current conflict that exists in point (2), I could remove all of the modified parts, but then people would have to either modify the original body parts themselves or find another suspension setup. (4) I could argue that the conflict is not a fault of my own, but arises simply because Pinshape lacks the availability of letting makers place some items of the same make under different licenses, so that for the parts that I designed would be under the the license that I choose and the modified parts of the Original OpenRC F1 kit would be under the CC-BY-SA, in this way it would eliminate all conflicts. I could argue that this conflict arises simply because Pinshape and other sites have yet to foresee this as being a conflict. I could claim that having to be forced to align my designs with a license only to satisfy the license of any modified parts that are inconsequential to the design of said product removes my freedom of choice as a maker and diminishes my rights; or having to remove those parts from my files, which would require people to download another folder of files causes an undo burden on myself and on the people who are downloading the item. The option that you are advocating for, changing license or breaking the body parts up into a different “make” folder that has the appropriate license, I don’t have listed because to rectify the problem I only have to remove the items. In an adversarial situation, I have the option of eliminating all support for the printed version or the RS-01 version that is compatible with the OpenRC F1 body, as I could just focus on my own creations. A possible solution is to have Pinshape allow makers to have multiple licenses for files listed on their websites, or I could amend the description stating that “x files are listed under the CC-BY-SA;” however that will affect my maker description because of the Pinshape’s word count restriction.
I built the RS-01 for the Pinshape design contest which recently concluded. I also made it to answer the need for suspension that constantly being brought up from people who built the car as they believed that a suspension setup would benefit the car, so everything and all of the hard work that I placed into the project was out of love for those people and for the greater community who have enjoyed or want to enjoy the OpenRC F1 car.
I’m assuming or offering you the benefit of the doubt that you did not mean or want this to become a conflict and instead a discussion; so in that spirit of a discussion, I think you should have lead with point one because it was valid and would have produced a prompt result that benefits you as well as everyone else who has downloaded the car; but there are a lot of options as to what can happen to ameliorate the conflict-there are not just two options.
Just to state this you do have my full permission to pay for this item or for any commercial transaction that exists while the licenses currently stands in its current state.
Thanks again for your detailed response and for the benefit of doubt. I wrote it with my train of thought and I agree that your suggested order of points would have been more constructive and help to the community. I will continue this conversation when I can dedicate the time it deserves. Thanks for the permission. RS-01 is now back on my to-build-list…
@Morgan_Barke I may change the license, but because of your first point. I was unaware that persons without a printer may be prevented from making the model because there is a commercial transaction that needs to be made. That’s definitely something that I don’t want because with the team that I’ve assembled we have goals of making this suspension family proven on an Rc racing track. I dont want people without a printer to be left out. That’s not fair and is not what I desired.
By the way, you should build your own printer. I have 3 printers. All custom for my needs: two Deltas (one extremely large) and one SLA printer. It’s worth it, and you could build a simple version for around $400.