I’d like to discuss something that has been bugging me, but I’ve only just now been able to get around to and give @Colin_Farrer a chance to redeem himself before I do my best to ensure he doesn’t get any further business from anyone asking about his i3 derivative. (I’ve been asked half a dozen times this week after suggesting an i3)
On April 8th, I sent an email with the following:
“I request the source for the Prusa i3 derivative you’ve made; in a proper DXF or SVG format, not this proprietary pwj format. I cannot even find a converter for it.”
Later that day, I received this reply:
“I checked and it looks like I can save it in .pwj or .ud. These are the only two file types I can save the design in with the program in which it was designed. I don’t plan on completely redesigning it in a different program.”
Given that these files that are provided, are unable to be used in standard software, I feel that this is the equivalent of offering a compiled executable without providing source code. Certainly this violates the spirit of the GPL that @Josef_Prusa 's i3 is licensed under?
Also, since so many people seem to be coming across his variant and me being very uncertain about this, is there anyone state-side that currently offers a nice proper i3 kit?
That’s a bit harsh. Taken that logic it would also be unacceptable to use STL files with embedded blobs. Or Eagle files. What application is used to produce these pwj/ud files? I couldn’t find anything on the googles.
@Jan_Wildeboer STLs are a commonly used and accepted format, usable across a plethora of operating systems, softwares, and has a standard definition. Same with Eagle files. Notice, you couldn’t even find the application that’s used to produce these files, let alone read them. That’s the difference here…if you can’t even find the software that produces these files or reads them, they are effectively locked down and not provided to the user, a violation of the GPL.
The source has been rotated ~7°, skewed by ~2°, and then the top half was selected and moved to the left on the screen. I had to clean it up by going back and forth between Inkscape and Sketchup and this is the best I could do:
The top half isn’t completely fixed yet, but the bottom half is to the best of my ability. Also, I have found that a number of the individual parts in this file were also pulled around and re-dimensioned as they won’t fit together. Maybe LaserGRAV didn’t import properly – or something else happened.
Like you, I also asked for a proper source and was given the same run-around and I would concur with your opinion that it violates the license the Prusa i3 was released under.
@ThantiK I’m working with SeeMeCNC to offer my Graber i3 variant as a kit. Once they’re back from Makerfaire, we will be hitting this one hard. I have it all assembled and just need to get the RAMBo board on and flashed tonight and I can power it up.
I actually just purchased some custom laser cut parts from @Colin_Farrer and I must say that I am very impressed with the speed at which he responded to my emails and the speed of service.
Now with that aside, it’s possible that the software he uses simply isn’t capable of exporting into a more common format.
If the format is readable and editable then I do not believe that he is breaking the gpl license. However, software must be available to the public that can read the files.
Basically if Makerfarm wants to make their source available for others, he can install LaserGRAV (link above), export or save it as a .plt (generic 2D plotter format championed by HP), import that into Inkscape (which reads .plt files), and then export as either DXF, SVG, PDF, etc. It’s straight forward. The problem is the .pwj file Makerfarm supplies is b0rk3d at the present time (imgur link above).
Not cool. If you can’t give away the the design of a open source derivative, then you cannot sell the product. End of story. I understand that he put work into the derivative, but the price of using the existing design is open sourcing your own. A line has to be drawn. @ThantiK I think you are in the right side. They have to do the work, or face the consequences.
Interesting. I just noticed Makerfarm is now selling an 8" i3 in addition to a 6" i3 and the link to the source file is the same link in both instances.
I am also waiting for an I3 Kit - and unwilling to buy from Makerfarm because they are violating the GPL. @Shane_Graber - Looking forward for your kit.
I just got a message from @Colin_Farrer
He said that he couldn’t post in this thread for some reason, but that he is working on designing and releasing the 6" i3 files in dxf.
So I guess he changed his mind on “completely redesigning it in a different program.”
I think some people are over reacting to this. It seems that he is providing the source, in the format that he used to create it.
if I took the i3 files, imported it into solidworks, modified them, then released the sldprt files, wouldn’t that be sufficient in the spirit of the gpl. You may not have the 5,000$ software to read it, but it’s available.
From the FSF page, regarding distribution of binary files, which is not exactly the same, but similar: ‘distributing object code for a GCC front-end and telling the user: “To make this work, get GCC yourself” is considered a violation’.
The compiled object might be considered similar to the PWJ files here. It isn’t enough to say ‘go get program X to use this’, even if, such as with GCC, that program is open source. There might be open source PWJ readers, or documentation of the format somewhere, but it sure isn’t trivial to find.
@Jeff_Karpinski what MakerFarm did was find a loophole in the GPL. They released files that nobody can read. It may be technically non-violating, but it still stinks. And I’m voting with my wallet.
