Stephanie shaltes hit it on the head. The gpl says you have to release the files. He did and is trying to make it into a file that is more universal. He is good at whatever the program he uses so he used it to make the derivative. If he didnt we would not have another printer out there we can use/buy. Just because someone cant open the wierd file with free software doesnt mean he is keeping it out of the masses hands. He has released his designs and files and they can be converted. Nuff said.
I think part of what everyone needs to keep in mind is this is what his source file looks like when opened: http://i.imgur.com/SEczxvt.jpg
Did he provide a source file? Yes. Is it usable even if someone could open a .pwj? No.
@Stephanie_A The problem with that logic is that if I “made” a closed source CAD program, and didn’t tell you, wrote a proprietary file storage, did not allow that to be exported in anything but my proprietary storage system. then released my files I would be complying to the degree that you mentioned, but the source is not open to be used. The price of him using the free design is making your revision free. That is the payment the Prusa asked for, if you don’t open source in a reasonable manor you are not paying for the work that others have done.
If the closed source cad program is available for public use, either by purchase or free, then I don’t see a problem with it.
There are many files developed on closed source software that have been released under gpl. What you are implying is that if someone did that, they are automatically violating the gpl license that they released it under, which is assanine.
What matters is that the source is released, and there is software available for use.
@Stephanie_A , Using closed source, or proprietary software is fine, if the package extension is not self explanatory, one should publish the name of the package used. the fact that persons look for hours to find what tool will accept such a file is unacceptable. the fact that it doesn’t open properly is even more unacceptable.
“a loophole in the GPL. They released files that nobody can read”
This is not a loophole. If the files aren’t usable then they are not in compliance with the requirements of the GPL.
As for the GPL dictating the tools you use, it does, to an extent (plenty of discussion about this on the net). If you don’t like it, choose a less restrictive license for your own content, and don’t release GPL licensed content. The GPL is intended to work that way.
As for the file not opening, I’d guess that’s probably either just a corrupted file or an incompatibility between the software he is using and the reader. That’s exactly the sort of complication that the FSF seeks to avoid in it’s guidelines for conformance to the GPL. Regardless of whether such an incompatibility is deliberate or not (in this case, not, I think), it’s a serious impediment to reuse.
But from what people in this thread have already said. There is a work path to convert it. And solid works the most commonly used program out there can open, read, and convert. Someone spent hours now we have the info on how to do it and it took me seconds to find that. So what is the problem now.
I can agree with you on that point. It would be helpful if he listed the software he used, however as he stated, it only exports to the 2 formats, which aren’t very helpful in our case. However he did state to me recently that he is converting it by hand to dxf, a common standard, which when released will more than satisfy the gpl requirements.
His initial response of not redesigning in a more open format is a mistake on his part. Personally I probably would have said the same thing (after all, it’s a pain in the ass. If someone told me to convert all of my openscad code to another program, I would laugh at them)
@John_Lamp I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the fine points of GPL compliance, but I think there remains a question of whether a file format such as PWJ is compliant. What I’m seeing about compliance indicates that ‘possible’ isn’t sufficient for compliance.
But of course, it’s a question that is made irrelevant when he releases the content with a more easily accessible format.
I actually don’t think he should have to rebuild the drawing in DXF, but I do think he needs to publish a link to the CAD tool, and explain the version. And the files have to work.
Everyone seem to be ignoring the fact that the content of the PWJ file is broken (Rotate, Skewed and Sheared).
@Shachar_Weis I am assuming (in good faith) that it is a version difference, or the wrong software was used. I am also am aware that this is the real issue.
@ThantiK - isn’t that a little bit like asking programmers not to use an obscure and esoteric language to reimplement an algorithm derived from open source, because the compiler for said language may be difficult to obtain? Does releasing source require that the “compiler” be easy to obtain? And by that definition, I take issue with Eagle being considered “open source” - I don’t want to buy Eagle. Last time I bought Eagle (admittedly a loooong time ago), I hated it. I now have an investment in time and money in my own toolset – does that preclude me from contributing to the community because I won’t use Eagle? (And, yes, I know there’s free version of Eagle - but it’s limited to one schematic sheet, and a 3.2 x 4 inch 2-layer board. That’s not good for making quality design.)
The SLFC’s guide to GPL compliance has this to say about compilers specifically, it might be helpful:
“If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We consider the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and where it can be acquired as information that must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source. […] you should include a readme about where you got [the compiler], what version it was, and who to contact to acquire it, regardless of whether your compiler is FOSS, proprietary, or internally developed.”
By that pattern, files like the PWJ format might be in compliance provided that the information about what one needs to read them (even if it’s commercial, non-free software) is also provided.
Just thought I’d update this thread: Makerfarm updated their LaserCuti3.pwj source file on May 15th with an un b0rk3d version. I can now open the file successfully in LaserGRAV, export it as a .plt, import it into Inkscape, and export as a dxf/pdf/svg. What shall I do with the files? Shall I put them up on Github?
@Shane_Graber please. Also email them the converted files so they can supply proper files to people who ask.
Yay for open source
Here’s the files on git: https://github.com/sgraber/Makerfarm-i3-6-inch-version
I should note the 8" Makerfarm i3 still links to the 6" i3 file. That said, it’s relatively straight forward to scale the appropriate parts to make it 8".
Just for anyone who finds this old post and wants the newer 12 inch V-slot rail version.
https://github.com/RickSisco/MakerFarm-Prusa-i3v-12-Inch