Originally shared by Sameer Verma
3D Printing to Change the World. @Brook_Drumm of @Printrbot speaks at @San_Francisco_State
Prntrbot is not Open Source.
@bob_cousins The designs are CC By SA-NC. I believe the Simple Metal isn’t under a CC license. http://printrbot.com/category/design-files/
CC-BY-NC-SA is not an Open Source license, although everyone seems to think it is. Neither the CC NC or ND variants are Open Source. According to that page “I have chosen to license this and all my designs under a non-commercial license.” so if that is true none of their designs are Open Source.
The second stupid thing is that the any copyright based license does not apply to hardware designs, only the CAD files. So anyone can legally reproduce the design by creating their own CAD files.
So, not Open Source, and legally useless, if they want to prevent commercial cloning. Only a patent can do that.
“…so if that is true none of their designs are Open Source.” @bob_cousins Do you have a reference for that?
Sure you can find it any definition of Open Source. LadyAda has a good guide http://www.ladyada.net/library/openhardware/license.html “What is not Open Source Hardware?
One point I want to make is that for a project to be considered Open Source there cannot be any restrictions placed on that project. That includes “non-commercial”, “commercialization requires purchasing a license”, “no government/military use”, etc.
GPL/BSD/MIT do not have these restrictions and OSI is very strict about it.
If you want to keep control over your project, feel free to use a restrictive license, but don’t call it open source”
Also see http://www.oshwa.org/faq/ : “Why aren’t non-commercial restrictions compatible with open source hardware?”
@bob_cousins Interesting. I see your discomfort now.
I realize that CC licenses that are NC and ND are considered non-free (as in not compatible with the “freedom” based GPL family of licenses). However, the Open Source Initiative lists many licenses other than the GPL family (http://opensource.org/licenses). There are over 70 licenses under that umbrella, and many of those licenses will definitely displease the FSF! (Disclaimer: I was part of the group that worked on their license proliferation report back in 2006. http://opensource.org/proliferation-report)
In fact, @Lawrence_Lessig himself said that his inspiration for CC was in part from the FSF and its work on the GPL family of licenses. That said, there are several shades. Proponents of BSD think GPL is restrictive (forces you to reciprocate), whereas proponents of GPL think GPL is the free’est of them all 
BSD style licenses can prevent propagation (via share-alike or reciprocation) and encourage fragmentation in some cases, whereas the NC/ND clauses in CC prevent commercialization. For me, personally, for the things I do with FOSS/CC I prefer propagation over commercialization. But, then again, I’m an academic.
I found Larry Rosen’s book is a good read on the balance between reciprocation vs academic license (chapters 4 and 5). http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
There’s open source, and “open source”, and a lot of us tend to throw things into the general bucket, as opposed to the distinctions of reciprocal, academic, etc. From my perspective, I can take @Printrbot 's design and make myself a new printer. I don’t need to give them any money for it. I can make changes to their design (as long as they don’t slap on a ND clause) and re-share it, but not sell it and that works for me too.
Their newest printer (Simple Metal) isn’t open source, and that’s ok, given it’s their copyright, and they can choose to do whatever they please with their intellectual property.
cheers,
Sameer
That its not open source is BS. Apart from the Metal (which would take an entire machine shop to replicate yet come on Brook give us some models!!!) the other design files (or source) are published so we can hack on and modify. If I want to commercially sell a Printrbot I would need to obtain a license from the designer if they were willing which I find fair enough but placing the NC tag on the design does not inherently or wholly negate the claim to be OS. As Phil Torrene recommended don’t be a dirtbag and pay the license fee.
Although quoting from Adafruit is nice and all but I betcha I can find at least a dozen of their dozens in production and selling without source files available. That’s life get over it. Leah Beuchley had a nice talk at the OHS at MIT where she recommended being open if its truly valuable to the end user but being open for its own sake is silly. The last thing we need are more license nazi dweeb police knocking people down for doing their best to share their hard work.
It’s quite clear: Open Source does not just mean “published”. There is no obfuscation to be had. Open Source means “free as in speech, not as in beer”. That’s the same principle for any Free license, whether GPL or not. A non-commercial clause is the exact opposite: “free as in beer, not free as in speech”. Paying a royalty for IP is completely opposed to Open Source principles. Phil Torrone is completely and utterly wrong in that and other respects. Of course, he has a business to run, so he would say that.
It seems though that the Open Source movement has lost all hope when the participants don’t understand Open Source and apparently don’t care.
Somewhat ironic that the first few words in the about box are “A community centered around open-source…” clearly people don’t know what Open Source is.
Printrbot is not Open Source, that’s a fact. You may say that it doesn’t matter, that’s your opinion. If people don’t want to do Open Source that’s fine, but don’t mislead by calling things Open Source when they are not.
Brian, calling people names does nothing for your argument. Indeed, by Godwins Law you already lost it.
@bob_cousins Getting the point of Open Source being more than a license (but also a culture and ethos) across to some people is nearly impossible. When I cite that I have used GNU/Linux for 18 years and am a free software advocate, I am often greeted with comments that I am “cheap” because I don’t want to pay license fees.
@bob_cousins some of the best contributors in the 3d printing hardware are using cc nc, not because they don’t believe in open-source development, but because business doesn’t allow for people to operate in your dream world.
As you said it is completely in a polite ask, not a real enforceable license… I don’t care if you don’t like the license, and if someone you respect says it isn’t open source… the source is available for anyone to use, he is politely and formally asking you not to make a business out of his work (unless you make major changes).
I personally will call this open-source, as if the alternative is he stops distribution all cad files because of your technicality I would be pissed…
Freedom of speech only is saying “it is not literally illegal for me to say that”
@bob_cousins secondly, I want to see a solid commit to improving our 3d printing community before you start tearing it down.
In the hope that there is some educational meaning to this discussion, I’ll say that not all open source licenses are “free as in speech”. Apache, for instance, does not require the changes to be shared back. So, the reciprocating mechanism (a la share-alike) isn’t there. For instance, the preferred license for Android Open Source Project is Apache 2.0 (https://source.android.com/source/licenses.html). That doesn’t mean Apache isn’t open source. Samsung, HTC, etc. all take AOSP and do not share back a bulk of their tweaks to it. Ironcally, the Linux kernel, which runs under all these Android devices does require reciprocation under to the GPL. Even if the duration to reshare is longer than expected, resharing is nevertheless expected (Android vs Linux: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-torvalds-on-android-the-linux-fork/9426).
I’d recommend watching Revolution OS, if you haven’t already, and see if you can spot the simple but fundamental difference between Free Software and Open Source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw8K460vx1c (caution: non-free site!).