You probably heard of my tiny 3D-printer called “DICE”, before. And in case you liked it, I gathered all needed information together, done nicely and want to share it with you. This includes all needed files like STL, DXF or STEP, a complete BOM with prices and links to ebay or other shops and a tutorial-like Build-series on youtube.
I hope, you are able to rebuild a DICE for your own with this. And maybe you are telling me about it 
http://well-engineered.net/index.php/en/projects/35-build-your-own-dice
Considering the level of quality of your construction, and especially considering the level of performance of the printed results, you are quite generous to provide this distribution to the public.
I would expect you could make a good showing if you decided to create a kickstarter campaign, to produce your creation in quantity. On the other hand, I’ve seen some real headaches for campaign creators and I would stay as far away from creating such a campaign.
@Fred_U Thank you for the kind words. I did read some “insider”-stuff about kickstarter-campaigns and indiegogos etc and came to the conclusion NOT to do such. The printer is on a NC-license and I am proud to be the “creator” of this printer. I’m looking forward to see a DICE “in the wild” that is not mine, in my opinion this would be the biggest compliment for me 
@Rene_Jurack Thank you. This one is definitely on my top 3 list of printers I’d like to build. Very solid work.
@Rene_Jurack is there a particular reason why you chose AZSMZ? Thx
@Rien_Stouten What are the other two? Now, I want to know, what the DICE has to compete with 
@Step_Cia it has to be small and a singlePCB, stacking like RAMPS doesn’t fit inside. That and it’s 32bit.
With movement that fast, should we start to worry about the heat if any generated from that fast movement?
Oh no the license is -NC !
Very nice machine otherwise.
@Arthur_Wolf What’s the problem with the license?
@Rene_Jurack -NC makes it not Open-Source, I only build Open-Source machines. But if you are planning on selling kits or something I ( kinda ) understand the impulse.
@Arthur_Wolf That’s right, it is not TOTALLY open source. But you can do anything you want with the DICE, as long as it is not “making money”. As far as I know, this should be the best for both worlds. For the community: They can build it. For me: Noone else makes easy money out of my hard work. And if someone REALLY wants to sell a kit, then I simply want to get involved.
@Rene_Jurack Well I might have been interested in making and selling kits, but the fact it’s not Open-Source essentially means I won’t.
I want to work on projects where the community gets involved, that doesn’t happen with a -NC clause ( or if it does, it’s not much ).
That’s why we have Reprap, Wikipedia, Linux, and we don’t remember their “not really open-source” cousins.
@Arthur_Wolf I am ok with that. But you are wrong with “an NC-clause is hindering the community”. What really hinders the 3D-printing community are people who want to make money out of everything.
@Rene_Jurack
The others are e3d’s bigbox, and a delta printer.
@Rene_Jurack I’m not saying -NC is hinderng the community, I’m saying that -NC-based projects don’t actually create communities.
Reprap would never have existed if it had been -NC, same for Wikipedia, Arduino etc.
That’s because they would never have generated a community had they been -NC.
And about “making money out of everything”, there is a very important distinction to make here.
Reprap would have gotten nowhere without the many many companies that started making and selling kits ( many of which made so little money off it they ended up dying ).
Where things actually go wrong is when people make money off the community’s work, but do not respect that work. For example if you make a derivative of Open-Source work to sell, but do not release the derivative under an Open-Source license. To give an example I know personally, that’s what the AZSMZ guys did with the Smoothie project. That is bad, and that is hurting the community.
And I don’t want to be a d*ck, so feel free to ignore me here, but that could even arguably be how what you are doing might be seen :
Your project is built from the work of the Reprap community.
If this was 2006, and Reprap did not exist, with it’s litterally millions of work-hour of testing, experimenting, documentation and development, you essentially would never have been able to do this project all alone. So your work is just a tiny thing on top of that gigantic mountain.
You are profiting from the Open-Source Reprap project and community, but when you are making derivative work, you choose to make your derivative less open.
See how that could be seen as a problem ?
@Rien_Stouten These are complete different leagues 
@Arthur_Wolf The AZSMZ gerber files are posted on the reprap wiki. Did he alter the license on the derivative?
@Billy Gerbers are not proper documentation for an Open-Source project ( they’d have to provide Eagle/Kicad files, plus a BOM ), and they did change the license ( to CC-NC )
@Arthur_Wolf I get that you are a honorable reseller. I really appreciate this. But the world is bad out there, like you said. And in my little innocent world, the NC-license soothes my mind a bit.
@Rene_Jurack Please note that releasing under -NC won’t stop the bad ones from doing anything they want to do. Only the good ones respect the licenses So you are only stopping the ones you don’t want to stop, and you are not stopping the ones you want to …