On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Rob Giseburt <giseb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wish it were better circumstance to get to write for the Make blog.
> IIRC, makerbot has always had one or two closed source parts. Are
> people quick to forget? Prusa was mentioning the firmware as another
> contender, too.
I've feared this since they got VC funding. I heard these warnings at
Kauffman many times when watching entrepreneurs get advice. Not an excuse
but maybe a "deal with the devil."
Luis E. Rodriguez
On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Bryan Boettcher <bryan.boettc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Rob Giseburt <giseb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wish it were better circumstance to get to write for the Make blog.
> IIRC, makerbot has always had one or two closed source parts. Are
> people quick to forget? Prusa was mentioning the firmware as another
> contender, too.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, as the old man said. When people
generously give you money to do your cool thing it's important to remember
that they aren't giving anyone anything. Their entire purpose is to bring
back as large a return for their money as quickly as possible. If the
company survives this process, that's just gravy. I can't imagine why
anyone would be surprised by any of this. They were dead from an open
source perspective the minute they signed the papers to get the cash.
Paul
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Luis E. Rodriguez <
lrodriguezm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've feared this since they got VC funding. I heard these warnings at
> Kauffman many times when watching entrepreneurs get advice. Not an excuse
> but maybe a "deal with the devil."
> Luis E. Rodriguez
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Bryan Boettcher <bryan.boettc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> The IRC meltdown is pretty epic right now.
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Rob Giseburt <giseb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I wish it were better circumstance to get to write for the Make blog.
>> IIRC, makerbot has always had one or two closed source parts. Are
>> people quick to forget? Prusa was mentioning the firmware as another
>> contender, too.
Just saying- MBI rode a wave of "us" and YOU reading this.. being a hella
lot of their tech base by our feeding back every drop of blood sweat&tears
so to speak. and then to clam it's not worth keeping open? I'm drastically
overstating one axis and understating another but?
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Paul Leonard <pleonar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, as the old man said. When people
> generously give you money to do your cool thing it's important to remember
> that they aren't giving anyone anything. Their entire purpose is to bring
> back as large a return for their money as quickly as possible. If the
> company survives this process, that's just gravy. I can't imagine why
> anyone would be surprised by any of this. They were dead from an open
> source perspective the minute they signed the papers to get the cash.
> Paul
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Luis E. Rodriguez <
> lrodriguezm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've feared this since they got VC funding. I heard these warnings at
>> Kauffman many times when watching entrepreneurs get advice. Not an excuse
>> but maybe a "deal with the devil."
>> Luis E. Rodriguez
>> On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Bryan Boettcher <bryan.boettc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> The IRC meltdown is pretty epic right now.
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Rob Giseburt <giseb...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I wish it were better circumstance to get to write for the Make blog.
>>> IIRC, makerbot has always had one or two closed source parts. Are
>>> people quick to forget? Prusa was mentioning the firmware as another
>>> contender, too.
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Rob Giseburt <giseb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wish it were better circumstance to get to write for the Make blog.
> IIRC, makerbot has always had one or two closed source parts. Are
> people quick to forget? Prusa was mentioning the firmware as another
> contender, too.
> On 20 September 2012 06:06, Jordan Miller <jrdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't even know if it's legal for them to go closed source now.
>> isn't the replicator v1 GPL v3??
> If they own all the copyrights I suspect they can do as they please,
> e.g. as with licensing changes with new revisions of open source
> software and dual (proprietary and open source) licensed software.
> It would be interesting to see if there's anything that could be
> considered derivative of RepRap, since they don't get to do as they
> please with that IP. But I imagine if there were any RepRap IP they
> will have been careful to remove it (in hardware this may just just
> involve re-drawing something), and even if there were a case against
> them they have much deeper pockets now...
> Of course, IANAL.
> I see a worrying theme in open source hardware: open source until it
> doesn't suit me. But ultimately "bait and switch" and "open source
> until I send you a take down" strategies are very short-sighted, as
> open source software folks have recognised for quite some time.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Jordan Miller <jrdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> is it live?
Not at the moment :-). A few of the repos on http://diyhpl.us/cgit are
just manual thingiverse things -> git, which are survivors of my
thingiverse/git work. There were also a handful of different scrapers
that I could dig up for you.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Jordan Miller <jrdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bryan-- are you gonna make a thingiverse to git repo converter soon?
> Luis-- did your thingiverse cloning script run finish? how big was the
> repo?
> jordan
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Andrew Back <and...@carrierdetect.com> wrote:
> > On 20 September 2012 06:06, Jordan Miller <jrdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't even know if it's legal for them to go closed source now.
> >> isn't the replicator v1 GPL v3??
> > If they own all the copyrights I suspect they can do as they please,
> > e.g. as with licensing changes with new revisions of open source
> > software and dual (proprietary and open source) licensed software.
> > It would be interesting to see if there's anything that could be
> > considered derivative of RepRap, since they don't get to do as they
> > please with that IP. But I imagine if there were any RepRap IP they
> > will have been careful to remove it (in hardware this may just just
> > involve re-drawing something), and even if there were a case against
> > them they have much deeper pockets now...
> > Of course, IANAL.
> > I see a worrying theme in open source hardware: open source until it
> > doesn't suit me. But ultimately "bait and switch" and "open source
> > until I send you a take down" strategies are very short-sighted, as
> > open source software folks have recognised for quite some time.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Jordan Miller <jrdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bryan-- are you gonna make a thingiverse to git repo converter soon?
>> Luis-- did your thingiverse cloning script run finish? how big was the
>> repo?
>> jordan
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Andrew Back <and...@carrierdetect.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 20 September 2012 06:06, Jordan Miller <jrdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I don't even know if it's legal for them to go closed source now.
>> >> isn't the replicator v1 GPL v3??
>> > If they own all the copyrights I suspect they can do as they please,
>> > e.g. as with licensing changes with new revisions of open source
>> > software and dual (proprietary and open source) licensed software.
>> > It would be interesting to see if there's anything that could be
>> > considered derivative of RepRap, since they don't get to do as they
>> > please with that IP. But I imagine if there were any RepRap IP they
>> > will have been careful to remove it (in hardware this may just just
>> > involve re-drawing something), and even if there were a case against
>> > them they have much deeper pockets now...
>> > Of course, IANAL.
>> > I see a worrying theme in open source hardware: open source until it
>> > doesn't suit me. But ultimately "bait and switch" and "open source
>> > until I send you a take down" strategies are very short-sighted, as
>> > open source software folks have recognised for quite some time.
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
