Fwd: [MakerBot] 2010 post from Bre about Open Source and MBI

[Bryan Bishop]

From: Doogiekr <doog...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:51 AM
Subject: [MakerBot] 2010 post from Bre about Open Source and MBI
To: make...@googlegroups.com


I found this to be a very interesting statement from Bre in 2010

At MakerBot, we take open source seriously. It’s a way of life for us. We share our design files when we release a project because we know that it’s important for our users to know that a MakerBot is not a black box. With MakerBot, you get not only a machine that makes things for you, but you also get an education into how the machine works and you can truly own it and have access to all the designs that went into it! When people take designs that are open and they close them, they are creating a dead end where people will not be able to understand their machines and they will not be able to develop on them.


How soon we forget where we came from....


The whole post is here.... http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2010/03/25/open-source-ethics-and-dead-end-derivatives/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/makerbot/-/mFXVOrgKAiUJ.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[Eric Young]

Love that article he wrote in 2010. Very telling. 

Did you see Bre's last response in the comments section of his blog post "Fixing Misinformation with Information"? After he had replied individuality to a barrage of comments (which was cool of him) in his typical double-speak fashion (not cool), one person said this:

Bre. Here is what you wish you could say out loud:

“I built a business that included utilizing open source hardware and software.
I did that very well, probably better than anyone else.
I had a great philosophy of open source in my business model.
I built a brand.
I now have a brand, employees, responsibilities, and shareholders.
I am now between a rock and a hard place, as being an icon of open source might be dichotomous to protecting my brand, employees, responsibilities and shareholders.
Nothing I say today is going to make anyone happy, least of all me.”

To which Bre responded:

Neoteric – You very eloquently said what I wish I could have said in this post. Thank you.

I think that first comment does a good job of summing up the situation, and that Bre finally waived his white flag.

Here is the blog if you want to see the entire thing: 

http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/20/fixing-misinformation-with-information/

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
To post to this group, send email to openmanu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufactur...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.

[Bryan Bishop]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:33 PM, c f <christophe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the interest of civility, a claim of "they're explicitly violating
> copyright law" should probably come with more proof than "I'm pretty sure
> something is violated somewhere."

I agree. So is that the story here? ... nobody has any particular
claims, and makerbot was never actually open source?

[Bryan Bishop]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Ryan/baslisks <basl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Feels like a combative statement. Everything up to the replicator 2 was
> open. Now they have both their new not and their software closed. That means
> they are recently closed and previously open, not, as you state, always
> closed.

But that doesn't account for the derivative clauses in most open
source licenses. I agree about your assessment of the previous legal
status.

[Bryan Bishop]

I should clarify further that the important factor here is how
derivative the original machines were (originating with RepRap). Had
this been a design completely owned by MBI, and as they would be the
sole owners, it would make sense to be able to make something
proprietary as a derivative of their own IP. But that's not entirely
the case is it?

[Bryan Bishop]

From: Mark Cohen <markc...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [MakerBot] Re: 2010 post from Bre about Open Source and MBI
To: make...@googlegroups.com


No hardware licenses were violated since they designed it all and i think their mobo sits on top of an arduino. They designed the motherboard along with all the gen3 and gen4 electronics. The extruder is also theirs. Just because they gpled does not mean they gave up their rights.

On Sep 23, 2012 12:53 PM, "Bryan Bishop" <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Adan Akerman <ad...@akerworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> No conversation I've had with anyone at MakerBot has left me thinking, "Huh, that's an evil person trying to figure out how to screw me and the entire maker movement." I want to believe they're earnestly seeking a new, mutually beneficial model. I'm keeping an open mind, looking forward to learning the details behind Bre's "finding new ways to share" and "experiment to make this happen."
>
>
> I don't understand how a "mutually beneficial model" will get over the fact that they are violating open source hardware licenses.

>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.

> To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.

To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.


--

[Bryan Bishop]

From: Mark Cohen <markc...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:33 AM

Subject: Re: [MakerBot] Re: 2010 post from Bre about Open Source and MBI
To: make...@googlegroups.com

I did a little research. Once you gpl you cannot ungpl. But the original designers can make a nongpl version and leave the gpl version available. They do own the rights. That is what makerbot is doing. Redesigned electronics, encapsulation of the software, redesigned machines and printheads are all allowable to close up as they did the work from scratch.

[Bryan Bishop]

From: Joseph Chiu <joe...@joechiu.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:43 AM

Subject: Re: [MakerBot] Re: 2010 post from Bre about Open Source and MBI
To: make...@googlegroups.com

Yes, in the software world, you cannot un-GPL a GPL'd software.  The only possibility is to go back to the original authors and to obtain the software under a different license...  There is, of course, the difficulty of having access to an untained original source line...

I hadn't looked very closely -- what licenses are actually used on the various origin designs?

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Mark Cohen <markc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I did a little research. Once you gpl you cannot ungpl. But the original designers can make a nongpl version and leave the gpl version available. They do own the rights. That is what makerbot is doing. Redesigned electronics, encapsulation of the software, redesigned machines and printheads are all allowable to close up as they did the work from scratch.

On Sep 24, 2012 6:24 AM, "Joseph Chiu" <joe...@joechiu.com> wrote:

You're right -- my response wasn't specifically about licensing violations.  It was more in response to the question of why MBI didn't stay open-sourced for Replicator 2.  

My aviation example was an attempt, by way of comparison, to explain the difficult place that MBI is in to produce a business-viable mainstream printer.  If they open-sourced the R2, they would have had knock-off makers "counterfeiting" (well, copying anyways) their printer right out the gate; and I also suspect that MBI will soon (if not already) attempt to get the R2 through regulatory testing  -- "locking down" a design helps to reduce testing complexity and cost...  

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Joseph Chiu <joe...@joechiu.com> wrote:

For producing a mainstream product, MBI might not have much of a choice but to start closing up the design.  Open source is good for hacking and innovation, but the commercial and regulatory environment for producing a product that a "consumer" can purchase makes things a lot more difficult!    

I don't see what that has to do with license violations. I'm pretty sure some of this hardware is licensed under a "all derivatives must remain open source" license somewhere. What does that have to do with aviation?

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

[John Griessen]

On 09/24/2012 08:59 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> an attempt, by way of comparison, to explain the difficult place that MBI is in to produce a business-viable mainstream printer.

Yes, this is all about going higher volume and mainstream, where copying can kill a business,
steal the value of their reputation and marketing, and make a little profit for the copy-cats.

I'm not so bothered by MBI's attitude -- it's not been very different since a couple years ago
when they don't offer easy to use documentation made with FOSS design tools even.
I'll cheer if they get a safety tested product selling for a good price. There will
still be good open platforms evolving along also for experimenters to base new
machines on. Printrbot and others could be better though...and what I want is
a machine that uses granules of recycle plastic rather than filaments, bonds very solidly,
and unloads finished printings.

[Bryan Bishop]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Thomas Charron <twa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand how a "mutually beneficial model" will get over the fact
>> that they are violating open source hardware licenses.
>

> It's *their* stuff. They aren't violating anything. If they decide
> not to release something which is a derivative of their own stuff,
> they have every right to. The cupcake and up weren't based on any
> other specific design, which is why you don't see a cupcake box on the
> RepRap site.

"Derivative of their own stuff".. wasn't their stuff derivative of
RepRap originally, and thus by extension? Again, it's possible that
I'm wrong. I'm still understanding.

> Publicly stating someone is violating a license is reckless and disrespectful.

In context, you will see that I said that a "mutually beneficial
model" does not "fix" license violation. It's entirely possible that
there's no license violation going on here.