This is all a bit unclear to me. He says that he's using a non-commercial
license, and yet everything seems to be documented on pages that say
"Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2" and with
the RepRap GPL license info ( http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRapGPLLicence ),
with additional content hosted on github, and I don't see any notice
(except on his personal page) that he's using a non-commercial license.
This seems kind of wrong, if he's putting all this stuff out there like
it's open source, and then privately saying it's actually non-commercial.
Regardless of his choices, he should apparently advertise them better.
Anyway, his goal is "Wealth Without Money" -- he seems to be succeeding,
right? :P
[jg]I'm not so bothered by the NC license from him. I bet if I developed
a derivative with improvements, he'd license it to me to sell also,
and he'd be sharing the improvements as they happen, and if it made
sense based on physical location, sharing an order minimum for
Asian fabbed components. I doubt it has any drag on development at all.
As to Hitter's comment: "There is no attitude among RepRappers to encourage compensation,
much less a mechanism to enforce it."
[jg]I believe that. I was interested in
helping with some rep rap development, then sensed that, and decided not to.
I need money compensation too.
As to Hitter's comment: "Arduino" being trademarked. This is the model I try to mimic with a NC licence. Restrict usage where it
hurts, be as open as possible."
[jg]I'm not so sure the NC license will have as much effect as the trademark and
publicity route of Arduino. Coolness seems an easy way to get a small monetary return
along with a product offering, so use it. Don't expect a bare circuit board to thrill anyone.
As to Hitter's comment: "RepRap-Fab nozzles, Phillip's carbon heated bed, R2C2 Electronics, GSG Electronics, the OKKA extruder
and a lot more. For all these, RepRap apparently isn't the project to contribute to, but the project to generate customers from."
[jg] Are customers so bad? They drive proliferation, at least. Rep Rap is not like Arduino, it is a deeper concept.
Arduino seems big for entertainment uses, where rep rap fab machines are about economic survival more than
entertainment in many cases. If you get into prolific self replication that is inevitable and should be welcome.
I think the rep rap concept is moving along well enough and feel no need to subsidize developers, but
then, I *am* one.
Hardware developers seem to be more rare birds than software developers, and they don't flock.
I thought a little like Hitter expecting collaboration, but so little has happened with potential
collaborators because of personal style differences, I think it is the way of the world. I expect little
collaborative help on my missions and plan to keep using the monetary system to value products for
a while longer.
John Griessen
[citation needed].
So far as I know, there are exactly *zero* approved open-source licenses
that permit non-commercial restrictions. Do you have an actual
counterexample to give?
I don't think that you do. The meaning of the term "Open Source" is well
established. The first clause of the definition of "Open Source" (
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd ) spells it out pretty explicitly:
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale."
And, from the OSI's FAQ on Open Source:
( http://www.opensource.org/faq#commercial ):
"All Open Source software can be used for commercial purpose; the Open
Source Definition guarantees this. You can even sell Open Source
software."
See also, discussions here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4558546/opensource-noncommercial-license
You can put any kind of license that you want on a project-- free,
restrictive, non-commercial, or so on. That's all up to you, and I
respect your right to choose how your project is presented and licensed.
But what you DO NOT get to do is call your project "Open Source" if it
also has noncommercial restrictions.
alls we can do is vote with our dollars at this point.
also keep in mind that if the licenses were never open to begin with, then the community would never have grown as fast as it did.
jordan
> --
> 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.
>