Received: by 10.52.155.240 with SMTP id vz16mr10534154vdb.3.1333467726452;
        Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.220.108.7 with SMTP id d7ls1769292vcp.4.gmail; Tue, 03 Apr
 2012 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.23.99 with SMTP id l3mr260191vdf.0.1333467724868; Tue, 03
 Apr 2012 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 davidcollin...@yahoo.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=davidcollin...@yahoo.com; dkim=pass
 header...@yahoo.com
Received: by l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:42:04
 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F7A3653.7040307@industromatic.com>
References: <3d989dbe-c3ff-4de1-ba86-947d6515e60a@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
 <4F7A3653.7040307@industromatic.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/535.1 (KHTML, like
 Gecko) Chrome/14.0.835.35 Safari/535.1,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <4a56a202-407e-443d-9bdb-0ecee3d5ee8e@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Markus Hitter on non-commercial hardware licenses
From: davidc <davidcollin...@yahoo.com>
To: Open Manufacturing <openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi John,

On Apr 3, 12:29=A0am, John Griessen <j...@industromatic.com> wrote:
> [jg]I'm not so bothered by the NC license from him. =A0I bet if I develop=
ed
> 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. =A0I doubt it has any drag on development at all=
.

Personally, I think there are at least two compromises a reseller
could make in this scenario. They could:
1. agree to give the developer a share of any income they generate
from selling the design in question, and
2. agree to limit their sales to a particular geographical region.
And if a non-commercial clause in a hardware license is necessary to
make resellers consider such compromises, so be it.

Furthermore, we could explore other options - such as helping the
developer with the costs of having the design/product certified under
the relevant standards or directives.

> As to Hitter's comment: =A0"There is no attitude among RepRappers to enco=
urage compensation,
> much less a mechanism to enforce it."
> [jg]I believe that. =A0I was interested in
> helping with some rep rap development, then sensed that, and decided not =
to.
> I need money compensation too.

I think maybe it is partly a communications issue. I suspect there are
in fact a number of users and other developers who would be willing to
provide a degree of compensation (I know I would). As you have
probably noticed, discussion in the Reprap community just tends to
focus on the technical issues - but this doesn't stop us from
reminding people to look at the bigger picture.

Naturally, it's a difficult issue to broach, but I personally am
willing to raise this on the forums there if needs be.

Think of a commercial firm. The researchers and developers in this
context are compensated just as much as other members of the firm. In
the open-source community, there's the risk that the developer gets
nothing.

> 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 wa=
y of the world.

But, whether or not collaboration on hardware projects is as feasible
as on software, this doesn't preclude the possibility of developers in
some sense supporting each other.