From: Yves Quemener <quemener.y...@free.fr>
Date: Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [hackerspaces] Idea: things.hackerspaces.org now that
Thingiverse is not ok anymore
On 09/25/2012 12:17 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
> In case anyone is into discussing it.
Your article triggered a lot of thoughts.
I wonder if the open hardware community is not trying too hard to mimic the
free software movement without considering the differences between hardware
I think that the open source licenses were the core tool in making the free
software movement the success it is today. The GPL especially made a very
good job at using the specifics of the software world and using them to
make new kind of collaborations possible and profitable to the whole
Maybe does the open hardware movement need to make its own set of rules,
adapted to the hardware world?
As I see it, there are two different kind of open hardware today :
- The kind that has its blueprints freely available but that needs to be
assembled from bought machined parts. The reprap, the makerbots.
- The kind that can be generated totally from raw materials and open
hardware : most objects on thingiverse.
The analogy with software works great for the second kind. Software is
cheap to copy and does not require manual work. Even if printed parts
require a lot more time, electricity and a few cents of plastics, the
analogy can work well.
But the first kind is a very different beast. It is similar to the
situation where the free software world was when neither linux nor gcc
existed. One can still find examples of free software that require
proprietary content to work correctly, but they are not the norm. In the
open hardware world, most of the useful things are not 100% printable or
CNC-able (not even 50%). Until we are able to print electrical engines,
board, chips, metal axis, etc. this will be the situation.
What is the best way to deal with that?
Makerbot used to be a facilitator for the duplication of the first kind of
hardware : selling prepared kits or even completely mounted machines, they
made duplication of printing machines affordable and not time-consuming.
With their change of policy, they now only focus on helping the duplication
of the second kind of open hardware : the printable ones.
This is still useful (and I still support them) but that means that
suddenly, they will probably stop doing efforts on the first kind of open
hardware. A free software analogy would be Linus Torvalds saying that v2.0
of the kernel would become proprietary but would still be a full POSIX OS
and would support GNU with dedication. It would have angered many people,
but would not have prevented the development of new OSS tools. (Actually
this is a bit dishonest comparison because Linus does not have to run a
manufacturing business to release Linux)
Isn't there a way to find a license that would allow duplication
facilitators of the first kind of open hardware to make a living? I know
that open-source types frown upon "non-commercial" clauses, like in the CC,
but couldn't something like that (maybe with a short time limit) help
makerbot make a living while being a community actor ? I could imagine a
clause saying "until <this date+one year>, only non-commercial duplication
This would prevent carbon-copy competition. This would not "protect profit
generating innovation", as you put it, but this part seems antinomic with
what the whole open-source/hardware movement is about.
Discuss mailing list
1 512 203 0507