Fwd: [hackerspaces] Idea: things.hackerspaces.org now that Thingiverse is not ok anymore
60 views
Skip to first unread message
Bryan Bishop
Sep 23, 2012, 11:03:06 AM9/23/12
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop, Walter van Holst
From: Walter van Holst <wal...@revspace.nl>
Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Subject: [hackerspaces] Idea: things.hackerspaces.org now that Thingiverse is not ok anymore
To: dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
Hi all,
Since MakerBot and by extension Thingiverse are starting to enclose commons (see: http://blog.hackerspaces.org/2012/09/23/the-makerbotthingiverse-move-to-the-dark-side/), I think it might be worth entertaining the idea of a 3D-design repository.
Would there be interest in such a thing, especially from people who can actually execute a nice web-frontend to for example a git-repository?
The bit I can contribute are proper terms-of-use.
Regards,
Walter
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Subject: [hackerspaces] Idea: things.hackerspaces.org now that Thingiverse is not ok anymore
To: dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
Hi all,
Since MakerBot and by extension Thingiverse are starting to enclose commons (see: http://blog.hackerspaces.org/2012/09/23/the-makerbotthingiverse-move-to-the-dark-side/), I think it might be worth entertaining the idea of a 3D-design repository.
Would there be interest in such a thing, especially from people who can actually execute a nice web-frontend to for example a git-repository?
The bit I can contribute are proper terms-of-use.
Regards,
Walter
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Bryan Bishop
Sep 23, 2012, 12:53:53 PM9/23/12
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
From: Daniel Harmsworth <atr...@caffeinator.net>
Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [hackerspaces] Idea: things.hackerspaces.org now that Thingiverse is not ok anymore
To: Hackerspaces General Discussion List <dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org>
There's a member at the Artifactory that has build a CouchDB based distributed thingiverse-like system with distributed rendering, gcode simulation and other cool stuff (basically for his own internal use), In light of recent developments I have suggested that we install a publicly accessible version of it on the Artifactory servers. Will report back when we have it up for experimentation, there is a fairly limited UI at the moment.
Subject: Re: [hackerspaces] Idea: things.hackerspaces.org now that Thingiverse is not ok anymore
To: Hackerspaces General Discussion List <dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org>
There's a member at the Artifactory that has build a CouchDB based distributed thingiverse-like system with distributed rendering, gcode simulation and other cool stuff (basically for his own internal use), In light of recent developments I have suggested that we install a publicly accessible version of it on the Artifactory servers. Will report back when we have it up for experimentation, there is a fairly limited UI at the moment.
On 24 September 2012 00:35, Walter van Holst <wal...@revspace.nl> wrote:
On 2012-09-23 18:01, Sparr wrote:As mentioned in my blog post, I am a lawyer. Not an attorney, mind you and not practicing in the USA either.
Has anyone gotten an actual lawyer's opinion of the new TOS?
No, it literally talks about "incorporate into other works, and otherwise use your User Content", per section 3.2 of the Terms of Use. As already quoted in my blog post. You could argue that the last bit of that sentence "solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services" applies further than the sublicensing bit, but to me it reads rather ambiguously and I wouldn't feel safe to say it applies any further than the grant to sublicense. Not to say that the old terms weren't ambiguous either, but since they limited themselves to derivative works, it made life much easier because that is specifically a copyright term. On top of that the assertion about transmission and display in the old version read much broader.
I do not
see that the new language is significantly different from the old
language. The new TOS doesn't say they can use your designs to make
new closed source hardware, they are still only allowed to use it to
display it on their website.
And yes, natural languages are a pain, ambiguity-wise. But we have to make do with them.
Regards,
Walter
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Daniel Harmsworth
Chairman, The Perth Artifactory Inc.
http://www.artifactory.org.au
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Bryan Bishop
Sep 25, 2012, 10:17:24 AM9/25/12
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
Subject: Re: [hackerspaces] Idea: things.hackerspaces.org now that Thingiverse is not ok anymore
To: Hackerspaces General Discussion List <dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org>
Just throwing this out there for public consumption...
For as abrasive and trollish as you like to see yourself Mr. Joyce, you are remarkable - you should consider writing more because "the movement" (whatever it is) requires cogent conversation about that which we do not agree on.
This isn't about the colour of the bike shed. (or even it's color)
This is about how to not let the spectrum of ideas and points of view be summarily chopped up into sides.
We're still defining what "open hardware" really means - and part of what I'm reading here sounds like an attempt to re-draft the patent system on our own terms - a system that fosters innovation, provides sharply limited protection for investors and requires public good.
That's kind of awesome.
And shouldn't we be working towards more awesome?
J
Matt Joyce wrote:
> By the by
>
> I put together some thoughts on this whole shabang.
>
> http://www.music-piracy.com/?p=712
>
> In case anyone is into discussing it.
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Matt Joyce <ma...@nycresistor.com> wrote:
>> I think he's been pretty clear on the intent. I think the real
>> concern is the result of the intent.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Walter van Holst <wal...@revspace.nl> wrote:
>>> On 9/23/12 10:05 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
>>>> It's been my experience that legalese is not always clear to the
>>>> untrained eye. It may be written in english looking words, but it's
>>>> parser is vastly different from the one we use when talking to each
>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to see some interpretations of what the wording is intended
>>>> to do, and how it is interpreted by others inside of the legal
>>> Well, the cool part is that Bre is on the list and we do not necessarily
>>> need an exegese by a legal professional. The man himself can tell us
>>> what he meant and what he intends to achieve.
For as abrasive and trollish as you like to see yourself Mr. Joyce, you are remarkable - you should consider writing more because "the movement" (whatever it is) requires cogent conversation about that which we do not agree on.
This isn't about the colour of the bike shed. (or even it's color)
This is about how to not let the spectrum of ideas and points of view be summarily chopped up into sides.
We're still defining what "open hardware" really means - and part of what I'm reading here sounds like an attempt to re-draft the patent system on our own terms - a system that fosters innovation, provides sharply limited protection for investors and requires public good.
That's kind of awesome.
And shouldn't we be working towards more awesome?
J
Matt Joyce wrote:
> By the by
>
> I put together some thoughts on this whole shabang.
>
> http://www.music-piracy.com/?p=712
>
> In case anyone is into discussing it.
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Matt Joyce <ma...@nycresistor.com> wrote:
>> I think he's been pretty clear on the intent. I think the real
>> concern is the result of the intent.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Walter van Holst <wal...@revspace.nl> wrote:
>>> On 9/23/12 10:05 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
>>>> It's been my experience that legalese is not always clear to the
>>>> untrained eye. It may be written in english looking words, but it's
>>>> parser is vastly different from the one we use when talking to each
>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to see some interpretations of what the wording is intended
>>>> to do, and how it is interpreted by others inside of the legal
>>> Well, the cool part is that Bre is on the list and we do not necessarily
>>> need an exegese by a legal professional. The man himself can tell us
>>> what he meant and what he intends to achieve.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Walter
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Discuss mailing list
Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Bryan Bishop
Sep 25, 2012, 11:34:23 PM9/25/12
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop, Yves Quemener, The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
On 09/25/2012 12:17 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
> In case anyone is into discussing it.
> In case anyone is into discussing it.
Hello Matt
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 and software.
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 community.
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 is allowed".
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.
Yves
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 and software.
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 community.
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 is allowed".
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.
Yves
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages