2010 post from Bre about Open Source and MBI

[Doogiekr]

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/

[JohnA.]

You don't need to go back to 2010:

http://makerbot.tv/NEma/makerbot-tv-s02e03-what-is-open-source/

JohnA.

[Cymon]

Also the number of times he talked about old record players coming with the schematics. 

I am honstly looking forward to Bre's talk at the Open Hardware summit. I hope to hear that he's as conflicted about this choice as the rest of us. I want to hear that he's struggling as much as anyone else with the decision and I hope he finds a solution. Because if he's just made this about face without remorse I'm going to lose a lot of respect for Bre and Makerbot. I doubt that's the case. I hope that's not the case, but we'll see.

[Adan Akerman]

Yes. I'd say he's way more conflicted than the rest of us. We as users/contributors have a dog in the fight, for sure... but he IS a dog in the fight! Wait. My metaphor may have fallen apart a little bit there. Nevermind.

In the midst of a service ticket the other day I had a good email exchange with an MBI serviceperson. I mentioned we were all looking forward to more information on this topic. This person definitely took my comment seriously, definitely didn't wave it off or answer with the definitive "We Are Now Closed Source" that Prusa reported he was given. It may have been coincidence that Bre's post popped up a half hour later. I know mine wasn't the only corner they were hearing it from!

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."

--
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/-/r6r9kkwQhqoJ.

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]

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

[Joseph Chiu]

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!    

To put an admittedly contrived and extreme example: let's say some aviation technology was being developed by enthusiasts and shared "open source" -- at some point the idea is widely accepted and companies form to sell that to the general aviation market -- those companies would have to make their parts under stricter control and oversight, the parts would be more expensive, and the official engineering drawings would probably go closed-source to prevent counterfeits from entering the supply chain.

[Bryan Bishop]

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?

[c f]

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."

--

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

[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?

[Ryan/baslisks]

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.

[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?

[Bartee]

I think it is still possible for them to do a delayed open source model that allows them to sell an innovative product and then release the source after 3-6 months on the market to allow the community to benefit.  It seems Sun did this with OpenOffice where they initially put features in StarOffice before adding them to their open source product.  I could also see them allow liberal licensing that allows you access to the source with minimal effort such as just signing a no-compete agreement.  Then there is a possibility that Makerbot could start a release cycle where they offer an initial hobbyist version of a printer and after working out a lot of the kinks releasing a commercial version as one could infer from the Replicator 1 / 2  releases.

Whatever the case, I plan to buy my next 3D printer when I have saved up for it and it will be based on which is the best product for my money when that time comes.  My definition of best would be the one that functions more often than it needs maintenance while providing a printed product suitable for the purpose it is intended.

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 7:51:44 AM UTC-4, Doogiekr wrote:

[ddurant]

> I think it is still possible for them to do a delayed open source model that allows them to sell an innovative product ...

 

Can you say what you find innovative about the replicator or replicator 2?

 

I can understand that people are upset about the 180 MBI seems to have done and I can understand that people who really believe in open source are a bit pissed but is there anything actually innovative that MBI has done in the last couple years? Is there any open source project that would use current MBI tech over, say, RepRap tech from a year ago?

 

People keep saying about how innovative their machines are but I'm not seeing it. Somebody please enlighten me.

[ddurant]

>> Can you say what you find innovative about the replicator or replicator 2?

> Software voltage settings on the steppers.

 

Ok, though I think the usefulness is debatable. I've got the old-school manual ones on my machine and haven't touched them since I put it together. And I probably didn't need to touch them since they were already set correctly. For a pre-built, pre-configured machine targeted at the non-nerd crowd, I don't think users would find this feature very useful..

 

Anything else?

  
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, Mark Cohen wrote:

> Can you say what you find innovative about the replicator or replicator 2?

Software voltage settings on the steppers.

> --
> 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/-/3WLWiI5d3GEJ.

[Adan Akerman]

Do you know if they've changed the drive spur design? I'm glad to hear it's working well.

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Mark Cohen <markc...@gmail.com> wrote:

A very good PLA extruder. I saw these working today. Not one screw up.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/makerbot/-/70hcpHIqJyUJ.

>
> 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.

[ddurant]

The PLA extruder on my Ultimaker has been working fine for over a year. See also: all MakerGear extruders.

 

Anything else?

 
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:32:05 PM UTC-4, Mark Cohen wrote:

A very good PLA extruder. I saw these working today. Not one screw up.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/makerbot/-/70hcpHIqJyUJ.

[Adan Akerman]

Joe, I missed your note earlier. I think it's a good example, not too contrived at all. In any industry, the cost of dealing with counterfeit hardware is huge. Even forgetting lost sales, the risk to reputation and warranty costs is huge in the likely event the counterfeits are lower quality. And that's just one side of it. There are lots of ways where a slightly-more-controlled model could mean a night/day difference in ability to protect oneself while still sharing with the community. Ideology is fun... but real life has complications.

Again, I look forward to hearing their presented reasoning on Thursday.

Adan

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:00 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!    

To put an admittedly contrived and extreme example: let's say some aviation technology was being developed by enthusiasts and shared "open source" -- at some point the idea is widely accepted and companies form to sell that to the general aviation market -- those companies would have to make their parts under stricter control and oversight, the parts would be more expensive, and the official engineering drawings would probably go closed-source to prevent counterfeits from entering the supply chain.

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

[c f]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso =)

I think the definition of 'innovation' varies wildly from person to person, ranging from 'if they didn't invent 3D printing, it's not innovative' to 'hey look, they added round corners!'

[Cymon]

How can we really discussion the innovation in the Rep2 with it being all closed source?

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 7:53:12 PM UTC-6, Mark Cohen wrote:

If I had to list the most important innovation then I would say ease
of use and good software are what the Replicators are going to be
known for. The hardware only needs to do it's job. I think we all know
how to do this hardware now. Not much more left I think.

As Matt Strong that old cat trapper and a man 30 days ahead of his
time said, Makerbot is the best there is and so he will copy it. He
will himself innovate by making an acrylic case and produce it cheaper
and call it Tangibot.Isn't that innovative?

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Mark Cohen <markc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They did put a big M in a circle right smack in the middle. The M of
> course means Mark, which is me. Some people think it stands for
> Makerbot but they really don't know the truth. Nice video, right to
> the point.

[ddurant]

When the tangibot campaign was going, people complained that it didn't bring innovation and therefore sucked. I mentioned, several times, that 30% off the price was a damned good innovation. People ignored me. I wonder, given recent events, how people would react if Tangibot was starting up right now instead...

 

Anyway, I don't really buy the software thing since people using volumetric 5d have been able to do pretty much the same stuff for 18+ months now.. Yes, makerware has fewer button clicks and the UI is a nicer but I'm not sure I'd call that innovation.

 

Again, I keep hearing people talking about all the replicator/replicator2 innovations but they don't say what they are. I'm just wondering if somebody actually knows..

 
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:53:12 PM UTC-4, Mark Cohen wrote:

If I had to list the most important innovation then I would say ease
of use and good software are what the Replicators are going to be
known for. The hardware only needs to do it's job. I think we all know
how to do this hardware now. Not much more left I think.

As Matt Strong that old cat trapper and a man 30 days ahead of his
time said, Makerbot is the best there is and so he will copy it. He
will himself innovate by making an acrylic case and produce it cheaper
and call it Tangibot.Isn't that innovative?

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Mark Cohen <markc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They did put a big M in a circle right smack in the middle. The M of
> course means Mark, which is me. Some people think it stands for
> Makerbot but they really don't know the truth. Nice video, right to
> the point.
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:06 PM, c f <christophe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ddurant]

> How can we really discussion the innovation in the Rep2 with it being all closed source?

 

Or replicator1. Or even what the ToM brought that others didn't already have..

[Joseph Chiu]

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

--

[Joseph Chiu]

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.

[Cymon]

What I meant was with the Rep2 being closed source we have no idea what innovations their bringing to the table. They may have the most amazing changes of any rapid prototyping machine in the worth with little elves inside running the steppers but being closed source we don't know that. So people talk about innovation in the Rep2, I have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm not opposed to the Rep2 or Makerbot going closed source, it doesn't effect me. But it does change the conversations we can have.

[Adan Akerman]

I'm going to be so disappointed now if it turns out there aren't actually any stepper elves :-)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/makerbot/-/ZnHkn62uKSUJ.

[Aaron Double]

Wait, are they the ones who make the cookies?!?!?

Like these guys: http://www.tpolm.org/~ps/iCook/

Aaron Double

[Dan Newman]

On 24 Sep 2012 , at 3:33 AM, Mark Cohen 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.

If you want some fun, google for University of Washington's "free fork"
license. That's a license which Mark Crispin (one of the author's of the
IMAP specifications) had the U Wash. lawyers draw up so that they had a license
which would resist derivatives being locked under GPL.
One version of it is here,

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UofWFreeFork

It's a reasonable license to use if you want to make your software
open but want to pull back any work someone might do with it and put
under GPL.

I'm not trying to argue that the free fork license is a good or bad thing
or that GPL should or should not be avoided. I'm just pointing
out that folks with lawyers have considered this issue in the past and
this was one idea which came out.

Dan

[ddurant]

Wow.. 5-6 responses from you to my one post..

 

People cloning your stuff doesn't mean you're innovative - it means your popular. As I've said many, many times: MBI generates huge amounts of publicity. Being popular isn't really an innovation, though.

 

I mention MakerGear a lot because they make excellent products at a reasonable price - never seen anybody question the quality of their work. Like you said, they started because MBI was selling stuff that barely worked. They might not even exist today if MBI quality hadn't been so poor back then..

 

I don't know why you bring up MG being open source or not - seems irrelevant to what I'm asking. And why bring up who designed their machines? If they weren't using recent MBI innovations, it's totally irrelevant to the question.

 

> Ultimaker has not put out a new model in 2 years

 

Well, that's not really true since the company has only been around since May of last year.. You'd be right to say they have only released one machine in the last 2 years, though. Or 200 years. Or 20000, if you really want to be dramatic. When they started selling their electronics on their website seems totally irrelevant to the question.. Also, I think there's some debate around here on if people like having to buy a totally new machine every year or so. It seems like more people would rather be able to upgrade.

 

You mention repg. Yes, others use it but it's not exactly a recent innovation.

 

> The real innovation from Makerbot is not necessarily in the machines

> themselves but the fact they hired scientists and engineers to do the research

>  to make it. The abs plastics you use today were probably formulated and tested

> by makerbot. At least the ones that work well. Their vendors sell to other

> manufactorers like ultimachine.

 

I've seen nothing to back that up and think it's more likely users bought stuff, found that it didn't work and complained. Either way, hardly a recent innovation especially since MBI seems to be moving towards PLA which the reprap crowd has been favoring for years.

 

So.. You've said software voltage control, which I think may be an innovation but isn't overly useful; a hot end that uses PLA, which isn't really news since reprap has been using PLA successfully for years and MG makes a damned good one; repg, which was good at the time but not really a replicator innovation.

 

Again, I was just asking about innovations that the replicator/replicator2 brought. Anything else?

 
On Monday, September 24, 2012 6:06:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Cohen wrote:

Well gee, it must be the subtle quality if bre-ness then. We have chinese conpanies like mbot3d cloning their machines. Kickstarters cloning their machines and printheads and clearly stating that they are their starting point because the makerbot stuff is the best. Where are the makergear clones and ultimaker clones? Can you name one? Makergear started by making parts for makerbot. Ultimaker used the repg software and firmware to start and until recently did not even put their electronics on the web for sale. Ultimaker has not put out a new model in 2 years. Makergear had someone else design their mosaic printer. Makerbot made the original electronics for reprap.
Why is it whenever you post anything, that it is a not so subtle baiting so that you can turn the conversation to why makergear is so good and makerbot is crap? People expect that now of you. I had to laugh before when you mentioned makergear because i was just about to ask you when you would get to it.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/makerbot/-/-0mrPVzTlocJ.

[Thomas Charron]

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.

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

--
-- Thomas

[Thomas Charron]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Mark Cohen <markc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can you say what you find innovative about the replicator or replicator 2?
> Software voltage settings on the steppers.

As someone who works with motion control as his every day job, I
assure you that really isn't innovative. It's just cheap hardware
catching up. The only reason why it isn't normally software
controlled is that everyone is using small boards to simplify the
usage of the Allegro chip. The chip was MEANT to have the reference
voltage be controlled. For rapid prototyping of the electronics, they
achieved it by using a physical POT, instead of a reference from the
actual controller.

--
-- Thomas

[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.

[Jetguy]

Fair enough, but they did post a critical component here https://github.com/makerbot/MightyBoardFirmware

 

Grab it while you can.

 

Makerware is the inovation behind the new bot + the extruder. We knew that anyway, the key components to any machine are the software doing the g-code creation and the extruder. All the machine has to do is be accurate in positioning. They post the firmware, they post the application, the trick you don't know is how the application is tied to their hardware.

[Thomas Charron]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "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.

By that argument, then the RepRap printers are a derivative of the
Dimension printers. The Makerbot hardware share just as much in
common with them as they do the the RepRap machines. If by extending
the design you mean, it has 3 axis of motion and a hottip that melts
plastic in layers, then sure, I guess. :-D

>> 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.

Then don't state it as a matter of fact as you have now done
multiple times on this very list.

Don't get me wrong, I've been disappointed with Makerbot since the
Cupcake, and refused to get caught up in their pursuit of an out of
the box machine. Their out of the box quality has become better, but
at a 'Upgrade every six months if you want to use it' cost, which
personally annoys the hell out of me. Not releasing a qualitative
upgrade path for existing stuff, when they cost so much in the first
place.. Well, that right there is my reason for not liking what
they've done.

And I can say I think it's crappy what they've done over time, but
to make a legal accusation is a completely different matter.

--
-- Thomas

[JohnA.]

This might be in another thread already:

http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/24/lets-try-that-again/

New post today....


JohnA.

[Jetguy]

After reading an interesting post at the blog:

Basically, they have had a closed license for their hardware all long.
Back in the older bots, they used FTDI as the USB interface, but the
Mightyboard was the first to be a custom board with an 8u2 chip acting
as the USB interface. So while thye opened the source, legally, unless
you go and purchase a license with your own VID and PID, you cannot
load the firmware on the 8u2 as you are not MakerBot. This way, it's
not just that a cloner copied the hardware, but they violated a USB
license which is probably easier to enforce.

On that note, that's why I posted the link earlier since Makerbot did
a full release on the Mightyboard and inadvertently set people up by
providing the all important 8u2 hex, which has their licensed VID. You
shouldn't sell a product with that, as it's a violation (testing, you
are also required to buy a VID), so legally, don't flash the 8u2, use
a FTDI chip instead.

Adafruit has a great explanation on that whole topic under Arduino
changes. Basically, the same thing behind Arduino clones.

So now you are asking, why is this significant to me?
Well, until they release a Beta in November/ December, Makerware won't
be able to work with anything BUT a genuine Makerbot Mightyboard/
Mightyboard 2 with the correct VID and PID.
This is because the Arduino Mega 1280 has a FTDI chip and it's
associated VID/PID, same is true for the Mega 2560 but it has the
Arduino VID/PID, and in theory, any Mightyboard clone or other board
with a 1280 would take the main firmware, but would have a non
MakerBot VID/PID.


On Sep 24, 11:52 am, Jetguy <barrych...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Fair enough, but they did post a critical component here *https://github.com/makerbot/MightyBoardFirmware*<https://github.com/makerbot/MightyBoardFirmware>

>
> Grab it while you can.
>
> Makerware is the inovation behind the new bot + the extruder. We knew that
> anyway, the key components to any machine are the software doing the g-code
> creation and the extruder. All the machine has to do is be accurate in
> positioning. They post the firmware, they post the application, the trick
> you don't know is how the application is tied to their hardware.
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 24, 2012 11:38:54 AM UTC-4, Thomas Charron wrote:

> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com<javascript:>>

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

> > -- Thomas- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Matthew Marlowe]

All,

So, my reading of the latest blog entry is that Be has switched to the
philosophy that a large company does not make its key intellectual
property open, and that Bre has decided that the replicator2 hardware
design + the code powering the new makerware gui fall under that.
Fair enough.

So, that just leaves the questions about:
* support for existing replicator1 owners will be impacted? Much less
attention from makerbot? Pushed to use non open-source makerware? Any
restrictions with new firmware? Less availability of upgrade parts?
* what should replicator1 owners that purchased their printers because
they were an open platform do? Avoid makerware? Support other
projects and organizations that attempt to extend the published
replicator1 platform?

Matt

[Jack Coats]

Individuals and businesses need to make the decision on how important
'open' is to them.

If Makerbot decides to close its source and/or hardware, I am sure
they will do well. But to use a biblical reference, I believe it is
time for people who 'open' is important to, to knock the dust of
Makerbot off their shoes, and go start or join another movement.

RepRap.org is the mother of many additive making projects, including
Makerbot. I think it would be a good place to go. As a typical open
source project, new support from the community is always appreciated.

There is no need to try to change Makerbot's mind, but I hope they
will. If they do change their mind, this entire deviation of
direction will stay in the back of my mind. They have decided to do
what they need to do. So just let them do it. If you want to support
their decisions, that is OK too.

[Shawn]

First, my apologies to Matthew as my comments are not directed at him
personally, but his message was just the last of a series I think I
should comment on. :)

I love how the OS advocates are avoiding the facts to justify their
perception. I spent many many years as an OS advocate myself - and
still consider myself very much involved in the movement. But I'm also
a business owner and have learned to actually read what was being said
and read between the lines.

I read through Bre's post today and this is my take. MBI created a
metal frame and PVC panels for the Rep2. THIS is what is now "closed".
They are not releasing details of how they built that frame. This is
in an attempt to avoid blatant clones like the Tangibot that add nothing
but their logo and try to sell it as their own. Other than that, the
extruders and electronics have been documented at various places on the
Interwebs, and the Rep2 has made only rudimentary changes (if any) to
these. The electronics and extruder is still open. MakerWare was
developed by MBI as a ground up replacement for repG. In doing so, they
avoided many problems (I hate that I have to install Java6 just to run
RepG) and made improvements. That is new code and belongs to them.
They can license that code however they see fit, without worrying about
stepping on existing licenses. The tools MakerWare uses - SF/Miracle
Grue - ARE open source and will remain to be.

So, all this drama and wasted electrons because MBI isn't going to tell
us how to build their metal frame. Which any of us here should be able
to figure out in about 2 minutes. The MakerWare product is their
product and they can freely choose to put whatever license on it they
want. They could have chosen not to share it with us, but they did (and
are being burned for it). EVERYTHING else is still open (from my
understanding), so I fail to see why we need so much drama.

For those advocates that say that MBI is taking their hard work and
making cash from it without a nod in their direction... My comment here
would be that if MBI is in violation of a license - and you can prove it
with fact, not hyperbole - go after them with everything you got. BUT,
if you are only claiming "it's not fair", then perhaps you need to
re-read what the respective open sources licenses say or don't say, and
maybe change your work to a license that better reflects your desires.

There IS room to say that MBI is leaving existing customer's hanging.
This seems to be a historical problem (as stated in various recent
threads). But, if you/we can only complain about it then I think you/we
are part of the problem. Instead, how about finding a solution to the
problem that makes everyone happy without resorting to absolutes like
"you can't ever go closed source", or "we have to close source it to
profit". There IS some solution in the middle of the extremes, and if
that discussion doesn't happen, the solution will never come to light.

In short, I think MBI has been unfairly crucified this past week based
on speculation and poor information. I also think they have a problem
dealing with existing customers (myself included). But we have to give
them at least a few days to begin addressing the concerns or putting
their game plan in action before we just hang em out to dry. So I'm
happy to wait a week or two before I start asking about how do I buy the
better support arms, or the 3 point levelling platform, etc. Hopefully
they offer these as simple upgrade kits.

My thoughts.

[Matthew Marlowe]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Shawn <sgr...@open2space.com> wrote:
> First, my apologies to Matthew as my comments are not directed at him
> personally, but his message was just the last of a series I think I should
> comment on. :)
>

OK...
But note that I haven't made a single comment about thingiverse..
And, I haven't said makerbot has done something wrong,

On the other hand, as someone who purchased a replicator1 just two
months ago because it was open-source and that it had a history of
supporting its older products with upgrades/parts or letting the
community participate in product evolution, I have expressed concern
that Makerbot's changes may be impacting my confidence in their
achieving those expectations. I've stated that I am delaying an
immediate upgrade to the newer makerware/firmware. And, I've also
inquired if there are other communities/organizations that should be
supported and could fill in any gaps with regard to newer
software/support/firmware/upgrades.

This, to me, seems fairly reasonable.

> I love how the OS advocates are avoiding the facts to justify their
> perception. I spent many many years as an OS advocate myself - and still
> consider myself very much involved in the movement. But I'm also a business
> owner and have learned to actually read what was being said and read between
> the lines.
>

I'm a business owner myself...I'm not sure that has anything to do
with anything....but OK. Let's look at facts.

> I read through Bre's post today and this is my take. MBI created a metal
> frame and PVC panels for the Rep2. THIS is what is now "closed". They are

I think we read it differently. I read it as Bre putting into writing
exactly "what and why".
The why being that going forward, he thinks his business is now at a
size that it can no longer share everything, but will keep key
intellectual property closed.
As for what, he indicated the changes from replicator 1 to 2 and the
new GUI software.

The details of what of course are not relevant. It may be tiny today
but could grow substantial tomorrow.

> not releasing details of how they built that frame. This is in an attempt
> to avoid blatant clones like the Tangibot that add nothing but their logo
> and try to sell it as their own. Other than that, the extruders and
> electronics have been documented at various places on the Interwebs, and the
> Rep2 has made only rudimentary changes (if any) to these. The electronics
> and extruder is still open.

Yes, I read all the above and I was happy to see that Bre thought his
company was still essentially open because the replicator2 was not
that different from the replicator1, and that the specs for
replicator1 have been published.

> MakerWare was developed by MBI as a ground up
> replacement for repG. In doing so, they avoided many problems (I hate that
> I have to install Java6 just to run RepG) and made improvements. That is
> new code and belongs to them. They can license that code however they see
> fit, without worrying about stepping on existing licenses. The tools
> MakerWare uses - SF/Miracle Grue - ARE open source and will remain to be.
>

I'm not sure what the point of the above is....as regard to the
integration of other tools like SF/slicer/etc, I consider that a
deficiency. As we've seen, when makerbot integrates all the other
open-source tools into its own GUI, it makes it very hard to upgrade
those tools separately. Much of the flexibility for the user is lost
and users are kept from being able to test newer versions of
components or to write their own replacement. What we have is a new
closed source GUI...those of us who care about open-source will have a
choice about whether to use it. I'd be happier if makerbot just said,
"These are the tools and versions that are known to work with the
replicator, these are the settings/changes you'll need to use them,
and oh btw -- we have a nice closed-source gui you can install that in
addition to those tools if you want to make things simple".

> So, all this drama and wasted electrons because MBI isn't going to tell us
> how to build their metal frame. Which any of us here should be able to
> figure out in about 2 minutes. The MakerWare product is their product and
> they can freely choose to put whatever license on it they want. They could
> have chosen not to share it with us, but they did (and are being burned for
> it). EVERYTHING else is still open (from my understanding), so I fail to
> see why we need so much drama.
>

Doh -- I'm not seeing this as drama, except in that the value of the
equipment that I purchased from makerbot may have reduced in value
because I have less confidence they will deliver on the
upgrade/support path that was originally described. I haven't said
MBI is bad or that people shouldn't use makerware....it's their
choice.

Some of us, very reasonably and rationally, might just be starting to
wonder on what a fallback plan should be....and, if the recent
changes, should be a signal to consider forming or joining other
communities. I think that is fair, and probably a good business
practice!

> For those advocates that say that MBI is taking their hard work and making
> cash from it without a nod in their direction... My comment here would be
> that if MBI is in violation of a license - and you can prove it with fact,
> not hyperbole - go after them with everything you got. BUT, if you are only
> claiming "it's not fair", then perhaps you need to re-read what the
> respective open sources licenses say or don't say, and maybe change your
> work to a license that better reflects your desires.
>

I've never claimed this.

> There IS room to say that MBI is leaving existing customer's hanging. This
> seems to be a historical problem (as stated in various recent threads).
> But, if you/we can only complain about it then I think you/we are part of
> the problem. Instead, how about finding a solution to the problem that
> makes everyone happy without resorting to absolutes like "you can't ever go
> closed source", or "we have to close source it to profit". There IS some
> solution in the middle of the extremes, and if that discussion doesn't
> happen, the solution will never come to light.
>

I haven't said MBI can't go open-source. I've said that since my
confidence in them has been removed, I need and want to form a
fallback plan.

> In short, I think MBI has been unfairly crucified this past week based on
> speculation and poor information. I also think they have a problem dealing
> with existing customers (myself included). But we have to give them at
> least a few days to begin addressing the concerns or putting their game plan
> in action before we just hang em out to dry. So I'm happy to wait a week or
> two before I start asking about how do I buy the better support arms, or the
> 3 point levelling platform, etc. Hopefully they offer these as simple
> upgrade kits.
>

I agree that the thingiverse thing has been overdone, otherwise
Makerbot has gotten off very lightly. A crucification would be
several customers requesting that makerbot buy back their printers
because the company may no longer be OSHW. We're not there and I
think most open-source advocates have better things to do....like
considering a fallback plan and alternatives for support, replacement
parts, upgrades, and firmware/software.

> My thoughts.
>
>

Matt

--
https://www.twitter.com/deploylinux

[Rob Myers]

On 09/24/2012 04:14 PM, Dan Newman wrote:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UofWFreeFork
>
> It's a reasonable license to use if you want to make your software
> open but want to pull back any work someone might do with it and put
> under GPL.

It appears to impose a more burdensome set of requirements than the GPL
just in order to spite the GPL.

Wow.

- Rob.

[Rob Myers]

On 09/23/2012 09:34 PM, Bartee wrote:
> Then there is a possibility that Makerbot could start a
> release cycle where they offer an initial hobbyist version of a printer
> and after working out a lot of the kinks releasing a commercial version
> as one could infer from the Replicator 1 / 2 releases.

Like Red Hat do with Fedora and RHEL.

You can pay in time and effort for access to new features early, or you
can pay in cash for solid corporate support.

I think that's an excellent idea.

- Rob.