Some 3D printing news
86 views
Skip to first unread message
Stuart Young
Sep 20, 2012, 3:44:44 AM9/20/12
to CCHS
First off the bat, seems that MakerBot Industries is going closed source with their new Replicator 2. Josef Prusa rang them, asked them point blank and they told him it's closed source. Nothing on the "official" channels, though they are supposedly speaking at the Open Hardware Summit (though given they've said it's closed source like this, no idea what they'd be talking at an Open Hardware Summit about!). While in some ways this may be in response to the TangiBot (A kickstarter that was someone's attempt to make the original Replicator from the open source docs, cheaper - which failed to get anywhere near the required amount of funding I might add as everyone realised that it was a stupid idea and bound to shoot the idea of Open Hardware in the foot if it got funding), there's a lot of talk that it might be partly to make MakerBot more sellable (ie: to sell the company off and get a higher return).
Links: http://josefprusa.cz/open-hardware-meaning/ and https://plus.google.com/105535247347788377245/posts/VwTfXQ4PdF2 cover it mostly.
Also, seems that Thingiverse has changed the ToS for the site, and as a result, a number of high profile people who have objects there are about to start pulling them down. If you've got objects you are wanting to print but haven't downloaded yet, you might want to grab them quick smart, just in case they start disappearing. FWIW: Thingiverse is owned by MakerBot Industries. As part of this, you will probably see "Occupy Thingiverse" objects pop up all over the place, which are being used to get the word out on Thingiverse itself. It's also been mentioned that this change of the ToS works toward the above mentioned goal of making MakerBot more sellable.
Links: http://www.thingiverse.com/legal (specifically section 3.2), and the first Occupy Thingiverse object http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30808
Note: Josef Prusa will have his stuff hosted elsewhere (like on his own site, github, etc), but until an alternative pops up (and it seems a number of them are in the works), there might be a bit of a vacuum, hence the above note about "objects disappearing".
Also of note: There is a blog post at http://marcuswolschon.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/occupy-thingiverse.html that is covering both events (since they appear to be inter-related), and he says he'll update it with new stuff as soon as he hears it, so might be worth watching for info.
All up: Only time will tell if this is just a storm in a teacup. or a real problem that will affect the 3D printing community.
--
Stuart Young (aka Cefiar)
Links: http://josefprusa.cz/open-hardware-meaning/ and https://plus.google.com/105535247347788377245/posts/VwTfXQ4PdF2 cover it mostly.
Also, seems that Thingiverse has changed the ToS for the site, and as a result, a number of high profile people who have objects there are about to start pulling them down. If you've got objects you are wanting to print but haven't downloaded yet, you might want to grab them quick smart, just in case they start disappearing. FWIW: Thingiverse is owned by MakerBot Industries. As part of this, you will probably see "Occupy Thingiverse" objects pop up all over the place, which are being used to get the word out on Thingiverse itself. It's also been mentioned that this change of the ToS works toward the above mentioned goal of making MakerBot more sellable.
Links: http://www.thingiverse.com/legal (specifically section 3.2), and the first Occupy Thingiverse object http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30808
Note: Josef Prusa will have his stuff hosted elsewhere (like on his own site, github, etc), but until an alternative pops up (and it seems a number of them are in the works), there might be a bit of a vacuum, hence the above note about "objects disappearing".
Also of note: There is a blog post at http://marcuswolschon.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/occupy-thingiverse.html that is covering both events (since they appear to be inter-related), and he says he'll update it with new stuff as soon as he hears it, so might be worth watching for info.
All up: Only time will tell if this is just a storm in a teacup. or a real problem that will affect the 3D printing community.
--
Stuart Young (aka Cefiar)
Luke Weston
Sep 20, 2012, 1:04:26 PM9/20/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
It's easy to beat them, in terms of delivering a technologically superior product. (For example, not a stupid plywood box that vibrates.)
Simply deliver superior engineering then they do, release it and improve it and re-release it on a faster cycle than they do, and keep it open source. Furthermore, keep the superior engineering as simple and streamlined as possible, so the parts count is as small as possible and it's easy to construct and relatively cheap to construct so it's accessible to everybody, and well documented, and that allows the RepRap community to keep the edge over MakerBot.
Put a clear open license - like CERN Open Hardware License or TAPR Open Hardware License - on everything so they can't just take it and lock it up into a closed product.
When STL files are released onto the Web via some website including but not limited to Thingiverse, do they have a license specified? Maybe license terms need to be specified on 3D designs to keep them open - is something like the CERNOHL or TAPROHL applicable and sensible when applied to a 3D device model? If so I guess one should be used, to prevent bad people ripping them off.
Simply deliver superior engineering then they do, release it and improve it and re-release it on a faster cycle than they do, and keep it open source. Furthermore, keep the superior engineering as simple and streamlined as possible, so the parts count is as small as possible and it's easy to construct and relatively cheap to construct so it's accessible to everybody, and well documented, and that allows the RepRap community to keep the edge over MakerBot.
Put a clear open license - like CERN Open Hardware License or TAPR Open Hardware License - on everything so they can't just take it and lock it up into a closed product.
When STL files are released onto the Web via some website including but not limited to Thingiverse, do they have a license specified? Maybe license terms need to be specified on 3D designs to keep them open - is something like the CERNOHL or TAPROHL applicable and sensible when applied to a 3D device model? If so I guess one should be used, to prevent bad people ripping them off.
Jan Schmidt
Sep 20, 2012, 4:46:28 PM9/20/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 17:44 +1000, Stuart Young wrote:
>
> Links: http://www.thingiverse.com/legal (specifically section 3.2),
> and the first Occupy Thingiverse object
> http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30808
>
> Note: Josef Prusa will have his stuff hosted elsewhere (like on his
> own site, github, etc), but until an alternative pops up (and it seems
> a number of them are in the works), there might be a bit of a vacuum,
> hence the above note about "objects disappearing".
As I said to Joe on twitter, I don't really understand what he's
>
> Links: http://www.thingiverse.com/legal (specifically section 3.2),
> and the first Occupy Thingiverse object
> http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30808
>
> Note: Josef Prusa will have his stuff hosted elsewhere (like on his
> own site, github, etc), but until an alternative pops up (and it seems
> a number of them are in the works), there might be a bit of a vacuum,
> hence the above note about "objects disappearing".
objecting to in the ToS. It seems obvious to me that if you upload an
object to thingiverse, they have no rights to put it on the website
unless you grant them some license.
Combined, clauses 3.2 and 3.3 give you a way to do that which a) lets
Thingiverse publically display the object, rendererings, and allow
derivatives and whatnot (a non-exclusive license, they're not taking
"ownership" like Joe seems worried about). Simultaneously, by doing it
this way, you still get to publish objects that are 'all rights
reserved', and Thingiverse so other people still have to ask your
permission to work with it.
J.
--
Jan Schmidt <tha...@noraisin.net>
Stuart Young
Sep 20, 2012, 9:07:02 PM9/20/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
On 21 September 2012 03:04, Luke Weston <reindeer...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's easy to beat them, in terms of delivering a technologically superior product. (For example, not a stupid plywood box that vibrates.)
The new Replicator 2 is a steel chassis affair, and while some of it looks the same, they've changed enough that it's a significantly different machine.
Simply deliver superior engineering then they do, release it and improve it and re-release it on a faster cycle than they do, and keep it open source. Furthermore, keep the superior engineering as simple and streamlined as possible, so the parts count is as small as possible and it's easy to construct and relatively cheap to construct so it's accessible to everybody, and well documented, and that allows the RepRap community to keep the edge over MakerBot.
Put a clear open license - like CERN Open Hardware License or TAPR Open Hardware License - on everything so they can't just take it and lock it up into a closed product.
When STL files are released onto the Web via some website including but not limited to Thingiverse, do they have a license specified? Maybe license terms need to be specified on 3D designs to keep them open - is something like the CERNOHL or TAPROHL applicable and sensible when applied to a 3D device model? If so I guess one should be used, to prevent bad people ripping them off.
The wording could suggest that whatever license you put them under, if you're the content producer and you then upload it to thingiverse, you are waving all your rights to the object, including attribution to the original design.
I'm not a lawyer, and I know that Josef isn't either, but the wording of all of section 3.2 does seem a bit worrying. I'm just hoping that it gets clarified a bit to prove one way or another MakerBot's stance on Thingiverse.
Seems that a lot of people are now investigating building a new hub for things, which from all indications could address some of the technical issues thingiverse has always had, such as versioning.
damie...@gmail.com
Sep 20, 2012, 9:36:18 PM9/20/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
On 21 September 2012 11:07, Stuart Young <cef...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
> The wording could suggest that whatever license you put them under, if
> you're the content producer and you then upload it to thingiverse, you are
> waving all your rights to the object, including attribution to the original
> design.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, and I know that Josef isn't either, but the wording of all
> of section 3.2 does seem a bit worrying. I'm just hoping that it gets
> clarified a bit to prove one way or another MakerBot's stance on
> Thingiverse.
IMHO:
They're not reducing your rights as a
creator/artist/designer/hacker/inventor/maker/IP-owner, but they are
in practise giving themselves all the rights you have to your designs
-- they can do whatever they want with anything you post there.
Another way to look at it: Thingiverse is doing a Facebook.
Cheers,
Damien
--
Damie...@gmail.com
snip
> The wording could suggest that whatever license you put them under, if
> you're the content producer and you then upload it to thingiverse, you are
> waving all your rights to the object, including attribution to the original
> design.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, and I know that Josef isn't either, but the wording of all
> of section 3.2 does seem a bit worrying. I'm just hoping that it gets
> clarified a bit to prove one way or another MakerBot's stance on
> Thingiverse.
They're not reducing your rights as a
creator/artist/designer/hacker/inventor/maker/IP-owner, but they are
in practise giving themselves all the rights you have to your designs
-- they can do whatever they want with anything you post there.
Another way to look at it: Thingiverse is doing a Facebook.
Cheers,
Damien
--
Damie...@gmail.com
Robert Eales
Sep 20, 2012, 10:26:49 PM9/20/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
Yeah it's very interesting and it is something that I have been expecting to see develop for a while but was not expecting it from this group/company.
I believe at some point there is going to be some skirmishes on the edge of the patent/license border with people potentially starting to 'patent' forms, objects and hardware developed through open source channels and locking up that knowledge. -or- a hacker independently and without prior knowledge develops and releases some hardware that infringes a patent and is pursued for that. This is something 'big business' takes seriously Apple vs Samsung being a case in point.
For example Kaipa's comments about the Stratasys patent on RichRap 3-way colour blending nozzle http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:23775, I'm waiting to see how that pans out (while making sure that I have a copy of the files in case they are removed).
In fact I would be interested in adding an item to the Skills Matrix maybe centred around an discussion of licenses, what might be suitable and what types there are, as well as open patents, how they could be developed and applied. I am sensitive to the strong learning and hacking focus of the space and I'm not interested in making it 'business-like' in any sense but as someone who is looking to release some open-source hardware in the not too distant future I'm interested in how I can manage the sharing of my 'open-source' knowledge.
Rob
--
Rob Eales
Web Administrator
Victorian EcoInnovation Lab (VEIL)
www.ecoinnovationlab.com
www.sustainablemelbourne.com
www.sustainablecitiesnet.com
www.regenerationconference.org
I believe at some point there is going to be some skirmishes on the edge of the patent/license border with people potentially starting to 'patent' forms, objects and hardware developed through open source channels and locking up that knowledge. -or- a hacker independently and without prior knowledge develops and releases some hardware that infringes a patent and is pursued for that. This is something 'big business' takes seriously Apple vs Samsung being a case in point.
For example Kaipa's comments about the Stratasys patent on RichRap 3-way colour blending nozzle http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:23775, I'm waiting to see how that pans out (while making sure that I have a copy of the files in case they are removed).
In fact I would be interested in adding an item to the Skills Matrix maybe centred around an discussion of licenses, what might be suitable and what types there are, as well as open patents, how they could be developed and applied. I am sensitive to the strong learning and hacking focus of the space and I'm not interested in making it 'business-like' in any sense but as someone who is looking to release some open-source hardware in the not too distant future I'm interested in how I can manage the sharing of my 'open-source' knowledge.
Rob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Connected Community HackerSpace" group.
To post to this group, send an email to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to connected-community-h...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Rob Eales
Web Administrator
Victorian EcoInnovation Lab (VEIL)
www.ecoinnovationlab.com
www.sustainablemelbourne.com
www.sustainablecitiesnet.com
www.regenerationconference.org
Angus Gratton
Sep 20, 2012, 10:20:36 PM9/20/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
I'm not a lawyer either, but my reading of clause 3.2 is similar to
Jan's. Thingiverse can't do "whatever they want" with what you post
there. That clause says that the rights you give up to thingiverse are:
"solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and
Services."
Services being defined as:
"service for users to share digital designs that can be printed on 3D
printers to create physical objects (collectively, with all other
services provided through the Site, the "Services"".)
The uses that license covers them for include things like storing copies
on their servers (reproduce), generate rendered previews of 3d model
files (ie derivative works), featuring designs on their site front page
(ie publicly display and perform), and the other things that they need
to do to run the site.
The license they ask for is neither transferable to other parties nor
sublicensable (unlike Facebook, among many other sites.) So it only
ever applies to them.
The worst thing I can see about the license is that it's
"irrevocable", so even if you cancel your account Thingiverse LLC still
has the right to host your content on the site.
It could no doubt be better from our point of view, but
in my opinion comparing it to the expandable/catch-all copyright
licenses used by some other sites is totally unfair. Thingiverse also
has to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits.
With some luck the smart minds at http://tos-dr.info/ (a great site!)
will come up with a nice summary soon.
Anyhow, that's my uninformed 2c (sorry for such a un-hackery first post
to this list!),
- Angus
damie...@gmail.com
Sep 22, 2012, 1:18:56 AM9/22/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
HI Angus,
Ta for the explanation.
Sorry for the over-reaction -- not as bad as I'd feared, but still
something to think about.
Cheers,
Damien
Ta for the explanation.
Sorry for the over-reaction -- not as bad as I'd feared, but still
something to think about.
Cheers,
Damien
Robert Eales
Sep 22, 2012, 11:25:00 PM9/22/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
Further discussion on this for anyone interested.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/makerbot/OBCuJxHWAVI
esp. the comment from Luis E. Rodriguez with a link to a post with Bre Pettis' reply in which he answer comments etc.
http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/20/fixing-misinformation-with-information/
Cheers
Rob
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/makerbot/OBCuJxHWAVI
esp. the comment from Luis E. Rodriguez with a link to a post with Bre Pettis' reply in which he answer comments etc.
http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/20/fixing-misinformation-with-information/
Cheers
Rob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Connected Community HackerSpace" group.
To post to this group, send an email to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to connected-community-h...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
willy
Sep 23, 2012, 12:56:18 AM9/23/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
"we are going to be as open as we possibly can while building a sustainable business"
Bre says a lot, but he also says nothing.
Bre is getting to come across a lot like Steve Wozniak... before long
the corporate droids will have installed him in his own secluded office with a view,
wheeling him out just for product launch warm-n-fuzzies publicity.
(Wozniak goes one better, he wheels himself on a Sedgway)
otoh i don't quite understand all this uproar over "closed source"
if MBI really loved their customers, they could easily have just twisted the whole lot to say
they won't release the sourcecode whilst the product is in current production/sale
but they'll let old designs loose once its successor is out
Not like it'll stem any china cloning anyway... they can do 'analogue copy' of anything.
Luke Weston
Sep 23, 2012, 2:25:23 AM9/23/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
On Sunday, 23 September 2012 14:56:18 UTC+10, willy wrote:
"we are going to be as open as we possibly can while building a sustainable business"
So, in other words, they think that they can't have the basic hardware / firmware that is the basis open source and still have a viable business? That's completely wrong.
There is a huge difference between something like a DIY RepRap which is highly labour intensive to choose components for, build, set up, debug, maintain and operate, and a "polished" commercial off-the-shelf 3D printer that you buy at a relatively high price which Just Works. There is a commercial market for selling the latter, and the business model isn't dependent on making fundamental changes to the engineering and requiring that the intellectual property in the firmware, electronics, etc. be kept closed and locked up.
Robert Eales
Sep 23, 2012, 2:55:01 AM9/23/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
So, in other words, they think that they can't have the basic hardware / firmware that is the basis open source and still have a viable business? That's completely wrong.
That being said, it may be more nuanced than that, for example it could be argued that MBI have used a crowd-sourced innovation + open-source distribution model in the past and they are looking to change that model to be, for example, a crowd-sourced innovation + closed-sourced distribution model.
Potentially more tricky? Well I guess if a major source of innovation and ideas for their products come from the community and the community is happy to develop and share their ideas because they know that the further development of these (by companies or individuals) are released back into the community then they may have a tougher time convincing hackers to participate if their efforts end up as part of a closed-loop package.
Still they are at the edge of new developments when it comes to open-source business models so I will be watching with interest.
Cheers (and sorry for the long post)
Rob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Connected Community HackerSpace" group.
To post to this group, send an email to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to connected-community-h...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/connected-community-hackerspace/-/lGap28J_F4sJ.
Luke Weston
Sep 23, 2012, 3:44:20 AM9/23/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
Well obviously they cannot just take crowd-sourced innovation and lock up that intellectual property in their product and keep it closed if the crowd-sourced engineering was shared under an open license.
If there's one clear small lesson from this, I think it's that anyone in the community who is innovating with open-source software or hardware for relatively low-cost 3D printing needs to be careful and needs to be clear about stipulating license conditions on their intellectual property before sticking it up on the Web to share.
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 17:45:06 UTC+10, Cefiar wrote:
If there's one clear small lesson from this, I think it's that anyone in the community who is innovating with open-source software or hardware for relatively low-cost 3D printing needs to be careful and needs to be clear about stipulating license conditions on their intellectual property before sticking it up on the Web to share.
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 17:45:06 UTC+10, Cefiar wrote:
Clifford Heath
Sep 23, 2012, 11:29:14 AM9/23/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
BSD and MIT licenses allow shipping binary using closed source and with extensions. You can't close the original, and you must acknowledge (dependent on version) but you can do closed source derivatives. Sometimes those become good enough that ppl forget the original. I've also seen such such things become locked up under GPL, and had to search far and wide to find the original less-restricted version, so it cuts both ways. Personally I refuse to apply GPL to my work unless it derives from GPL. If you want to give something away, do so. Don't give with one hand and take with the other, as GPL does, is my view.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Connected Community HackerSpace" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to connected-community-h...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/connected-community-hackerspace/-/vnhS-VIWgsYJ.
Andy Gelme
Sep 23, 2012, 12:00:25 PM9/23/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
hi All,
On 2012-09-24 01:29 , Clifford Heath wrote:
>
> Personally I refuse to apply GPL to my work unless it derives from
> GPL. If you want to give something away, do so. Don't give with one
> hand and take with the other, as GPL does, is my view.
>
I'm very reluctant to see our list devolve into a long thread about
licenses. These discussions / arguments have been going on for around 3
decades now.
However, since there some newcomers in our group ... I'll just present a
brief alternative view (and then run out of the room). Note: My
perspective on this whole subject is much more complex than what I'm
about to state.
We have to consider the Tragedy of the Commons
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)
Many commercial organizations (that I've seen first-hand) will happy use
and incorporate open-source into their products / services, because it
can dramatically reduce their costs. However, they will often *not*
give back to the community by sharing their code improvements, typically
because they believe they will loss their competitive edge, won't be as
valuable to investors, perhaps they can't be bothered ... or don't
understand the significant benefits of having a great relationship with
the open development community.
The GPL can level the playing field ... if an organization or individual
receives benefit from the common pool of software, then they are bound
by the GPL license to return something of benefit to the common pool of
software, when they distribute GPL software that they have modified or
improved.
Another important result is that the GPL actively prevents machines that
we use (based on hardware and software) from becoming something that we
can't understand, repair or improve ... because we don't have access to
the exact version of software source-code deployed in those machines.
Three examples to consider: all of the GNU code base, the Linux kernel
and BusyBox (which is used by many hardware vendors for consumer
electronics). If you haven't done so before, it is worth seeing how
BusyBox (and our ability to understand devices in our homes) has been
protected by the GPL.
BSD (and other permissive) licenses have resulted in many excellent
projects and communities built-up around those project. So, there is
room in the world for both.
Okay, I'm quickly backing out of the room now !
--
-O- cheers = /\ /\/ /) `/ =
--O -- http://www.geekscape.org --
OOO -- an...@geekscape.org -- http://twitter.com/geekscape --
On 2012-09-24 01:29 , Clifford Heath wrote:
>
> Personally I refuse to apply GPL to my work unless it derives from
> GPL. If you want to give something away, do so. Don't give with one
> hand and take with the other, as GPL does, is my view.
>
licenses. These discussions / arguments have been going on for around 3
decades now.
However, since there some newcomers in our group ... I'll just present a
brief alternative view (and then run out of the room). Note: My
perspective on this whole subject is much more complex than what I'm
about to state.
We have to consider the Tragedy of the Commons
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)
Many commercial organizations (that I've seen first-hand) will happy use
and incorporate open-source into their products / services, because it
can dramatically reduce their costs. However, they will often *not*
give back to the community by sharing their code improvements, typically
because they believe they will loss their competitive edge, won't be as
valuable to investors, perhaps they can't be bothered ... or don't
understand the significant benefits of having a great relationship with
the open development community.
The GPL can level the playing field ... if an organization or individual
receives benefit from the common pool of software, then they are bound
by the GPL license to return something of benefit to the common pool of
software, when they distribute GPL software that they have modified or
improved.
Another important result is that the GPL actively prevents machines that
we use (based on hardware and software) from becoming something that we
can't understand, repair or improve ... because we don't have access to
the exact version of software source-code deployed in those machines.
Three examples to consider: all of the GNU code base, the Linux kernel
and BusyBox (which is used by many hardware vendors for consumer
electronics). If you haven't done so before, it is worth seeing how
BusyBox (and our ability to understand devices in our homes) has been
protected by the GPL.
BSD (and other permissive) licenses have resulted in many excellent
projects and communities built-up around those project. So, there is
room in the world for both.
Okay, I'm quickly backing out of the room now !
--
-O- cheers = /\ /\/ /) `/ =
--O -- http://www.geekscape.org --
OOO -- an...@geekscape.org -- http://twitter.com/geekscape --
Robert Stürzbecher
Sep 25, 2012, 3:28:21 AM9/25/12
to connected-commu...@googlegroups.com
To me it seems like a lot of fuss over something small.
To me their argument sounds fair. They have investors and people that depend upon a ROI, To protect them self from spending $$ on R&D and product design only to have that data used for cheap Chinese clones that under cut them is not fair.
I hope that even tho they say closed source that they do release it as opensource after the honeymoon period is over and they have made their money back.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages