Fwd: MakerBot’s Mixed Messages About Open Source, Their Future

[Joshua D. Johnson]

You guys probably all get this, I thought it was excellent.

MAKE - MakerBot’s Mixed Messages About Open Source, Their Future In This Issue... MakerBot’s Mixed Messages About Open Source, Their Future More Recent Articles (This is a followup to my post: Is One of Our Open Source Heroes Going Closed Source?) In the wake of MakerBot’s Replicator 2 announcement, there has been a lot of discussion and questioning about the open source status of the company’s offerings. The MakerWare software used to control both the new printer and the original Replicator is available for download now. It is clearly closed source, even though it contains some open source software, and instead of being open source, they are offering a developer program. When asked if the Replicator 2 will be open source hardware, the response in a post by Bre Pettis on the MakerBot blog never directly answered the question. Instead, the response indicates that they no longer believe that they can have a “sustainable business” with open hardware, citing a lack of “large, successful open hardware companies.” At one point Bre even questions, “Will we be successful? I hope so, but even if we are not, everyone will find out that either being as open as possible is a good thing for business or that nobody should do it, or something in between.” This doesn’t seem to indicate that they have a clear plan that they are confident of. The comments on the page are generally critical of the lack of a direct answer, and Bre responded to each in turn with his own comment. He still does not directly answer the primary question, but does attempt to more directly explain why: Lasivian Uh, FYI, You posed this question: “Question 1: Is the MakerBot Replicator 2 Open Source?” But you do not answer it. You just dance around it and throw out a bunch of happy words about open source. Bre Responds: Lasivian – Folks really want a black or white answer, but in my experience, it just doesn’t work that way when combining open source, hardware, and business. There is an open hardware definition, but it’s a far throw from a business model. Chris B Doesn’t seem like there are some wildly different issues faced by ‘open hardware’ than by ‘open software’ and there are many examples of very successful and very large businesses doing open software and providing services as a way to make money. The analogies are there. Innovate and capitalize on services and enterprise features while remaining open with your core like the big boys do. Bre responds: Chris B – Software and hardware have some similarities, but it’s really different stuff. But I take your point about service and we are adding a pro-level of support by offering MakerCare. Will people purchase it? We’ll see. Bre’s statements and answers alternate between confidence and uncertainty for MakerBot’s future, and seems to indicate that they don’t have a definite plan of action. Adrian Bowyer, founding father of the RepRap project from which MakerBot was born, also comments at length on the MakerBot post. His summary seems to explain his position fairly well: If you are taking part in the RepRap project, then I hope that you believe Open Source to be a morally and politically good thing, as I do. But if you don’t believe that, you are still welcome to take part, by me at least. When it comes to the success or failure of RepRap, moral beliefs, legal constraints and the flow of money are almost completely irrelevant. It is the evolutionary game theory that matters. Zack ‘Hoeken’ Smith, a MakerBot co-founder who is not longer with the company, responded to the post with understandable emotion. He described the content of the post as “a load of corporate double-speak bull****,” and described MakerBot’s move to closed source as “the ultimate betrayal.” He ends the post with an excerpt from the Open Source Hardware Definiton. In Bre’s post, he also answered some questions about the Thingiverse terms of service, basically reiterating what he said earlier in the year. This is most likely in reaction to Josef Průša’s Occupy Thingiverse, an emotional reaction — shared by many — from one of the most prominent contributors to the RepRap project to the terms of service changes as well as MakerBot’s alleged releasing new products as closed source. (It appears that Josef misunderstood that the terms of service had already been changed, but that doesn’t seem to detract from his argument.) Since this topic is so emotionally charged for so many people, there have been several in the community who have asked that everyone keep their conversations civil. Phillip Torrone (“pt”) from MAKE and Adafruit, commented on the MakerBot blog post: thanks for posting this up bre, this is a great conversation that everyone can and should join in, thoughtfully -and- respectful to each other. let’s all be good to each other with our words & actions. there’s a lot of passion here for many. this is a great opportunity to talk about open source and open source hardware as companies like makerbot, adafruit, sparkfun, etc, etc grow. so let’s talk In this thoughtful post by Tom Igoe of the Arduino team he sums up with: So: if you’ve got an objection to what MakerBot or anyone in your own community does, speak up. But do it politely. Before you say anything, phrase it as if you had the person you’re addressing in front of you. Check the language with your grandmother, if you need to. The discovery that MakerBot, as early as 2011, filed for and received a patent, only adds more questions to the discussion. It’s unclear how this affects the open source derivatives of their patented technology, such as this Truly Automatic Thing-O-Matic on Thingiverse by user emmett. Many commenters from both my previous post and Bre’s point to their VC funding as the reason for this sudden move. This seems odd that investors who seem to understand the promise of open source and even open source some of their legal documents, would make such a move. It appears that MakerBot is confused in its role in the marketplace and the direction it’s heading in general. They seemed to have lost touch with the way that open source is supposed to work, and the core principles that the company was built upon. Bre sums up with “This isn’t the first change we’ve made to become more of a professional business, and it won’t be our last.” More: Is One of Our Open Source Heroes Going Closed Source? See all of our MakerBot Replicator 2 coverage Filed under: 3D Printing, Open source hardware • Email to a friend • View comments • Track comments • More Recent Articles Snakes on a Game Computer AI Lego Hands Maker Faire New York: An Interview with Lucky Peach Editor Peter Meehan Deezmaker’s 3D Printer Store and Hackerspace in Pasadena Dubstep Power Tools

---

Click here to safely unsubscribe from "MAKE." Click here to view mailing archives, here to change your preferences, or here to subscribe • Privacy

---

---

Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498

 

[Chris Thompson]

There's the response form Adrian I was hoping for.

--
Chris Thompson
eagleapex.com
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Joshua D. Johnson wrote:

> You guys probably all get this, I thought it was excellent.
>

> MAKE (http://blog.makezine.com) - MakerBot’s Mixed Messages About Open Source, Their Future
> In This Issue...
> MakerBot’s Mixed Messages About Open Source, Their Future (#139f1f4fa0f4090a_0)
> More Recent Articles (#139f1f4fa0f4090a_150060_recap)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (This is a followup to my post: Is One of Our Open Source Heroes Going Closed Source? (http://blog.makezine.com/2012/09/19/is-one-of-our-open-source-heroes-going-closed-source/))
> In the wake of MakerBot’s Replicator 2 announcement, there has been a lot of discussion and questioning about the open source status of the company’s offerings. The MakerWare (http://www.makerbot.com/makerware/) software used to control both the new printer and the original Replicator is available for download now. It is clearly closed source, even though it contains some open source software, and instead of being open source, they are offering a developer program (http://www.makerbot.com/makerware/#developer).
> When asked if the Replicator 2 will be open source hardware, the response in a post by Bre Pettis on the MakerBot blog (http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/20/fixing-misinformation-with-information/) never directly answered the question. Instead, the response indicates that they no longer believe that they can have a “sustainable business” with open hardware, citing a lack of “large, successful open hardware companies.”

> At one point Bre even questions, “Will we be successful? I hope so, but even if we are not, everyone will find out that either being as open as possible is a good thing for business or that nobody should do it, or something in between.” This doesn’t seem to indicate that they have a clear plan that they are confident of.
> The comments on the page are generally critical of the lack of a direct answer, and Bre responded to each in turn with his own comment. He still does not directly answer the primary question, but does attempt to more directly explain why:
>

> Lasivian (http://www.lasivian.com/)

>
> Uh, FYI, You posed this question:
>
>
> “Question 1: Is the MakerBot Replicator 2 Open Source?”
>
>
> But you do not answer it. You just dance around it and throw out a bunch of happy words about open source.
>
>
> Bre Responds:
>
> Lasivian – Folks really want a black or white answer, but in my experience, it just doesn’t work that way when combining open source, hardware, and business. There is an open hardware definition, but it’s a far throw from a business model.
>
>
> Chris B
>
> Doesn’t seem like there are some wildly different issues faced by ‘open hardware’ than by ‘open software’ and there are many examples of very successful and very large businesses doing open software and providing services as a way to make money.
>
>
> The analogies are there. Innovate and capitalize on services and enterprise features while remaining open with your core like the big boys do.
>
>
> Bre responds:
>
> Chris B – Software and hardware have some similarities, but it’s really different stuff. But I take your point about service and we are adding a pro-level of support by offering MakerCare. Will people purchase it? We’ll see.
>
> Bre’s statements and answers alternate between confidence and uncertainty for MakerBot’s future, and seems to indicate that they don’t have a definite plan of action.

> Adrian Bowyer, founding father of the RepRap project (http://reprap.org/) from which MakerBot was born, also comments at length on the MakerBot post. His summary seems to explain his position fairly well:

>
> If you are taking part in the RepRap project, then I hope that you believe Open Source to be a morally and politically good thing, as I do. But if you don’t believe that, you are still welcome to take part, by me at least. When it comes to the success or failure of RepRap, moral beliefs, legal constraints and the flow of money are almost completely irrelevant.
>
>
> It is the evolutionary game theory that matters.
>
>

> Zack ‘Hoeken’ Smith, a MakerBot co-founder who is not longer with the company, responded to the post (http://www.hoektronics.com/2012/09/21/makerbot-and-open-source-a-founder-perspective/) with understandable emotion. He described the content of the post as “a load of corporate double-speak bull****,” and described MakerBot’s move to closed source as “the ultimate betrayal.” He ends the post with an excerpt from the Open Source Hardware Definiton (http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW).
> In Bre’s post, he also answered some questions about the Thingiverse terms of service, basically reiterating what he said earlier in the year (http://blog.thingiverse.com/2012/02/10/thingiverse-updates-terms-of-use-and-license-options/). This is most likely in reaction to Josef Průša’s Occupy Thingiverse (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30808), an emotional reaction — shared by many — from one of the most prominent contributors to the RepRap project to the terms of service changes as well as MakerBot’s alleged releasing new products as closed source. (It appears that Josef misunderstood that the terms of service had already been changed, but that doesn’t seem to detract from his argument.)

> Since this topic is so emotionally charged for so many people, there have been several in the community who have asked that everyone keep their conversations civil. Phillip Torrone (“pt”) from MAKE and Adafruit, commented on the MakerBot blog post:
>
> thanks for posting this up bre, this is a great conversation that everyone can and should join in, thoughtfully -and- respectful to each other. let’s all be good to each other with our words & actions. there’s a lot of passion here for many. this is a great opportunity to talk about open source and open source hardware as companies like makerbot, adafruit, sparkfun, etc, etc grow. so let’s talk
>
>

> In this thoughtful post (http://www.tigoe.net/blog/category/open-innovation/408/) by Tom Igoe of the Arduino team he sums up with:

>
>
> So: if you’ve got an objection to what MakerBot or anyone in your own community does, speak up. But do it politely. Before you say anything, phrase it as if you had the person you’re addressing in front of you. Check the language with your grandmother, if you need to.
>
>

> The discovery that MakerBot, as early as 2011, filed for and received a patent (http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/8226395.html), only adds more questions to the discussion. It’s unclear how this affects the open source derivatives of their patented technology, such as this Truly Automatic Thing-O-Matic (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:20383) on Thingiverse by user emmett (http://www.thingiverse.com/emmett).
> Many commenters from both my previous post and Bre’s point to their VC funding (http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2011/08/23/all-star-lineup-invests-in-makerbot/) as the reason for this sudden move. This seems odd that investors who seem to understand the promise of open source (http://www.foundrygroup.com/wp/2012/06/our-investment-in-pantheon/) and even open source some of their legal documents (http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2011/07/ask-the-vc-bonus-material.html), would make such a move.

> It appears that MakerBot is confused in its role in the marketplace and the direction it’s heading in general. They seemed to have lost touch with the way that open source is supposed to work, and the core principles that the company was built upon.
> Bre sums up with “This isn’t the first change we’ve made to become more of a professional business, and it won’t be our last.”
>
>
>

> More:
> Is One of Our Open Source Heroes Going Closed Source? (http://blog.makezine.com/2012/09/19/is-one-of-our-open-source-heroes-going-closed-source/)
> See all of our MakerBot Replicator 2 coverag (http://blog.makezine.com/tag/replicator-2/)e
>
>
> Filed under: 3D Printing (http://blog.makezine.com/category/desktop-manufacturing-2/3d-printing-desktop-manufacturing/), Open source hardware (http://blog.makezine.com/category/open-source-hardware-4/)
>
>
> • Email to a friend (http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=150060;3444376;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/makezineonline/~3/BWU7Kinl_48/;MakerBot’s%20Mixed%20Messages%20About%20Open%20Source,%20Their%20Future;4236347) • View comments (http://blog.makezine.com/2012/09/22/makerbots-mixed-messages-about-open-source-their-future/#comments) • Track comments (http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Track=http%3a%2f%2fblog.makezine.com%2f2012%2f09%2f22%2fmakerbots-mixed-messages-about-open-source-their-future%2ffeed%2f&ref=comment:150060) •
>
> More Recent Articles
> Snakes on a Game (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/makezineonline/~3/tAPb4Fc0M9E/)
> Computer AI Lego Hands (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/makezineonline/~3/3Qi3YPzTBvg/)
> Maker Faire New York: An Interview with Lucky Peach Editor Peter Meehan (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/makezineonline/~3/zeprXjTHYhM/)
> Deezmaker’s 3D Printer Store and Hackerspace in Pasadena (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/makezineonline/~3/DgTeQz0xSI0/)
> Dubstep Power Tools (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/makezineonline/~3/rdMaGUVD1v0/)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Click here to safely unsubscribe (http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?EmailRemove=_26829158%7c150060%7c2df02b06de3da0344ad438f90612fbd8%7c4236347_) from "MAKE." Click here to view mailing archives (http://archive.feedblitz.com/150060), here to change your preferences (http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Subscriptions=150060), or here to subscribe (http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Sub=150060) • Privacy (http://www.feedblitz.com/f?Privacy)
>
>
>
>
>
> Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz (http://www.feedblitz.com), LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 (tel:%2B1.978.776.9498)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To post to this group, send email to hive76-d...@googlegroups.com (mailto:hive76-d...@googlegroups.com)
> To unsubscribe send email to hive76-discuss...@googlegroups.com (mailto:hive76-discuss...@googlegroups.com)
> For more awesome goto http://groups.google.com/group/hive76-discussion?hl=en

[Jordan Miller]

his response doesn't make sense.

jordan

[Joshua D. Johnson]

I think it's interesting how politically correct various individuals are trying to be.

I'm not really involved with the 3D Printing process and have hesitated to buy anything either because it is too expensive or too finicky. I really love RepRap and find it interesting that so many designs are based on or have evolved from it. I can't understand why MakerBot would close their designs after riding on the back of RepRap so long. Further, why would they close their designs after they had utilized improvements from their own customers.

J. Prussia and others seem to be improving some of the core designs and making them more user friendly. My hope lies there.

Josh

[Sean McBeth]

The question comes down to whether or not open source projects are truly created for the common welfare. If they are, then it shouldn't matter to the project creator how other people use their work. Once a project is open sourced for the common welfare, it is out of the originator's control. The common welfare means it is ownerless.

But if the project is used to support certain activities over others, to restrict some from using it in one way for their benefit, while permitting others to use it in other ways for their benefit, then it instead has become about morality and politics. Making things moral issues turns them into inviolable ideological linchpins and those who do not hold are, at best, "tolerated" as second class citizens*. If it truly is not about politics, then you cannot even be slightly-peeved with people who take your open X and add their closed Y. Their closed Y does not close your X, your X is still around, for others to use as well. Sony is permitted to use the Greek myths to make video games. Mel Brooks is permitted to use Robin Hood to make films. These are things in the common. The creation and distribution of them still positively influences the common by increasing awareness and improving the average opinion of the base material. It even encourages them to make their own extensions of the base.

One of the suggestions was that, if MakerBot was considering closing their work to be viable, then it would be preferable to instead sell support services for the open printer. What's the difference? In both cases, you have a RepRap project in the open and a MakerBot company making money, but in the services-model, you have a MakerBot not making better and better 3D printers, independent from what anyone is doing with RepRap. It's okay for MakerBot to make money off of everyone else's work if they don't try to improve on that work at all?

In the end, it just all sounds very hypocritical. "We made this project for the common good of all...", "I wanna make money off of this!", "...Except for you."

* I've personally gone through this for not using more open source software and for not open sourcing my incredibly mundane software, especially from certain visitors to Hive76 on open house nights. I don't really write a lot of software for other people, it shouldn't matter to others what I do with my own time and my own computer. Anyone is free to use my few things that I make for others or not, but they are not free to badger me about making it "wrong" or how I "should have" done it. It makes you just as much of an asshole as if you tried to tell me how to behave in my bedroom, or what things I may consume, or whom I should support for political office.

[Joshua D. Johnson]

Sean,
           I would say "Open Source" by definition means open and free to anyone to use. Having said that, any derivatives of that object, software etc. should also be freely useable. In my mind it is like a patent that has "The whole world" listed as owner.
          Does this ring true? if so, why would one of those people go off and call a derivative of this original device his own? It's called Capitalism.. taking what belongs to the masses and deriving revenue from it.

From Bre Pettis in 2010 via Doogiekr (Doog...@gmail.com)

"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....

[Dave]

I think ideologically people like to support things that are open source. You feel better about giving your money to a group that will not just give you what you paid for, but also give something back to the community that everyone can benefit from. Kind of like how on almost every Kickstarter you can give $1-- you won't get anything physical back, but you'll know that you helped in some small way to make a great thing happen. Probably a large number of Makerbot 'fans' are so because of the open source nature of their beginnings. Not saying what MB's doing is right or wrong, but I can see how some supporters that go way back would feel a little betrayed by the change, since that's not the team they thought they were on.

[Sean McBeth]

Dave, that is a legitimate issue. Changing on everyone in the middle is disingenuous. It would not be surprising if the community punishes them for it, and they probably should.

There will probably be other companies in the future who are going to start from the standpoint of closed-additions to free-projects. The FOSS standpoint is explicitly making it a moral issue. "We don't want our work to benefit anyone who would do something very specific with it." So, it really *doesn't* mean open and free to anyone to use. If the whole world is the owner, then that means that [MakerBot/Stratasys/Shapeways/et al] are in part the owner, too.

Going Free-Open-Source is a one-way street. It's the freeness, not the openness, that makes it so. Technically speaking, Windows is an Open Source project because you can gain access to the source code on request (and it's actually not that difficult, some classmates of mine did it in college for a research project). You can't ever close a free project. You can only close additions to a free project. 

So MakerBot is incapable of doing anything to the core of RepRap, as their contributes are most likely going to end. The form that takes could be anything. MakerBot could go under. MakerBot could create a completely brand new 3D printer design not based on RepRap at all. MakerBot could stop making 3D printers and go to a model of just servicing RepRaps. Or MakerBot could continue to use RepRap designs and keep their additions closed. In all cases, it means MakerBot is not contributing to RepRap. 

But RepRap is going to continue to release new updates, which are going to be available in the open for MakerBot to continue to use. RepRap can continue to influence MakerBot, even as MakerBot becomes incapable of influencing RepRap. To me, that means RepRap has more power of MakerBot than vice versa. The only way RepRap can prevent MakerBot from using RepRap's upgrades is to stop releasing upgrades in the open, effectively doing the same exact thing that MakerBot is portensibly trying to do.

And that would just be childish. That level of control over a projects breaks the "freedom" of them. An open source, costless project doesn't have to be completely "liberated". But if RepRap says they want to not be that free anymore, then they are saying they want to change their terms on everyone in the middle, just like MakerBot.

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Dave <dgs...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think ideologically people like to support things that are open source. You feel better about giving your money to a group that will not just give you what you paid for, but also give something back to the community that everyone can benefit from. Kind of like how on almost every Kickstarter you can give $1-- you won't get anything physical back, but you'll know that you helped in some small way to make a great thing happen. Probably a large number of Makerbot 'fans' are so because of the open source nature of their beginnings. Not saying what MB's doing is right or wrong, but I can see how some supporters that go way back would feel a little betrayed by the change, since that's not the team they thought they were on.

[Chris Thompson]

Sean, 

I don't understand nearly any of your points.

whether or not open source projects are truly created for the common welfare

I assume Adrian Bowyer created RepRap for that. He also has very little development to contribute these days. He says it doesn't matter how reprap is used, because the best idea will evolve out of it. But closing the source means that the Replicator can only envolve inside MBI.

But if the project is used to support certain activities over others, to restrict some from using it in one way for their benefit, while permitting others to use it in other ways for their benefit,

I dont know what activities, other or benefits are here. No one can restrict MBI or anyone else to do anything ever. Unless you count the gov and copyright and shit. The hypocrisy is the quote about Open Source from Bre two years ago compared with the recent resistance to open source.

So far MBI has gotten this from the OSHW community:

• feedback on build quality and improvements 
• New features like the Heated build platform (by us) and the automated build platform
• bootersim by people with IDEOLOGIES that like supporting OSHW
• Stuff to print.
• The arduino based electronics.

From what I can see, hear are the risks to using releasing OSHW

• the Tangibot: releasing a clone of your old hardware when you should already have the next one out (covered by the replicator 2) 
• If you are lazy with innovations, the competition will outpace you. so if you're closed source, you get to develop at your pace, not the market's

Critique of MBI so far:

They have been increasingly secret about everything. The product cycle that frustrated Zach is the secret development, release and then more secret development. Even when they did release the source for the Replicator 3 months after it's release, it was all in SolidWorks. This fulfills the letter of OSHW, but not the spirit. I can't look at the source with out a $5K(?) license. I also don't see much inovation. The Replicator is a simple Cartesian bot with the extruder on the XY and the part on the Z. This is the same layout that Stratasys very quickly noticed worked best 30 years ago. The slicing engine is either old busted Skeinforge or Miracle Grue, which isn't even used for high resolution prints in makerware. They have dropped innovations like the HBP and the Automated build platform that they patented. They even rolled back on dual extrusion and haven't solved any of the problems that poses. They are also on a slow path of increasing prices, while the rest of the community is on a race to the bottom. (Somewhere in the middle seems best to me) MBI has removed most of the OSHW innovations and are looking like a baby Stratasys more every day. LAAAAMMMMEE

Because of this company culture of secrecy, they didn't announce that they were having trouble with the OSHW business. Saying publicly that they are scared of staying open source, or listing the reasons closing source would help them might have opened a dialogue about the way to do it right. But everything about MBI, even the open stuff, is secret. So it's "Boom! look what we made! Buy it!" all over again and now this time with a major change in the spirit behind everyone's favorite maker-thing-maker.

I don't see any place for MORALS in any of this. Capitalism excludes morality IMO. OSHW does not exclude making money though. 

So rather than make you read all of my boring opinions and send you away scratching your head, here's something productive:

What does a business model look like that has open development, production, and OSHW releases? How do you sell something before during and after your OSHW gets "ripped off" by another company?

tl;dr: I don't follow Sean, MBI sucks but who cares, what can we learn?

Chris Thompson, eagleapex.com
GPG key available
"Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy" -Tim O'Reilly

[Sean McBeth]

I'm saying nobody has grounds to complain about closed extensions to free projects. It's less about MakerBot and more about OSHW. Put something into the stream of freedom and you lose control of it. You have very legitimate complaints about the things MakerBot has specifically done or not done to make a good product. They are a shitty company, from all accounts. But not because they make or want to make closed extensions to an open project.

--

[Jordan Miller]

If any part of it was GPL v3, you do have grounds to complain...

jordan