3 ms·

Thanks for the follow-up, it is interesting to see how/ or not the GPL works in areas other than code. So redesigning from scratch, following strict clean room

by deepnet 10y ago

Thanks for the follow-up, it is interesting to see how/ or not the GPL works in areas other than code. So redesigning from scratch, following strict clean room protocols (fresh designer who hasn't ever worked on the GPLed design, given a description only), defeats the GPL because it is based on copyright ? Presumably no GPLed RepRap derived community innovations were copied, if they were ( hypothetically an amazing way of doing the nozzle or special hot-plate method to avoid warping ) would this demonstrate a derived work and trigger GPL ? If this type of thing isn't a GPL trigger then why can't anyone clean room a different design of sintering tech and allow general sinter 3D printing and sales ? Is this difference because the GPL relies on copyright but 3D sintering is patent protected ? If so does Open Hardware need a GPL patent license, can that even be possible ? Has a hardware GPL case ever been brought ?

Sanddancer 10y ago
Yep. Clean room reverse engineering also steers clear of copyright, and hardware design cases are very difficult to prove unless it's a direct knockoff -- if copyright worked that way, then things like 3rd party auto parts manufacturing couldn't exist either. 3d sintering is different because as you said, sintering is patented. Physical products have a bunch of rules that are significantly different from software products, and the area is really murky. I don't know of any GPL hardware cases, but would doubt they'd get very far unless you were able to show direct infringement, which is a lot harder.
belorn 10y ago
If the provided description is perfect enough to produce a identical copy, then I doubt a court would care much if the "copying" is done verbally or through a computer. Clean room reimplementation only really work if you are operating on public material that is used as reference, and the copy comes out identical because of the natural result from implementing it.
- deepnet 10y ago
  So OK, given that generality, is there any reason to suspect that parts of the Makerbot derive from GPLed community innovations and thus in violation ? Or I am off base and Bowyer's RepRap GPL only applies to media like blueprints ? Or the Makerbot is sufficiently different ? Or there was prior art to Bowyer ?

by deepnet 10y ago

Sanddancer 10y ago

Yep. Clean room reverse engineering also steers clear of copyright, and hardware design cases are very difficult to prove unless it's a direct knockoff -- if copyright worked that way, then things like 3rd party auto parts manufacturing couldn't exist either. 3d sintering is different because as you said, sintering is patented. Physical products have a bunch of rules that are significantly different from software products, and the area is really murky. I don't know of any GPL hardware cases, but would doubt they'd get very far unless you were able to show direct infringement, which is a lot harder.

belorn 10y ago

If the provided description is perfect enough to produce a identical copy, then I doubt a court would care much if the "copying" is done verbally or through a computer. Clean room reimplementation only really work if you are operating on public material that is used as reference, and the copy comes out identical because of the natural result from implementing it.

deepnet 10y ago
So OK, given that generality, is there any reason to suspect that parts of the Makerbot derive from GPLed community innovations and thus in violation ? Or I am off base and Bowyer's RepRap GPL only applies to media like blueprints ? Or the Makerbot is sufficiently different ? Or there was prior art to Bowyer ?