3 ms·

I'm not astonished any more, you see the same attitude with all these new open source but not really software licenses people are coming up with (of both the re

I'm not astonished any more, you see the same attitude with all these new open source but not really software licenses people are coming up with (of both the restrict big business usage and restrict usage for "evil" purposes variety). People want the goodwill and potential free labor that comes from being open source without the actual requirements of being open source.

MBCook 4y ago
It’s not just that. Makerbot had the same problem before they got bought out, that’s why the Replicator 2 went closed. It’s one thing to take a design, modify it/improve it, and sell it. It’s another to wait for someone with a good reputation to design something good (with all the costs that entails), make a perfect clone, and sell it as a perfect clone for much less because you didn’t have to pay for the R&D. You’re right. It’s 100% license compliant. But it sucks and isn’t fair play. So people go closed (Makerbot) or delay releasing things (Prusa). Doing all the R&D and letting someone else to take the sales isn’t a sustainable model for a business. What else are they to do? They can’t survive selling consumables. Their stuff is great but others (often with worse quality) will always undercut that too. I don’t have an answer. Their choice (or very similar) is the best option I can think of. Sell thing X, open source X-1. Or at least wait until most R&D on X is paid.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- eschaton 4y ago
  Why do you think it sucks? Why do you think it isn't "fair play?" The creator specifically said it was OK to do exactly those things! Maybe not in those words, but definitely in the words of the license under which it was released. Now, if the creator was saying "I got bad advice on this and didn't realize the implications, now that I do my subsequent projects will be closed" I'd have more sympathy. But they're not saying that, they (and you) are arguing that people who look at the project, understand the license, and produce a derivative work that meets the terms of the license are doing something wrong. And that's not the case either morally, ethically, or legally.
JohnFen 4y ago
> People want the goodwill and potential free labor that comes from being open source Lots of open source people go with an open source license not for free labor or goodwill, but because they think it's the right thing to do.

MBCook 4y ago

It’s not just that. Makerbot had the same problem before they got bought out, that’s why the Replicator 2 went closed. It’s one thing to take a design, modify it/improve it, and sell it. It’s another to wait for someone with a good reputation to design something good (with all the costs that entails), make a perfect clone, and sell it as a perfect clone for much less because you didn’t have to pay for the R&D. You’re right. It’s 100% license compliant. But it sucks and isn’t fair play. So people go closed (Makerbot) or delay releasing things (Prusa). Doing all the R&D and letting someone else to take the sales isn’t a sustainable model for a business. What else are they to do? They can’t survive selling consumables. Their stuff is great but others (often with worse quality) will always undercut that too. I don’t have an answer. Their choice (or very similar) is the best option I can think of. Sell thing X, open source X-1. Or at least wait until most R&D on X is paid.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
eschaton 4y ago
Why do you think it sucks? Why do you think it isn't "fair play?" The creator specifically said it was OK to do exactly those things! Maybe not in those words, but definitely in the words of the license under which it was released. Now, if the creator was saying "I got bad advice on this and didn't realize the implications, now that I do my subsequent projects will be closed" I'd have more sympathy. But they're not saying that, they (and you) are arguing that people who look at the project, understand the license, and produce a derivative work that meets the terms of the license are doing something wrong. And that's not the case either morally, ethically, or legally.

JohnFen 4y ago

> People want the goodwill and potential free labor that comes from being open source Lots of open source people go with an open source license not for free labor or goodwill, but because they think it's the right thing to do.