5 ms·

> The license is the limit, the worst you are allow to behave before you are breaking the law. You're not necessarily good actor just because you're within the

> The license is the limit, the worst you are allow to behave before you are breaking the law. You're not necessarily good actor just because you're within the bounds of the license. As long as someone else's derivative work is properly compliant with the license under which the original work was released, the creator of the original work--who chose the license!--has no standing to complain. If they didn't game out this possible outcome that's on them. Trying to insist that random strangers have to conform to the norms of a community of which they're not a part in addition to conforming to their legal obligations is practically delusional.

nullc 4y ago
I don't believe my comment said anything about norms of a community. If someone takes an open design, makes a 1:1 copy, sells it just undercutting the people that put resources into designing it-- the eventual result of that trend continued is that future versions aren't going to be open anymore. Call them delusional if you like but people complaining about anti-social behavior that undermines the public good are effective-- if they weren't you presumably wouldn't have seen any reason to comment at all. :P
- eschaton 4y ago
  My whole point is that it’s *not* “anti-social behavior that undermines the public good” just because it denies “expected profit” to the creator! There are plenty of people creating open hardware for whom “someone else made a run of these and is selling them cheaply” is actually an intended result—and why they picked a license that allows it—and this actually encourages them to do more, because it means more people will actually be able to use their design. I get that motives other than profit maximization are alien to some Hackernews but really, the problem here is Prusa (and others) not being aligned with the actual meaning of releasing something openly. It’s not a problem with the people following the license.
  - nullc 4y ago
    again you invoke something not mentioned 'profit maximization'. Sure there are devices where people are asking others to churn them out specifically because they don't have a business selling them. That isn't the case here and extensively zero value add price undercutting cloning will cause further development to not be open. That outcome is unambiguously harmful to the public.

nullc 4y ago

I don't believe my comment said anything about norms of a community. If someone takes an open design, makes a 1:1 copy, sells it just undercutting the people that put resources into designing it-- the eventual result of that trend continued is that future versions aren't going to be open anymore. Call them delusional if you like but people complaining about anti-social behavior that undermines the public good are effective-- if they weren't you presumably wouldn't have seen any reason to comment at all. :P

eschaton 4y ago
My whole point is that it’s *not* “anti-social behavior that undermines the public good” just because it denies “expected profit” to the creator! There are plenty of people creating open hardware for whom “someone else made a run of these and is selling them cheaply” is actually an intended result—and why they picked a license that allows it—and this actually encourages them to do more, because it means more people will actually be able to use their design. I get that motives other than profit maximization are alien to some Hackernews but really, the problem here is Prusa (and others) not being aligned with the actual meaning of releasing something openly. It’s not a problem with the people following the license.
- nullc 4y ago
  again you invoke something not mentioned 'profit maximization'. Sure there are devices where people are asking others to churn them out specifically because they don't have a business selling them. That isn't the case here and extensively zero value add price undercutting cloning will cause further development to not be open. That outcome is unambiguously harmful to the public.