5 ms·

It's horrible and useless. An "open source" printer should allow someone to open a factory and mass produce them. I shouldn't have a dependency on the designer

It's horrible and useless. An "open source" printer should allow someone to open a factory and mass produce them. I shouldn't have a dependency on the designer on something marketed as open source. That's no different than normal. You could never reasonably prevent people from making one-offs anyway, not that it's cost-efficient, or would ever be worth doing. Attribution license it. Name it TheOpenPrinter@Patreon.com and force manufacturers to engrave it on each one. Don't pull nonsense. Crowdfunding imo sounds like they're planning to be unsuccessful at actually making them, and just to make a living off failing to make them for a year or two. How about just getting the design tight, modular, and small-shop ready, and not even attempting to mass produce them? Leave that to the experts.

drekipus 1y ago
would using some sort of GPL allow for that?
- mrsssnake 1y ago
  As with anything GPL would allow others to use your soft (of course if you sell or give it them first) as they wish, but additionally "locks it open" so they must sell/give on the same rules too.
rixed 1y ago
An "open source" printer should allow someone to open a factory and mass produce them. No? That's only according to your definition of open source. There are others, some restricting competition, some restricting certain usage like military, some restricting certain countries... We can argue about those restrictions, but such a bold claim as "it's useless" sounds impulsive (my first though was harsher).
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
  > That's only according to your definition of open source No, words mean things. Open Source precludes restrictions on field of use or commercialization, and no credible organization (OSI, DFSG, FSF, Creative Commons, any of the BSDs) claims otherwise.
  - rixed 1y ago
    OK I see where you stand. Like you, I do not like to see some product being touted as "open" just because you can see some lines of code that are made unusable by not providing some important missing pieces, or obscured, or for whatever other mechanism. Words have indeed a meaning, but that meaning is not purely decided by some organisation, steering cometee or authority, but by what idea they evoque to those who use them. Refer to the old debate about "free software" vs "open source" [0]: almost the same technical definition, but quite different meaning. Most "fake" open source products are produced by companies who are fundamentaly unwilling to cooperate because they want to keep the possibility to milk customers once they have succesfully attracted investors. I might be wrong, but I have the feeling that this is a very different scenario, if only because the potential for becoming filthy rich by selling printer parts seems slim. I believe they genuinely want to empower users, without working for free for some industrial company that could just exploit the design without contributing anything back. Empowering the user meets the definition of open source for me. I wish we would not be so harsh against good-spirited creators because they miss to check all the boxes of the official definition of open source (tm). Maybe I'm too idealistic, wouldn't be the first time. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
    - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
      > I might be wrong, but I have the feeling that this is a very different scenario, if only because the potential for becoming filthy rich by selling printer parts seems slim. I believe they genuinely want to empower users, without working for free for some industrial company that could just exploit the design without contributing anything back. And yet, the one thing they've done is ensured that nobody can ever compete with them commercially. Even if we were to accept that making and selling the thing isn't contributing (I disagree), they could just use a share-alike license so that any improvements are also released back to the community. Heck, in that situation the original folks could take 3rd party improvements and sell them. But they didn't. I lack your optimism; I think if someone was trying to just make money and milk customers this is exactly how it would look. > Empowering the user meets the definition of open source for me. > I wish we would not be so harsh against good-spirited creators because they miss to check all the boxes of the official definition of open source (tm). Yeah, the problem is exactly that this hurts users. Sure, individual DIY-savvy folks can replace parts or even make improvements, but it can never scale up. It's like saying that Windows is an open system because users can install programs that modify how it works a bit... so long as they never sell those improvements. It intentionally cripples the ecosystem. (I probably argued this better at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45470111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45470111 )
- hypercube33 1y ago
  There are advantages - just look at the 3d printer landscape. Having companies making these and selling them breeds a huge ecosystem around upgrades, drives down prices, and makes it easy for anyone to use the device because it lowers the barrier to entry to about as low as they can get it because that's what sells.
  - rixed 1y ago
    There are certainly advantages to the users but I guess there can also be risks for the creators (thus also ultimately for users). I don't know this field well enough (or at all) to have an opinion really; I was actually surprised that one could consider building, or even using, a printer in 2025. Isn't the rPI a counter-example, as a design that is not 100% legally copyable yet still open enough to inspire a lot of similar projects in this area? If there is a sure way to reach a world of open design and user freedom, I sure don't know what it is.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
      > There are certainly advantages to the users but I guess there can also be risks for the creators (thus also ultimately for users). No, I think the downsides are all to the creators. Consider the case if the creators release under an actual open source share-alike license: They ship, they release the source, 3rd parties clone it. The original creators lose money because now they have actual competition. Users, though? They get more options, lower prices, and reliability in the form of replacements if the original creators stop selling. > Isn't the rPI a counter-example, as a design that is not 100% legally copyable yet still open enough to inspire a lot of similar projects in this area? How so? The pi would have clones no matter how open it was. Actually I think it's the other way: The way the pi remains so proprietary is actively unhelpful to users, because the lack of specs makes it hard to port new operating systems to the hardware. > If there is a sure way to reach a world of open design and user freedom, I sure don't know what it is. Use an actual open source license ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware#Licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware#Licenses ). This isn't complicated.
- RobotToaster 1y ago
  A definition the people who wrote the licence agree with > NC licenses do not qualify as “open licenses” under the Open Definition, and works licensed under an NC license are not considered Free Cultural Works. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation#Choosing_NC_for_your_content https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre...

drekipus 1y ago

would using some sort of GPL allow for that?

mrsssnake 1y ago
As with anything GPL would allow others to use your soft (of course if you sell or give it them first) as they wish, but additionally "locks it open" so they must sell/give on the same rules too.

rixed 1y ago

An "open source" printer should allow someone to open a factory and mass produce them. No? That's only according to your definition of open source. There are others, some restricting competition, some restricting certain usage like military, some restricting certain countries... We can argue about those restrictions, but such a bold claim as "it's useless" sounds impulsive (my first though was harsher).

yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
> That's only according to your definition of open source No, words mean things. Open Source precludes restrictions on field of use or commercialization, and no credible organization (OSI, DFSG, FSF, Creative Commons, any of the BSDs) claims otherwise.
- rixed 1y ago
  OK I see where you stand. Like you, I do not like to see some product being touted as "open" just because you can see some lines of code that are made unusable by not providing some important missing pieces, or obscured, or for whatever other mechanism. Words have indeed a meaning, but that meaning is not purely decided by some organisation, steering cometee or authority, but by what idea they evoque to those who use them. Refer to the old debate about "free software" vs "open source" [0]: almost the same technical definition, but quite different meaning. Most "fake" open source products are produced by companies who are fundamentaly unwilling to cooperate because they want to keep the possibility to milk customers once they have succesfully attracted investors. I might be wrong, but I have the feeling that this is a very different scenario, if only because the potential for becoming filthy rich by selling printer parts seems slim. I believe they genuinely want to empower users, without working for free for some industrial company that could just exploit the design without contributing anything back. Empowering the user meets the definition of open source for me. I wish we would not be so harsh against good-spirited creators because they miss to check all the boxes of the official definition of open source (tm). Maybe I'm too idealistic, wouldn't be the first time. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
    > I might be wrong, but I have the feeling that this is a very different scenario, if only because the potential for becoming filthy rich by selling printer parts seems slim. I believe they genuinely want to empower users, without working for free for some industrial company that could just exploit the design without contributing anything back. And yet, the one thing they've done is ensured that nobody can ever compete with them commercially. Even if we were to accept that making and selling the thing isn't contributing (I disagree), they could just use a share-alike license so that any improvements are also released back to the community. Heck, in that situation the original folks could take 3rd party improvements and sell them. But they didn't. I lack your optimism; I think if someone was trying to just make money and milk customers this is exactly how it would look. > Empowering the user meets the definition of open source for me. > I wish we would not be so harsh against good-spirited creators because they miss to check all the boxes of the official definition of open source (tm). Yeah, the problem is exactly that this hurts users. Sure, individual DIY-savvy folks can replace parts or even make improvements, but it can never scale up. It's like saying that Windows is an open system because users can install programs that modify how it works a bit... so long as they never sell those improvements. It intentionally cripples the ecosystem. (I probably argued this better at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45470111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45470111 )
hypercube33 1y ago
There are advantages - just look at the 3d printer landscape. Having companies making these and selling them breeds a huge ecosystem around upgrades, drives down prices, and makes it easy for anyone to use the device because it lowers the barrier to entry to about as low as they can get it because that's what sells.
- rixed 1y ago
  There are certainly advantages to the users but I guess there can also be risks for the creators (thus also ultimately for users). I don't know this field well enough (or at all) to have an opinion really; I was actually surprised that one could consider building, or even using, a printer in 2025. Isn't the rPI a counter-example, as a design that is not 100% legally copyable yet still open enough to inspire a lot of similar projects in this area? If there is a sure way to reach a world of open design and user freedom, I sure don't know what it is.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
    > There are certainly advantages to the users but I guess there can also be risks for the creators (thus also ultimately for users). No, I think the downsides are all to the creators. Consider the case if the creators release under an actual open source share-alike license: They ship, they release the source, 3rd parties clone it. The original creators lose money because now they have actual competition. Users, though? They get more options, lower prices, and reliability in the form of replacements if the original creators stop selling. > Isn't the rPI a counter-example, as a design that is not 100% legally copyable yet still open enough to inspire a lot of similar projects in this area? How so? The pi would have clones no matter how open it was. Actually I think it's the other way: The way the pi remains so proprietary is actively unhelpful to users, because the lack of specs makes it hard to port new operating systems to the hardware. > If there is a sure way to reach a world of open design and user freedom, I sure don't know what it is. Use an actual open source license ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware#Licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware#Licenses ). This isn't complicated.
RobotToaster 1y ago
A definition the people who wrote the licence agree with > NC licenses do not qualify as “open licenses” under the Open Definition, and works licensed under an NC license are not considered Free Cultural Works. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation#Choosing_NC_for_your_content https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre...