Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Reply to Josef Průša

blog.thea.codes

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 157 posts

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#41

Post by londons_explore »

krisoft wrote: post #33

> This includes activities that are intentionally exploitative such producing 1:1 clones of open hardware with minimal changes I’m astonished by this opinion. They released their designs under a permissive licence. Should people be mind readers and figure out that they actually meant that you should not make 1:1 clones? Would you call it “intentionally exploitative” if I build the linux kernel on my computer? They wi…

The clones in many ways are better engineering.

Any engineer can build a bridge. Only a good engineer can build a bridge that meets all the user requirements, while not massively overengineering the structure (and hence the budget).

They typically cut just the right corners to make a still functional product at a vastly reduced price.

And for that, the clone-makers are, IMO, contributing to the ecosystem. The original product could adjust their design to get the same savings, and either pass the savings onto the customers, or take the extra as profit.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#42

Post by MBCook »

HideousKojima wrote: post #35
krisoft wrote: post #33

> This includes activities that are intentionally exploitative such producing 1:1 clones of open hardware with minimal changes I’m astonished by this opinion. They released their designs under a permissive licence. Should people be mind readers and figure out that they actually meant that you should not make 1:1 clones? Would you call it “intentionally exploitative” if I build the linux kernel on my computer? They wi…

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.

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.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#43

Post by jacquesm »

vbezhenar wrote: post #16
vorpalhex wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many ham radio designs are open source, including hardware. Often the original designer isn't even selling kits, so there's no profit incentive. Yet they still have problems with Chinese manufacturers. They will swap components or make changes making designs worse, then sell the meaningfully inferior product under the name of the open source product. This has lead to open source creators, with no profit incentive, st…

I think that's a trademark issue and completely different beast. Plenty of free software don't allow to reuse their names. Nothing wrong about it and does not restrict user in any meaningful way.

As a private individual I highly doubt they even have trademarks and even if they do they would have to spend a lot of money defending them. Perps just disappear and do it all over again.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#44

Post by jacquesm »

sinenomine wrote: post #37
lnsru wrote: post #15

I started open sourcing hardware and then in the middle I realized, that I am digging my own grave. While any optimization in software can be done in a weekend, this takes weeks in hardware (5-7 days printed circuit manufacturing and couple days assembly). Plus my final hardware will be optimized to pass EC/FCC testing which also costs money. So investing time and money for open source hardware design… I don’t know,…

Maybe the right way of approaching this is setting up a crypto fundraiser to opensource the hardware once some threshold is reached. This could implement a kickstarter-like mechanics of fund returns for underperforming fundraisers at the smart contract level. This way authors could be decently compensated.

This is how Blender ended up being open sourced. Modulo the crypto bit, I really don't see the point of that, you really don't need it.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#45

Post by londons_explore »

amelius wrote: post #9

Perhaps he should use a license where a company has to pay if they sell more than $N copies of the product, or something along those lines.

Or you use a regular license, but publish the terms openly.

Ie. "Anyone who uses this printer design, or one based from it, must pay $3 to us per printer sold. We will give this permission to anyone who asks. For anyone who contributes back to the design of our printers, we will consider reducing this figure to $0"

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#46

Post by mafuyu »

krisoft wrote: post #33

> This includes activities that are intentionally exploitative such producing 1:1 clones of open hardware with minimal changes I’m astonished by this opinion. They released their designs under a permissive licence. Should people be mind readers and figure out that they actually meant that you should not make 1:1 clones? Would you call it “intentionally exploitative” if I build the linux kernel on my computer? They wi…

Open-source hardware licensing is not as straightforward as software, and funding isn't really figured out yet either. Hardware has significant costs to develop, manufacture, and sell, and many projects are niche or passion projects that can't compete with mass manufactured clones. Legal obligations of the licensing aside, the understanding is that the primary way to support the creator is to buy directly from them. Prusa has gotten pretty big and it looks like they want to make decisions about whether they've outgrown that model or not.

With software, it costs nothing to just git clone and build for your personal use (which also presents its own funding challenges). For hardware, there's gonna be a chunk of people who just want the product/functionality via clones, and you need to be careful to keep the community/project to grow sustainably. IMO, it should be along-side and not in spite of those clones, but you can see the frustration.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#47

Post by lnsru »

sinenomine wrote: post #37
lnsru wrote: post #15

I started open sourcing hardware and then in the middle I realized, that I am digging my own grave. While any optimization in software can be done in a weekend, this takes weeks in hardware (5-7 days printed circuit manufacturing and couple days assembly). Plus my final hardware will be optimized to pass EC/FCC testing which also costs money. So investing time and money for open source hardware design… I don’t know,…

Maybe the right way of approaching this is setting up a crypto fundraiser to opensource the hardware once some threshold is reached. This could implement a kickstarter-like mechanics of fund returns for underperforming fundraisers at the smart contract level. This way authors could be decently compensated.

That’s rather b2b product. I don’t think, that kickstarter format is good for b2b things.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#48

Post by bitL »

So basically author agrees with Prusa but wants him to become a bankrupt martyr so that Chinese clones can start behaving more responsibly? Even in software nice companies dual license their SW to keep afloat.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#49

Post by bitL »

lnsru wrote: post #15

I started open sourcing hardware and then in the middle I realized, that I am digging my own grave. While any optimization in software can be done in a weekend, this takes weeks in hardware (5-7 days printed circuit manufacturing and couple days assembly). Plus my final hardware will be optimized to pass EC/FCC testing which also costs money. So investing time and money for open source hardware design… I don’t know,…

You can delay the release of your newer designs by 1-2 years so that you can squeeze the juice at the beginning while being nice to your regular users.
Post reply on HN