Live data from Hacker News

A Reply to Josef Průša

blog.thea.codes

51–60 of 157 posts

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#51
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…

Hard agree.

This sounds more like Josef and perhaps the author have a romantic idea about open source but now dislike the realities. There’s no way you can get people to pinky swear to not use the rights in the license you chose. There are so many cases of millions or billions of dollars being generated through companies built on open source software. To not expect the same of hardware is unrealistic.

I’m not an expert on synthesizers but it sounds more like reverse engineering than building from open source and permissive licenses. I don’t think that’s the right lens to think about the reproductions.

If Prusa doesn’t want this then they need to close their licenses and stop talking about being open. That’s ok, it’s their business after all. I just expect that becoming “source available” will have its own set of thorns for the brand that has been built.

The irony of course is that the GPL was started due to… closed source printers.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#53
“ Not even the almighty Apple can prevent the mass cloning of the AirPods.”.

This are not clones they are more just look alike a with completely different sound profile and pairing process. So no, not open sourcing does help Apple to keep people from buying clones.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#57
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 origin…

I'm not aware of a single clone of the prusa designs that have been as good as prusa's.

Prusa's machines are expensive but by and large "just work", and keep on working, and have a strong reputation for this, backed by them eating their own dogfood, producing printers with their printers.

The clones are almost always require a lot of tweaking/fixes/upgrades and aren't durable or reliable. Some of them are downright dangerous in terms of being fire hazards, with things like heater bed wires that fray and short out, underspec'd electronics that overheat, shitty firmware, etc.

He's got a thousand (mostly) Chinese copycatters who immediately download the design, figure out how to squeeze every penny out of the BOM, modify it slightly to give their marketing people something to brag about being "better" (as well as try and force people to go to them, and only them, for replacement parts), and print money from tens of thousands of people on reddit and Facebook 3d printing forums who think they're scoring some sort of great deal. None of these people are adding anything of value; in fact, all the effort spent fixing the shitty clones that are very poorly supported, probably results in millions of person-hours wasted.

If I were Prusa, I'd be exhausted, too. It's not an understatement to say that he has been not-quite-single-handedly carrying the hardware side of the enthusiast/cottage-industry FDM market for well over a decade. Sure, you have the corexy and delta designs, but they're definitely a minority.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#58
> Where we agree / First, I want to get out of the way some things that I completely or mostly agree with. Josef's first key item is in regards to the GPL: The standard GNU GPL license under which our printers and software are available is very vague, written in a complicated way, and open to various interpretations. It was developed by academics for academic purposes.

This is just pure wrong. Now, I'm willing to grant that the GPL might not be suited to hardware--hardware is generally patented, not copyrighted--if given a substantive analysis, but I note that commercial firmware-in-hardware is covered by the same copyright law and licenses that GPL is meant to deal with, so right at the outset this critique seems like gibberish, and if pursued looks set to produce a new poorly thought out problematic license.

> music equipment, where one asshole with a big factory is cloning and undercutting every popular product he can, including those by small open hardware designers.

Behringer makes high quality, good sounding, inexpensive music gear that makes great sound available to young and barely-professional musicians. Most musicians are classic "starving artists", and Behringer is selling them more affordable stuff than anybody else. Seems a strange market to attack. (Behringer mostly clones and modernizes "classic" synths from (say) the 70's and 80's, most of whose original designers are dead, and who made good money off them back in the day before selling out to soulless corporations, and models that aren't even available any more, hardly the poster children for being ripped off.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#59
I make OSHW, and can see why Prusa would do this.

Black when he was a nobody, these clones were, if anything, free advertising for a product nobody would have otherwise heard of.

But now he's well known, the clones just make it harder to profit off of his work.

Sucks that it's like that, but not at all surprising.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#60
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…

Hard agree. This sounds more like Josef and perhaps the author have a romantic idea about open source but now dislike the realities. There’s no way you can get people to pinky swear to not use the rights in the license you chose. There are so many cases of millions or billions of dollars being generated through companies built on open source software. To not expect the same of hardware is unrealistic. I’m not an expe…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN