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

81–90 of 157 posts

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#81

Post by schneems »

londons_explore wrote: post #41
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 origin…

> And for that, the clone-makers are, IMO, contributing to the ecosystem

Embrace, extend, extinguish.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#82

Post by bb88 »

Moto7451 wrote: post #51
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…

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…

> There’s no way you can get people to pinky swear to not use the rights in the license you chose.

I know where there's a bunch of IP lawyers out there. They just cost a lot of money. Licenses that aren't enforced aren't.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#84

Post by eschaton »

sircastor wrote: post #79
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 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? Anyone who's been in the 3D Printing community for a while understands the expectation. It used to be that designs and concepts were shared and expanded on. Hotend and nozzle designs were shared. Techniques for assembling h…

But that’s not what the license says. The license says that it’s perfectly fine to make 1:1 clones and sell them or even give them away. If the community expectation is otherwise then either pick a different license or disabuse the community members of the idea that everyone will have the same interpretation of the license they do.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#85

Post by makeitdouble »

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 read it as the proverbial "solving social problems with technical solutions" conflict.

The problem is reciprocity, and they're trying to find a technical setup (a license) to help solve it. You're right that they may have failed, which is the reason of the change in course.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#86

Post by mdorazio »

sircastor wrote: post #79
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 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? Anyone who's been in the 3D Printing community for a while understands the expectation. It used to be that designs and concepts were shared and expanded on. Hotend and nozzle designs were shared. Techniques for assembling h…

I feel like you’re romanticizing what actually happened. Just look at makerbot, which was a very strong force in the early development of consumer 3D printing. Damn near all their hardware and even their file formats are proprietary.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#87

Post by sircastor »

mdorazio wrote: post #86
sircastor wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Anyone who's been in the 3D Printing community for a while understands the expectation. It used to be that designs and concepts were shared and expanded on. Hotend and nozzle designs were shared. Techniques for assembling h…

I feel like you’re romanticizing what actually happened. Just look at makerbot, which was a very strong force in the early development of consumer 3D printing. Damn near all their hardware and even their file formats are proprietary.

Makerbot ran into the very problem that Prusa is facing right now. Shortly after the release of the Replicator , there was IIRC a guy out of Utah who was selling essentially a Replicator with new badging on it (FlashForge). They had been open source for a long time, but ended up going proprietary when they were being pushed out of the market by competitors repackaging their work. They also ended up being a bad community member by seeking patents for designs that were already in the community.

In my opinion, Prusa is what Makerbot was supposed to be. But it now seems that Prusa is struggling under the same trials that Makerbot faced before it.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#88

Post by nsajko »

This is similar to the classic might vs right debate.

Just because you're legally allowed to do something, doesn't mean that you can pretend it's ethical.

The law is not meant to regulate the entirety of human society and behavior, we're not robots, after all.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#89

Post by groby_b »

kadoban wrote: post #63
KennyBlanken wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

What will change from that if they don't publish their designs? Knockoff producers will figure it out anyway, that's their entire business and they're good at it. The only people hurt are the actual customers, who probably don't have as much experience reverse-engineering.

You know what - tough for the actual customers. Who largely keep buying knockoffs.

You want the cheapest shit without any innovation, you'll sooner or later get your wish.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#90

Post by postalrat »

Fomite wrote: post #66
KennyBlanken wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Word has it the Sovol SV06 is giving the Mk3S+ a run for its money.

Yeah and a few years ago people were saying ender3 was as good or better than mk3. People have a tendency to believe dumb stuff.
Post reply on HN