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

141–150 of 157 posts

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#141

Post by JohnFen »

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.

> People want the goodwill and potential free labor that comes from being open source

Lots of open source people go with an open source license not for free labor or goodwill, but because they think it's the right thing to do.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#142

Post by JohnFen »

1letterunixname wrote: post #94
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,…

Or, you're helping customers repair electronics. Reverse engineers overseas don't need schematics, but hobbyist users do. IBM used to include complete schematics and BIOS assembly code in their manuals. Apple has a history of making it very difficult to repair their devices due to locking up schematics and parts.

This.

Although this is orthogonal to the open source question. You can (and, I argue, should) release all of that data while still operating under a proprietary license.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#144

Post by tjoff »

stu2b50 wrote: post #36
tjoff wrote: post #34

Is someone buying a cheap knockoff really a lost sale for prusa? Rather than a prusa my guess would be that they would buy some other cheap printer instead. Then after a while they might appreciate what prusa is offering and potentially become a customer.

Yes, but with more criteria than "cheap knockoff". There's a lot of companies these days that satisfy the niche of "printers that print well and quickly out of the box without tinkering". Furthermore, many of them are priced below Prusa's offerings. "Cheap knockoff" implies a significant degradation in quality, but the reality is that they are of equal quality, and lower price - the fact that Prusa is open source and…

"Cheap knockoff" might be good enough for many usecases, but they are not near equal quality.

I'd guess the printer farm is paramount to prusas reliability. Don't know if anyone else runs something similar? If not for printing parts for their own printers having their own printer-service might be a good idea.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#145

Post by cowl »

JohnFen wrote: post #139
cowl wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no Licenses in hardware. There are patents but not licenses. For example you can license the Diagram of a circuit but you can not get a license for the circuit. you can get a patent if it's inovative.

Of course there are licenses in hardware. I have a small number of hardware patents and I certainly get revenue from licensing the use of my patented tech out to other companies.

Yes I said there are patents. Your protection does not come from the license in this case. The license in this case it's just a contractual feature. Your protection comes from the patent. IE, if someone uses your patent technology you dont sue them from breach of license because there is none, you sue them for breach of patent. You do not hold a copyright (the meaning of license above and what all refer too for exmaple GPL), you hold a patent. The purpose may seem the same but they are two very different legal concepts.

To get a Patent you have to apply to the patent Office, pass several conditions about originality etc) where as to get a copyright you just slap it to your work although the work in this case needs to be creative and not physical.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#146

Post by JohnFen »

cowl wrote: post #145
JohnFen wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there are licenses in hardware. I have a small number of hardware patents and I certainly get revenue from licensing the use of my patented tech out to other companies.

Yes I said there are patents. Your protection does not come from the license in this case. The license in this case it's just a contractual feature. Your protection comes from the patent. IE, if someone uses your patent technology you dont sue them from breach of license because there is none, you sue them for breach of patent. You do not hold a copyright (the meaning of license above and what all refer too for exmap…

Believe me, I'm fully aware of the differences between copyright and patents. But the "open source" licensing isn't so different between the two.

Open source licensing originated with copyright because, in the US, it is not possible to release something into the public domain. Your copyright is automatic and you can't renounce it.

OSS licenses are an attempt to leverage copyright law in order to accomplish something that approximates the important features of putting something in the public domain.

This is not necessary with patents, because nothing is automatically patented and you can absolutely renounce patents.

That said, as OSS licenses evolved, they became more than trying to approximate putting things in the public domain. They started to carve out a space that isn't fully public domain, but also isn't fully proprietary.

It's this sort of licensing that could have huge value with hardware. And that licensing would rest on the legal rights of having a patent, just like how with software, it rests on the legal rights of having copyright.

So, in the end, the principle is the same regardless of whether the underpinnings is copyright or patent.

Although, since (unlike copyright), patents actually have a reasonably short lifespan, this effort is less necessary with hardware. It's entirely feasible just to wait until the patents expire and they enter the public domain.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#147

Post by [deleted] »

yencabulator wrote: post #135
sircastor wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry - I guess I wasn't clear. These group orders or machine shops runs were often done at cost, or sometimes at expense to the person doing it. It was the nature of the hobby at the time. There were undoubtedly folks who would make a small profit off an order like this. To me, the meaningful difference was at the time the folks doing it were part of the community.

Deciding who is and who isn't part of the community sounds like anti-communal gatekeeping behavior -- and explicitly against the values of open source, no discrimination against persons or groups is a big deal for openness. Imagine someone in the early days had been able to manufacture whole machines from scratch at decent prices. That would have probably been desirable, lots of people would have bought them. You can…

[deleted]

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#148

Post by j-pb »

cowl wrote: post #127
j-pb wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets's not pretend that the majority of cost savings cones from producing in europe vs. producing in china. You safe in lavour costs, safety standards, environmental protection, e.t.c. This is one of the few cases where import tax should do it's job at protecting local economy. Tax it so that the chinese clone costs the same as the locally and ethically produced original.

What you are describing is what Prusa did to for example Lulzbot. Prusa replaced Lulzbot based on price. Cheaper materials, cheaper labour in East Europe vs US, less logistic costs, less Regulation etc. Why it's acceptable for this to happen in East Europe vs US and not in China vs Europe in this case?

Your comparison doesn't make much sense to me. If a chinese company were to produce their own printer model and dominating the market with it, then we wouldn't have this discussion. Prusa produces their own design, in a factory in their hometown, while contributing to the open-hardware community. The chinese knockoffs produce somebody elses design in somebody elses factory and don't contribute anything back.

Do I think we should curb globalisation, and encourage local production and innovation (protecting both lulzbot and prusa)? Yeah, but that's an orthogonal discussion for another day.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#149

Post by cowl »

j-pb wrote: post #148
cowl wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are describing is what Prusa did to for example Lulzbot. Prusa replaced Lulzbot based on price. Cheaper materials, cheaper labour in East Europe vs US, less logistic costs, less Regulation etc. Why it's acceptable for this to happen in East Europe vs US and not in China vs Europe in this case?

Your comparison doesn't make much sense to me. If a chinese company were to produce their own printer model and dominating the market with it, then we wouldn't have this discussion. Prusa produces their own design, in a factory in their hometown, while contributing to the open-hardware community. The chinese knockoffs produce somebody elses design in somebody elses factory and don't contribute anything back. Do I thi…

Do you have any example in mind? The three "main competitors" right now are AnyCubic, Creality, and Bambu. All with their own Designs (and various levels of contributing back) that have nothing in common with Prusa appart the fact that they Do (among other models) Cartesian systems with fixed Z Bed. I don't doubt that if you scour in Aliexpress you might find some exact copies but by every measure they are not visible in the global market and are not competing with Prusa.

Do I think that we should encourage local production? Yes. At the expense of affordability for the common people? Hell no. I don't care where John Doe got his first Hobby printer and if encouraging local production comes at the expense of less people having a chance to use the technology that is a net negative. Prusa himself Got into this business because of the affordability of the Reprap project. I Want other people to be able to dip their toes into new areas and maybe become the next Prusa, but if the entry price into the new field is equal to the monthly salary how many (and especially how many students) can afford to try and do so?

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#150

Post by eschaton »

JohnFen wrote: post #137
eschaton wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> pick a different license Which is exactly what Prusa has done. Contractually speaking, you're correct. However, there was also a standard social expectation in the community. The sad part of this whole thing isn't the licensing issue, it's the fact that this is marking the end of the "golden age" of the community.

Why does "the community" expect everyone to adhere to its social expectations despite the text of the license not requiring that adherence? Not everyone is a part of "the community," some people just want to make or buy decent but inexpensive 3D printers.

I'd have not lost respect for Prusa if the statement had been, "Unfortunately, I'm not making enough from this to continue doing it as fully open hardware, sorry." Instead the statement reads as, effectively, "Others are stealing from me, so I can't make more fully open hardware, sorry." And that's wrong--he gave it to them, they didn't steal it!

Post reply on HN