A Reply to Josef Průša • Hacker News Board

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#151

Post by eschaton » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 4:24 AM UTC

nullc wrote: post #91

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.

The license is the limit, the worst you are allow to behave before you are breaking the law. You're not necessarily good actor just because you're within the bounds of the license. It's important that licenses permit broadly rather than trying to set a tight boundary because if you get wrapped up in litigation over the boundary it can result in life destroying expenses. Prudent people should stay well away from the h…

> The license is the limit, the worst you are allow to behave before you are breaking the law. You're not necessarily good actor just because you're within the bounds of the license.

As long as someone else's derivative work is properly compliant with the license under which the original work was released, the creator of the original work--who chose the license!--has no standing to complain. If they didn't game out this possible outcome that's on them.

Trying to insist that random strangers have to conform to the norms of a community of which they're not a part in addition to conforming to their legal obligations is practically delusional.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#152

Post by eschaton » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 4:34 AM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #42

HideousKojima wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why do you think it sucks? Why do you think it isn't "fair play?"

The creator specifically said it was OK to do exactly those things! Maybe not in those words, but definitely in the words of the license under which it was released.

Now, if the creator was saying "I got bad advice on this and didn't realize the implications, now that I do my subsequent projects will be closed" I'd have more sympathy.

But they're not saying that, they (and you) are arguing that people who look at the project, understand the license, and produce a derivative work that meets the terms of the license are doing something wrong. And that's not the case either morally, ethically, or legally.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#153

Post by nullc » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 3:53 PM UTC

eschaton wrote: post #151

nullc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The license is the limit, the worst you are allow to behave before you are breaking the law. You're not necessarily good actor just because you're within the bounds of the license. It's important that licenses permit broadly rather than trying to set a tight boundary because if you get wrapped up in litigation over the boundary it can result in life destroying expenses. Prudent people should stay well away from the h…

> The license is the limit, the worst you are allow to behave before you are breaking the law. You're not necessarily good actor just because you're within the bounds of the license. As long as someone else's derivative work is properly compliant with the license under which the original work was released, the creator of the original work--who chose the license!--has no standing to complain. If they didn't game out t…

I don't believe my comment said anything about norms of a community.

If someone takes an open design, makes a 1:1 copy, sells it just undercutting the people that put resources into designing it-- the eventual result of that trend continued is that future versions aren't going to be open anymore.

Call them delusional if you like but people complaining about anti-social behavior that undermines the public good are effective-- if they weren't you presumably wouldn't have seen any reason to comment at all. :P

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#154

Post by eschaton » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 10:59 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #153

eschaton wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The license is the limit, the worst you are allow to behave before you are breaking the law. You're not necessarily good actor just because you're within the bounds of the license. As long as someone else's derivative work is properly compliant with the license under which the original work was released, the creator of the original work--who chose the license!--has no standing to complain. If they didn't game out t…

I don't believe my comment said anything about norms of a community. If someone takes an open design, makes a 1:1 copy, sells it just undercutting the people that put resources into designing it-- the eventual result of that trend continued is that future versions aren't going to be open anymore. Call them delusional if you like but people complaining about anti-social behavior that undermines the public good are eff…

My whole point is that it’s *not* “anti-social behavior that undermines the public good” just because it denies “expected profit” to the creator!

There are plenty of people creating open hardware for whom “someone else made a run of these and is selling them cheaply” is actually an intended result—and why they picked a license that allows it—and this actually encourages them to do more, because it means more people will actually be able to use their design.

I get that motives other than profit maximization are alien to some Hackernews but really, the problem here is Prusa (and others) not being aligned with the actual meaning of releasing something openly. It’s not a problem with the people following the license.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#155

Post by groby_b » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 2:35 AM UTC

Brian_K_White wrote: post #123

kadoban wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're punishing the wrong people. The people most affected are the ones that _gave you money_, not the ones that don't. If your goal is just to collectively punish all consumers, maybe just get out of the business of selling stuff, because that's pretty toxic.

This. Everyone who bought a clone was never a Prusa customer in the first place. They aren't costing Prusa anything. Nobody stole anything from him because all that money he's so worried about was never his in the first place. He tries to complain about other people's character but that attitude exposed right there is worse. Closing up your ip only hurts your own customers and turns some who might have been customers…

As a Prusa customer: Close it up. Let the freeloaders learn a lesson. I'm so tired of the entitled whining of "the money was never his in the first place"

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#156

Post by Brian_K_White » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 11:02 AM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #155

Brian_K_White wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Everyone who bought a clone was never a Prusa customer in the first place. They aren't costing Prusa anything. Nobody stole anything from him because all that money he's so worried about was never his in the first place. He tries to complain about other people's character but that attitude exposed right there is worse. Closing up your ip only hurts your own customers and turns some who might have been customers…

As a Prusa customer: Close it up. Let the freeloaders learn a lesson. I'm so tired of the entitled whining of "the money was never his in the first place"

But his whining is ok. Got it.

Not that I see how the critics are whining anyway.

He makes the charge that someone else is bad because why exactly? Because they don't "give back"? Whatever that is supposed to mean. So how is he different? Oh right, because he produces hardware and software that other people can use. Except now he doesn't want to do that any more. So, he is becoming exactly the people he just said are bad. Now tell me he's different because he makes his own new stuff instead of copying.

Whining indeed. I call projection whiner.

Re: A Reply to Josef Průša

#157

Post by nullc » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 7:33 AM UTC

eschaton wrote: post #154

nullc wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe my comment said anything about norms of a community. If someone takes an open design, makes a 1:1 copy, sells it just undercutting the people that put resources into designing it-- the eventual result of that trend continued is that future versions aren't going to be open anymore. Call them delusional if you like but people complaining about anti-social behavior that undermines the public good are eff…

My whole point is that it’s *not* “anti-social behavior that undermines the public good” just because it denies “expected profit” to the creator! There are plenty of people creating open hardware for whom “someone else made a run of these and is selling them cheaply” is actually an intended result—and why they picked a license that allows it—and this actually encourages them to do more, because it means more people w…

again you invoke something not mentioned 'profit maximization'.

Sure there are devices where people are asking others to churn them out specifically because they don't have a business selling them. That isn't the case here and extensively zero value add price undercutting cloning will cause further development to not be open. That outcome is unambiguously harmful to the public.