@Andrew_Hodel
Anyone who understands Open Source will not call it Open Source, nor would any Open Source organization recognize it as Open Source. I don’t think you understand Open Source.
There is no Open Source license that has a non-commercial restriction. None. Zero. Nada.
It’s a real shame that so much FUD has been spread about Open Source, usually by commercial organizations selling proprietary products, that now most people don’t understand it’s basic principles, even people who profess to support it.
I guess I’ll just post the same thing again since you disregarded it:
I think you are leaving out a fundamental part with the Thingiverse TOS.
When I license something GPL for example, I’m expecting that it will remain open source and that the source will continue to be shared even after it has been improved regardless of who uses it.
The trouble with this TOS is that Makerbot grants themselves immunity to that provision, they don’t have to follow the terms of your license agreement after you agree to their TOS. That is a big problem.
I support Open Source because I know that what I release and it’s derivitaves will remain open source. This is simply because I don’t want to see knowledge tucked away under trade secret.
The troubling bit for me is that Thingiverse gives itself the power to release something and not provide the source code.
@Andrew_Hodel
“The trouble with this TOS is that Makerbot grants themselves immunity to that provision, they don’t have to follow the terms of your license agreement after you agree to their TOS. That is a big problem.”
I don’t think so. I suppose Thingiverse could modify your design and then not publish the modified source. Not really a big deal.
I don’t know if FSF have any guidance for hosting services, but without some informed legal advice I don’t think we are likely to get any clarity on this.
@bob_cousins quoting, “I don’t think so. I suppose Thingiverse could modify your design and then not publish the modified source. Not really a big deal.”
I guess that’s not really a big deal for you, but for me the entire reason of doing anything open source is to make sure the how is shared so that in the future someone else can learn from it.
I just can’t imagine having learned 5% of what I have learned without all the source code that’s available today in any sort of reasonable time frame.
I think I see the confusion: I don’t care if someone else makes use of my design to make money. That’s fine. What I don’t want is for someone to distribute a product based on my design without credit and SOURCE code (or a link back to the source). Specifically, my fear would be that Makerbot would open a site like Shapeways where you can look at pictures of something, maybe customize it, and then then /buy a mfgrd copy of the physical object/ without any access to the source code or any credit to me. If the license I choose for the design remains, no worries. If they say they can apply their license to it, irrespective of my license, then they can do that. Or that would be my concern.
Imagine how much worse Javascript programmers would be if you couldn’t view the source of a project you wanted to understand because it was compiled into a binary.
I think that’s the fundamental value in Open Source, the forwarding of knowledge.
That’s what Makerbot takes away with the Thingiverse TOS.
The current issue with Makerbot isn’t Open Source… it has more to do with Creative Commons… and Thingiverse’s T&C IMHO.
I did a post (linked at the bottom of this) which gave my analysis of the T&C on Thingiverse. TL:DR The T&C specify 2 forms of usage. Thingiverse has full rights and can do whatever they want to what you upload, but the CC license is only applied to the consumer.
One of the designs which is being argued was produced as a Creative Commons - Non Commercial… That’s the design which Thingiverse is patenting, and they are claiming as their work… possibly because they added features which wasn’t in the original design… but thus makes it a derivative (original design was also Share Alike).
My understanding, if someone takes the design and put’s it in an Closed Source device… well for starters, they can’t see it as it’s non-commercial. But they would need to provide any modifications back to the community.
In response to your question, “why people should support alternatives to the site”. Because when you post something to their site… Thingiverse can do whatever they want with it, no matter what license you apply to it yourself.
Have not read any of the above posts to give my unbiased opinion.
Makerbot makes low quality high price printers with low reliability (latest lines of printers). They have shut the door on the community, their only remaining maker friendly service was thingiverse… unfortunately they started lifting ideas from there and other public sources and applying for patent on our stuff, to quote bre the ceo " we all knew the 3d printer patent war was coming"
That tweet was enough to express the companies views on the independent maker community. So where does that leave thingiverse. They use thingiverse as an engine to push Their printer to consumers, and to farm ideas for patents apparently. So my vote is to move on and boycott, not because makerbot is closed source, but because they are capitalizing on the abuse of the open-source ideas.
Now how to boycott… I recommend leaving the models up but adding a boycott with a cover picture.
So now, let me explain why I asked and ask for more! And thank you for the discussion so far:
I was asked to do a presentation on http://thingiverse.com for the next SDMMF meetup. But I really don’t want to just show how cool that site is without explaining the issues regarding open source that are behind it. And the challenges of moving to alternative sites (primarily, the lack of the Customizer anywhere else). So I developed this outline, and I want to make sure it’s not violently wrong on some of the details that lead up to the main point. Please keep in mind: I’m trying to explain WHY thingiverse is great, AND why it sucks. Good and bad. An overview, not a one sided argument. And perhaps make a point about open source at the same time. But mostly, the goal here is to show people what is out there and how to use it for their own printing, which I spend the bulk of the time on in steps 4 and 5. Any feedback (including “this sucks”) most welcome.
Outline:
0. No one knows everything. Some people know electronics, some people know software, others, firmware. Some people are mechanical designers. In fact, it has been argued that it wouldn’t even be possible for a single person to have all the knowledge to build something as simple as a mouse, or a toaster oven, totally by themselves; without any help.
Certainly, we do BEST when we share. And when we allow others to see how we did something and give them the chance to improve on our work, without having to re-invent it.
That is what Open Source is all about. You don’t have to know stepper motors and drivers, motion control timing, g-code interpretation, communications, thermal and mechanical design, PID temperature control loops, and so on to use a 3D printer… you can just buy one. And you can buy one thanks to Bre Pettis and others like him. Bre was arguably the first, and certainly the most successful to date with MakerBot industries.
But you DO still have to know how to do 3D CAD design of parts… or do you? Turns out Bre (with Zach Smith) made that easy as well, or made it easy for us to make easy by giving those with CADability a place to share designs and allow others to just print them, or improve on them as they will: http://www.thingiverse.com is a HUGE collection of stuff you can print. Open designs, credit and source assured. {Ask for an object, see if it’s available. 2 or 3 minutes.}
But then sometime before 2012 Bre Pettis sold the company and there was a change made in the “Terms Of Service” on the site http://www.thingiverse.com/legal (see section 3.2)
that would allow the owners to “steal” designs; in the sense that they could hide the source. They could legally sell copies of your work without giving you credit, and more importantly, without letting others see how you made it, or make improvements to your work. This is not a cut and dried issue, read more about it here: http://hackaday.com/2012/09/20/makerbot-occupy-thingiverse-and-the-reality-of-selling-open-hardware/
{ 2 or 3 minutes }
So now there are alternatives which compete by being more in line with the open source movement. https://www.youmagine.com/ http://www.bld3r.com/topmain
But these sites aren’t really full replacements because they don’t (yet) have “Customizer” (fanfaire) {1 minutes.}
{ Show examples of what customizer allows you to do. 5 minutes.}
Gear
Nuts and Bolts
Silkscreen
Drawer Guide
{ How customizer works, OpenSCAD to Customizer:
or just answer questions. 5 to 10 minutes.}
Marching papers: “Encourage the alternatives to add customizer so we can get away from thingiverse lawyers.”