I was printing this Pink a bottle opener for my wife in my shop,

I was printing this Pink a bottle opener for my wife in my shop, Quid’s In Limited Reading UK RG1 1NF. A customer saw it and the asked if it was for sale. I said yes £4.99… she brought it. I’d sold it before it had finished printing!


Is this your design or one of the many on thingiverse? I’m just curious about the licensing implications in this case as I’ve been getting a bunch of requests to print things found by friends on thingiverse and the licensing is less than clear in many cases.

CC*-NC the part would not be for sale but the service of printing a user-supplied or -selected design could be. You can’t however advertise the printing service with that part or design.

I’m more curious about things that are GPL licensed or similar. IIRC the GPL states that you have to ship source code + a copy of the license with a product though I admit it’s been a while since I looked at it in depth.

with a GPLed design, you’d have to provide ‘source code’ or link to it. So a piece of paper with the thingiverse url or to the .stl should cover you.

@Steve_Lynch It’s off Thingiverse http://www.thingiverse.com… I think it was this one, http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6661 not sure there are lots of similar ones…http://www.thingiverse.com/tag:bottle_opener

GPL doesn’t align with 3d designs.
One could threat the physical object as the “output” of a GPL licensed work and that would not be covered by the GPL.
Or it’s just another shape of the design but as the design only describes the object, the object IS already the sourcecode.

@Marcus_Wolschon yes, this could be discussed, but I feel like the GPL source code matches well the GPL stl. And the compilation process which generates a GPL binary matches well the 3D printing creating an object.
What you mention (output of a GPL work isn’t mandatory to be GPL licensed) would be more like this : if you print a GPL’ed tool, you can use it on “projects” which aren’t GPL.

All attempts to match it to the license are far fetched because that license was very specifically made for software.

@Marcus_Wolschon I agree that the GPL would seem to be a bad choice but that model is GPL licensed and I wondered what the implications were. I’m guessing the openscad file could be considered the source. The STL the compiled form and the final printed output nothing more than something generated by the program but I am not a lawyer.

In case of OpenSCAD, yes. That’s clearly a program and the STL an output of that program.

it truly is