Over a year after I posted the design,

Over a year after I posted the design, MBI is selling a derivative of my extruder upgrade.

That piece at the bottom looks a lot like the pictures I recently posted of my most recent developments. Their version lacks the rear clean-out opening.

u choose CC-BY? Or CC-BY-NC?

CC-BY-SA. I can’t find anywhere where they’ve complied with either clause.

The irony of you suing them after they took IP on their designs would be mind blowing.

It wouldn’t matter, without a ton of money, good lawyers and time you’d get nowhere. And then I am sure it’s just different enough that it wouldn’t be infringing anyways.

Plus there’s the question of whether these licenses can legally be applied to functional mechanisms. I don’t really care if they are legally required to comply with the license, but if they don’t, it’s just more proof that they have no respect for their customers, the community, the ideals of open source, or anything else other than their bank account.

That is really messed up! I had a feeling things would get bad after they got the big investment, but I was really hoping MBI would somehow handle it different. I guess that is how it goes, I hope they fall flat on their face.

This does not surprise me.

Since all the files are on thingiverse, you (and any uploader of the derivatives) granted them a license (in addition to the one you publicly chose for everyone else) which allows them to use your work for pretty much any purpose they desire. Legally, it’s absolutely ok for them to do what they do. Morally, well, we know where @bre_pettis ’ company stands.

Shame mbi. I well never buy one of your printers. I have stopped recommending them to others since rep 2 came out. This just confirms it. Hope your greed drags you down bre.

So I’m not with MBI or anything, but let me see if I’m understanding this correctly: you’re upset because the company that makes your 3-D printer is selling a part replacement, you think is based on something you designed (probably based on a previous reprap design), and apparently decided to share with the community at large? If you cared about “owning” your contribution, why did you license it under Creative Commons in the first place? Or are you just upset at the implication of MBI selling this as part of a larger closed-source product?

I admit, it’s easy to just react reflexively at what MBI is doing as “Closed-Source = BAD!” But on balance, have they not been instrumental in helping advance the use of this technology in the first place? Isn’t their contribution to the whole worth cutting them just a little bit of slack? As a would-be entrepreneur myself, I have to say it couldn’t have been an easy decision to close source on the product. But seeing as how they’re betting their entire company’s success on being able to claw out a relevant piece of market share in a rapidly-growing industry, I understand their decision as one born out of sober necessity, rather than wishful thinking.

@Ken_Romero my quarrel is entirely with the fact that they are not providing the required attribution and reciprocal sharing. I intentionally did not use a non-commercial license when I posted it.

Really, I don’t even care that much about the attribution part (although whpthomas may feel differently, as it is derived directly from his derivative of my design), but this is just another example of MBI shitting on the open source community that it is built on top of.

@Ken_Romero - people are pissed because mbi is sucking the life out of the community that spring up around them. Other printer companies like lulzbot and seemecnc actively donate back into community projects. Hosting a website which you can mine for new product ideas doesn’t count as supporting the community. Plus a thank you or two would also go a long way.

I can’t find it for sale on Makerbot or shared on Thingiverse yet.

One would hope that the creators of thingiverse would be able to demonstrate the derivative and attribution features of their very own software for their very own things. If not, its a sham. And if you can’t make the upgrade using thingiverse and the Rep2, what’s the whole point of Rep2?

Heh: On http://www.thingiverse.com/MakerBot/designs/page:1 it looks like their last useful design was a doorstop from 4 months ago.

I wished Ultimaker came with such good quality instructional videos.

That’s a little better, but there are no design files, and they are violating also the SA clause by adding the NC clause to the license.

NC clause is fixed, still no design files.

Not that I want them personally, I just want them to be available, in compliance with the license.

You mean like the .STL? - The stl is inside the .thing file. It’s just a zip file.

No, I mean source files.