They claim to be Open Source, but CC BY-NC-SA is not an Open Source license.
Holy crap. WANT.
Could you add details about build time? Very interested.
Do you have to hit it with UV post process for full cure?
@bob_cousins open source is a fairly generic term, even things like the openROV project are NC licenses. Even whosawhatsis, owner of the group has a NC license on his bukito “open source” printer. The article is also the opinion of the oshwa, which the license does not claim to be compliant with. It is a step in the right direction we can probably agree though…
@bob_cousins does it even make a difference as NC (or any kind of copyright on physical items) isn’t enforceable anyways?
@Eclsnowman : build time was about an hour @ 50um layer height. Yes I post processed it with UV light from the sun.
That makes even less sense! There are creative works where CC BY-NC-SA is valid, using them where they don’t apply just spreads confusion and devalues valid uses.
I guess we all agree though, Open Source hardware is basically dead.
@Brad_Hill Creative Commons, who created the license, also say it is not an Open Source license.
The rest of your comment is like saying “everyone else is breaking the law, so why shouldn’t I”.
@Shane_Graber this is amazing! A beautiful smooth print.
@bob_cousins : you understand the source will be available, right? It’s just under a NC clause
Gonna agree with the rest of the guys here. OSHWA/CC are not governing bodies or legal enforcers. “Open source” is a term that probably should not be applied to hardware period (there is no “source”), but you can basically make up whatever license you want and apply it to whatever you want.
So everything is open source, great!
Come back Makerbot, all is forgiven
Planning on gold plating that ring or was it meant to be “red hot”?