Slashdot Mirror
MakerBot Going Closed Source?
An anonymous reader writes "A year after a windfall $10 million in venture capital, and after a community stir over one man's attempt to Kickstarter a project to manufacture the open source Replicator with a lower price tag, it appears that MakerBot Industries is going closed source on their new model 3d printer, the Replicator 2. Josef Prusa, core developer of the widely known RepRap printer (the basis for previous MakerBot models) has confirmed the sad news, with a stunned tweet, and is organizing an 'Occupy Thingiverse,' to protest the apparent theft of others' work."
How did Libre/OpenOffice win? Microsoft Office is still the most widely used, and best, office suite. Hell, even Apple's office apps are better than Libre/OpenOffice.
Anyone who creates code through their own effort is welcome to keep it closed, if they like. Appropriating the work of others, contributed on the understanding that the project would be open, is another matter altogether.
Not being Open Source can also cost you money.
I for one will not be buying this device for this reason. I am looking into 3d printers, and like most folks who do at this point I am a geek. Hardcore Geeks are the target audience for this device, pissing them off might not be a good idea.
I have not been able to glean what open source licence this project used, but for sure it was not the GPL. But THIS TYPE of misappropriation of code is the reason the GPL ought to be used for any kind of community project like this.
If you use an open source licence that allows the code to be taken and closed then don't cry when others figure out how to profit from your work and deny you the fruits of your own frickin' labor.
Kurt
I depends on both partner's attitude to poly-amorous relationships. If all are open and happy with the arrangement then it is a goo thing, but if you lead someone on to thinking you are just fucking them but are in fact fucking others too, then that is morally wrong.
There are competing groups, but MakerBot was a sweet spot on openness, cost and ease of construction. That made the MakerBot Cupcake extremely popular. I have a Cupcake derivative that I built. I sourced some parts from MakerBot, others elsewhere, and fabricated some myself.
You can now buy a closed-source 3D printer much cheaper elsewhere. You can build a completely open source printer (see the RepRap project) and customize it exactly to your needs.
MakerBot is now offering a nice 3D printer (the Replicator 2) at much higher cost than its original sweet spot, but with all the disadvantages of a purely commercial product (no longer open and eminently hackable). Previous designs are still open, so they are free to go this way with their new printer if they like.
Now, however, they're alienating their best buyers/contributors at the same time they are pricing themselves too expensively for folks that want a low-end turnkey system. When they took venture capital I think they backed themselves into this corner. Too bad... I think they approached open source 3D printing honestly and enthusiastically and contributed greatly to its progress. The venture capital forces them to become much more commercial, but their open yet accessible approach is what made them so popular to begin with. It's a no-win situation.
Life is short: void the warranty.
"jack - Take (something) illicitly; steal"
Pretty sure there's no theft there. Stop giving the RIAA/MPAA ammunition ;)
More importantly, though...
I don't remember seeing any such language in open source licenses. Most of them do explicitly explain that it's okay to take the open source material and sell it. Some licenses require the source to be made available when distributing products based on it. Some require you mention the license in question.
Can you cite one which actually states that you can't "race to the bottom of the profit ladder" using the sources?
I'm sure it's seen as a 'dick move', but then those who believe that should be prohibited should be working to change the license applied to the material.
That said, the project did fail so those most likely to back the project already made their choice clear.
Wait... what? So, let me paraphrase: "Yay on closed source! Now, get out of my way while I find something open source..."
Yep! Turns out I can like both open-source and closed-source products. Open-source is a dream come true for flexibility and innovation, whereas closed-source products are generally more reliable and polished. Both have their place.