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."
time to fork the project. Whenever this has happened the opens source fork wins (Mambo vs Joomla, LibraOffice vs OpenOffice - which then went open itself, etc.)
Open Source sometimes makes money... Sometimes it doesn't
Having an Open Source model reduces your sources you can make money from the product.
In the case of what makerbot sure you may buy his thing now... But because the source is open, a Chinese firm takes the code and makes a perfectly compatible one at half the price? By making your stuff too open it allowed your competitors to get an advantage over you.
Sorry real life isn't like Barney. You need to get the balance of what is good for you and what is good for others.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The people moaning are interesting to watch.
If you think there's a licensing violation, sue their asses off.
If you licensed loosely such that it allows such things, sure it's morally a little dubious but they are doing nothing "wrong".
It's no worse than someone taking Firefox, changing the name and selling it off as something else. If they offer a better product by doing so, then isn't that precisely what the "evolution" of open source code is all about? But they haven't even USED your code (or you have given them permission to use your code in a closed-source way).
It's like saying you're giving your book away for free and then when lots of people download it whining about how it took you a lot of effort to write it.
I don't get the argument here. You licensed liberally, or they re-invented your licensed code. Surely imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I think people are just annoyed that others have worked out a way to make money from something that they have voluntarily given away.
I'm all for open-source. I have contributions in open-source software. I write some of my own (crappy) software too. I'm hardly a nay-sayer here. But if what they did is illegal, sue them. If it's not, well any idiot could have done what they did and made the same money by the same method, including the original authors.
What, exactly, is the problem here apart from feeling hard-done-by on something you explicitly allowed to happen?
Yes they are douchebags (lets get that out of the way). But, this is not rocket science technology we are talking about. The DIY fabricator movements exists already and has tremendous momentum. Yes they were very visible and will continue to be so but in the eyes of the community it is a fail (for being greedy DBs) so any innovation will continue to happen without them. Its not like they have any chance of success, between the other DIY projects that are out there, the existing momentum in the community, and the mounting pressure from offshore vendors who will jump in with both feet, these guys are doomed.
The broader issue is this acceptance of closed source as the only alternative to being able to commercialize any project. It happens all the time. Somewhere between the original intentions (good or not) of starting a project and the decision to go closed source is the interjection of greed whether it comes from VC money, internal greed, whatever, which screws things up every time. The open source community needs some form of credo and logo that people can attach to their projects , the 'we will never be douchebag' or 'always open source' credo and logo so people will at least think about it before they rip off everyone else's hard work and for the community it shows a clear (more visible anyhow) commitment to remain open source.
You can love someone and fuck another guy. And you can say you love someone but then ditch them just because they fucked another guy. If your interest in a girl revolves around having her *not* do certain things, isn't that a little self-serving in itself?
Adultery has been scientifically demonstrated to create as much pain as severe physical trauma. I don't have a link handy, but it was posted on slashdot in the last few months.
When you cheat on your spouse, the choice you're being presented with amounts to "Would you be willing to have your spouse suffer the pain of being hit by a moving car to participate in this shameful activity?"
If you think it's possible to love someone as you put them through that, you don't know what love is.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Hi. I use the Makerbot Replicator professionally to make equipment for my lab. I'm also a member of the Makerbot Google Group, who largely share my views:
(1) Good on them for going closed source. The Makerbot people have done a lot of work advancing the state of the art in consumer-level 3D printing technology. And they're being copied all over the place: there are kickstarters for near-identical models with shittier manufacturing that undercut their business. This is exactly what patents are made for, to protect innovation! And Makerbot Industries held off going closed source until they were forced to. Ultimately, I want Makerbot Industries to stay alive and keep being able to sell stuff so they can keep their R&D going. Also, they're great advertisers for 3D printing technology, and they're helping it gain mass appeal. More power to them.
Closed source or not, 3D printing puts a ton of power in the hands of ordinary people. Who cares if the printer is patented?
(2) People are feeling betrayed and that is really, really sad. See Occupy Thingiverse for details. I really hope this doesn't end Thingiverse. But it is creating awareness of the Thingiverse license agreement, which I suppose is a good thing.
(3) GOD DAMN THAT THING LOOKS AWESOME. I can't help but want the Replicator 2, it's gorgeous. It looks like the design idea here is "it does less stuff but does it better" - there's no ability to print ABS and no dual extrusion, but if it works as advertised, getting good prints out of it will be much easier.
(4) It's almost annoying how fast they iterate. The original Replicator came out in January, and this thing's already out? WTF? I've barely had time to play with the previous one, and now the support community will be split between the two models. So it'll be harder to find info on the Replicator and not on the Replicator 2.
(5) I don't know if I'll continue to support Makerbot Industries so much. Truth be, before this annoucement I was already considering a cheaper non-Makerbot 3D printer (e.g. the truly open-source RepRap). If Makerbot is going closed source all the way, that may be enough of a push to get me to buy something else. I'd be willing to pay more to support the open-source ideal.
In short, if they're going pure capitalist, then I'm going to do the same to them.