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.)
I tried contributing to a FOSS game - there I found out there are ten times as many leechers looking to appropriate code (w/o citation) than there are talented people willing to write it. Then they started discussing commercial licensing and i called it quits.
If signed up to Kickstarter for this I'd be after a refund about now.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
How are people supposed to lock down an open source platform, and stop this being a truly disruptive technology? Won't somebody PLEASE thing of the rent seekers!!!??
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.
Giving to a Kickstarter is a donation. They are under no obligation to do anything for you and any promises of rewards or timelines are not enforceable. So many people are not realizing this and as KS gets more popular it's going to cause big problems. OUYA got $9 million and they could bleed the money out over the next 2-3 years (good luck expecting to see anything in 04-2013) and walk away giving nothing back.
tl;dr
If you gave KS money don't expect a refund because they didn't meet their goal.
Geeks and engineers should have a 3D printer if they do modeling of any kind. Civilians should have them if they're artists or designers, or like to create. And I hope for an open code/free-like model of licensing app code to go with it, 'cause the closed model doesn't evolve the code quickly enough, or ensure portability to varying OS releases quickly.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
their webcast was really badly done in regards of it's audience.
95% of people watching it were people who already had 3d printers, some makerbots, some repraps and so on. the speech was aimed at people who didn't weren't familiar with makerbot.
yet, they acted as if makerbot exists in a vacuum(no mention of reprap, of the things used to print parts for the first mbi devices or any previous models from them even). the new model is more expensive too - and support is extra cost(!) despite it being more expensive than the last model. it also does less(no abs support on the model that's coming to sale this year, it only supports the pla plastic). it was hype, hype and more hype.
there was _no_ technical discussion about the device on the announcement, if the electronics and such are the same as previous replicator or not(they claim the new one does 0.1mm layers, but the old one did too). they didn't even tell if the new sw stack works with the old replicator(it does, didn't have time yesterday for test prints though). there was no discussion of if they have some newer extruder technology or innovations(they don't seem to, electronics don't seem to have changed either).
the new model seems to be aimed at taking market from cubify and other closed system 3d printers, but it costs more than their older model.
the new sw is _mostly_ open source too though - since it's just the UI that's new and what it does is tie together open source components. it offers less flexible configuration options than the (buggy) replicatorg sw though when it comes to preparing the print. the 3d viewer is prettier though.
the countdown was on for so long that people were expecting a rostock style printer or at least something significantly different and certainly cheaper(usually you would do that, design something cheaper if you don't add features), certainly not them turning away from open to "prosumer" version of their existing device at a higher pricepoint, replicator1 was already expensive enough. if it's their time to start churning profit(and they weren't with the old pricing?) then it doesn't bode too well for them.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The Chinese company will just as gladly dump ROMs and clone a closed source product.
The difference is now the Chinese product is more appealing as they probably will stick to standards to keep things cheap.
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.
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
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
There is nothing wrong with toys. But once they get cheap enough (and the raw materials for the printing do too) there are many people who could get good use out of one. Once they get cheap enough (maybe in a year or two at this rate) I'll have one, though I must admit that for me it will be a toy for the most part. I would use it for making customised gifts (for instance customised versions of http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30487 and http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:22125 for my sister in law who is nuts on ducks and bats) and so forth as well as just "playing". If you consider what I've spent on computer equipment over the years when I don't need a fraction of that power, these things really aren't going to be that extravagant soon.
For more practical uses: Anyone who does art such as model-making and other crafting could make the device pay for itself easily for prototyping (you'd still need to get thing professionally made if you want the final version in bulk, of course). I have friends who pay far too much for figures for their wargames: if the output is high enough resolution to get reasonable detail and it doesn't need too much smoothing/sanding to get a good look then they could save a packet and get customised models as a free extra nice-to-have. Parents could no doubt find many things to do with one, for or with the kids, assuming the materials used are non-toxic enough. Most people don't need their own ink-on-paper printer, but most homes with a computer have one and make use of it - 3D printers may be in the same position in a few years time.
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.
How does Kickstarter handle fraud?
I read a while back about one where half way through some girl found her project was too hard and started writing gibberish about the Sun telling her psychically to stop work, etc... people got pissed and wanted refunds since she obviously was not doing her part.
technically kickstarter doesn't handle that as fraud.
you get the money and it's up to you to use it.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
How does Kickstarter handle fraud?
they tax it :)
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Do you really need a 3d printer, or is it just a toy?
Your question reminds me of questions people asked when I bought my first computer in 1982. "Why in the hell would anyone need a computer?" Compared to today's computers it WAS a toy -- but an incredibly useful toy.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf the White
Good-bye
Sure, being cheated on sucks, and proves your partner is unwilling/unable to keep their oath (assuming such an oath was made of course) Death is a rather disproportionate response though. People do shitty things to each other sometimes, it's just one of those facts of life we have to deal with.
One such shitty thing is that we built a culture that holds sexual monogamy to be the norm/ideal, when the reality is that there's not one single sexually-monogamous species on the planet. Many species make life-long monogamous pair-bonds, but that's not the same thing at all - whether it be wolves, trumpeter swans, etc. you can almost guarantee that some of a female's offspring will not be fathered by her chosen mate. Moreover available evidence suggests that humans aren't even biologically predisposed towards that level of monogamy, in the absence of cultural pressure the median human pair-bond lasts something like 5-10 years. Not that there aren't outliers that remain happily bonded for their entire lives, but those are decidedly not the norm.
And really "cheating" makes biological sense - reproduction is all about long-term genetic investments, and it's quite possible that your chosen mate has some genetic shortcomings that may not manifest for several generations, a little diversification mitigates that risk with minimal cost (a male will help raise some offspring that aren't his, but some other male is helping raise some offspring that are) . It's a win-win scenario that only becomes a problem when we construct a culture that defines such risk-mitigation as a betrayal and attempts to impose an "ideal" with no basis in biological reality. When that happens I have to ask - what exactly is the benefit we're getting in exchange for all the self-inflicted misery?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
In venture capital circles, you only get to do that once, if that. Takes work to come up with something that they will believe in enough to fund. If you're faking it, they'll see that before you get any money. If you're good enough to fool them, then once you take the money and run without even an honest try, your reputation is ruined and no one will ever talk to you again. You won't have an easy time keeping the money either. You may even have trouble staying out of jail for fraud.
Maybe Kickstarter has a lot more suckers, but it won't last.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"