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.)
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.
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.
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
Have you ever had intellectual property stolen before, and talked to a lawyer about it? Unless you've got really deep pockets, you can't afford it. Because you're a small guy — not even in the country in this case — and they're well-capitalized by guys with very deep pockets who can afford the sort of well-connected lawyer who bills at $500 an hour and up. It doesn't matter how thoroughly you can document the whole thing, or that what you developed is absolutely essential to what the thief is selling. Unless you've got at least 10s of 1000s of dollars to speculate on the outcome in court, you can't even get into court with good enough representation to prevail.
Depending on the courts as first line of defense is impractical. The courts belong to the big players, not the common folk. Especially in New York — where I once watch the opposing attorney openly, in court session, bribe the judge for a favorable outcome. Community opinion is sometimes the only defense we've got, especially if we can use the press to force thieves back into something like compliance with GPL licensing and the spirit of the movement.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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.