[hackerspaces] Idea: things.hackerspaces.org now that Thingiverse is not ok anymore

Matt Joyce matt at nycresistor.com
Wed Sep 26 23:56:34 CEST 2012

Yeah international legal stuff is wacky as hell.

I personally don't like this moral rights idea at all.  I'd oppose
that if ever suggested in the US.

I understand the arguments for it, but I fundamentally hate the
concept of one person enforcing their own personal morality on anyone
else.  I just can't abide by it.


On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:51 PM,  <quemener.yves at free.fr> wrote:
> Yes, I have a question. I live in France and I know a bit about these moral rights. The thing about them is that, love it or hate it, you can not abandon them. Legally, an author, whatever s/he signed, keeps a moral right over the use of its work. A recent example has been Sarkozy's party using a song (that they paide for, licenced through the local equivalent of the RIAA) as "Sarkozy's entrance". The author said that he disagreed with this use and barred them from using it.
> Therefore, such a contract, saying that you abandon moral rights is an abusive clause and would probably be recognized as such by Franch tribunals. I agree that this causes a problem. If I put a work under CC-by-SA in thingiverse but one day decide that I refuse it to be used by a given political group can be quite troublesome.
> Open licences are designed to work on top of US copyright laws, but internationaly, they are in the gray zone. The more I learn about the laws framing international cooperations the more I am amazed that anything happens at the international level, really.
> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Matt Joyce" <matt at nycresistor.com>
>> À: "Hackerspaces General Discussion List" <discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org>
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 27 Septembre 2012 04:57:58
>> Objet: Re: [hackerspaces] Idea: things.hackerspaces.org now that Thingiverse is not ok anymore
>> Just a quick update on thingiverse.
>> http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/26/our-lawyer-explains-the-thingiverse-terms-of-service/
>> Curious if anyone has any concerns not addressed in there.
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Yves Quemener
>> <quemener.yves at free.fr> wrote:
>> > On 09/25/2012 12:17 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
>> >> In case anyone is into discussing it.
>> >
>> > Hello Matt
>> >
>> > Your article triggered a lot of thoughts.
>> >
>> > I wonder if the open hardware community is not trying too hard to
>> > mimic the
>> > free software movement without considering the differences between
>> > hardware
>> > and software.
>> I'd say they are making a mistake mimicking the Free Software
>> movement.  They should be mimicking other successful Open Source
>> software companies.
>> > I think that the open source licenses were the core tool in making
>> > the free
>> > software movement the success it is today. The GPL especially made
>> > a very
>> > good job at using the specifics of the software world and using
>> > them to make
>> > new kind of collaborations possible and profitable to the whole
>> > community.
>> I'd disagree that the GPL makes new kinds of collaboration possible.
>> The reason BSD and Apache licenses are used a hell of a lot more than
>> GPL in business is because of the avenues of collaboration that are
>> cut off by GNU / GPL.  At the very heart of the the fundamental
>> disconnect between commercial interest and free software lies GPL.
>> > Maybe does the open hardware movement need to make its own set of
>> > rules,
>> > adapted to the hardware world?
>> That would be very interesting.  A hardware equivalent to the Apache
>> license would be really cool.  As would an Open Hardware Foundation
>> to
>> administer it.  Maybe folks at the OHS this week will discuss such
>> things.
>> > As I see it, there are two different kind of open hardware today :
>> > - The kind that has its blueprints freely available but that needs
>> > to be
>> > assembled from bought machined parts. The reprap, the makerbots.
>> > - The kind that can be generated totally from raw materials and
>> > open
>> > hardware : most objects on thingiverse.
>> Okay.  Not a very formal definition.  OSHW has some specific formal
>> definitions.  I kinda feel like they might need some revision.
>> > The analogy with software works great for the second kind. Software
>> > is cheap
>> > to copy and does not require manual work. Even if printed parts
>> > require a
>> > lot more time, electricity and a few cents of plastics, the analogy
>> > can work
>> > well.
>> True.
>> > But the first kind is a very different beast. It is similar to the
>> > situation
>> > where the free software world was when neither linux nor gcc
>> > existed. One
>> > can still find examples of free software that require proprietary
>> > content to
>> > work correctly, but they are not the norm. In the open hardware
>> > world, most
>> > of the useful things are not 100% printable or CNC-able (not even
>> > 50%).
>> > Until we are able to print electrical engines, board, chips, metal
>> > axis,
>> > etc. this will be the situation.
>> I think there's two sides to this point.  GCC came about as a natural
>> solution to the fundamental necessity of compilers.  When compilers
>> were new, and C was new, there was no immediate need for such open
>> source software.  Companies worked very had to develop that
>> technology
>> at that time and they needed to fund that work.  So they sold their
>> compilers either as stand alone or part of another product.  Later,
>> as
>> compilers became a fundamental building block of software, open
>> source
>> and free software democratized that technology and allowed for market
>> driven innovation to focus on emerging technology.
>> Markets of scale arguments are another thing entirely.  In the case
>> of
>> a hardware fabricator a small shop simply cannot compete with the
>> foxconns of the world.  And so they cannot rely on their having
>> invented a product to ensure their success.  A bigger fish can simply
>> out pace them and sell cheaper.
>> On is a predatory threat, the other is merely a discussion of when
>> does technology become a target for open source?
>> > What is the best way to deal with that?
>> >
>> > Makerbot used to be a facilitator for the duplication of the first
>> > kind of
>> > hardware : selling prepared kits or even completely mounted
>> > machines, they
>> > made duplication of printing machines affordable and not
>> > time-consuming.
>> > With their change of policy, they now only focus on helping the
>> > duplication
>> > of the second kind of open hardware : the printable ones.
>> I think that's true to a point.  I think they can certainly continue
>> to drive research in rep rap and other open source kit communities by
>> releasing their work staggered, or as component designs.  I hope that
>> they do.
>> > This is still useful (and I still support them) but that means that
>> > suddenly, they will probably stop doing efforts on the first kind
>> > of open
>> > hardware. A free software analogy would be Linus Torvalds saying
>> > that v2.0
>> > of the kernel would become proprietary but would still be a full
>> > and would support GNU with dedication. It would have angered many
>> > people,
>> > but would not have prevented the development of new OSS tools.
>> > (Actually
>> > this is a bit dishonest comparison because Linus does not have to
>> > run a
>> > manufacturing business to release Linux)
>> I disagree.  By the time Linus wrote his Linux OS, Unix like
>> operating
>> systems were plentiful.  But, in the earliest days Unix cost money.
>> When the technology is still emerging it's sold as a commercial
>> product.  But later one, as it became a fundamental necessity of
>> other
>> products it was standardized and turned into first BSD then minix and
>> linux.
>> 3D printing isn't "new" technology persay.  But like Unix it will be
>> an emerging technology for decades, as the hardware and methods
>> develop.  At some point the ubiquitous need for 3D printing will
>> drive
>> a legitimate open source adoption.
>> RepRap began the first attempt to do that.  Makerbot launched an
>> attempt to build a successful commercial entity on top of that
>> effort.
>> The way I see it, Makerbot is the redhat to reprap's proverbial
>> linux.
>>  And when it comes right down to it.  Redhat made linux more than
>>  just
>> a computer science hobby kit.  It made it a defacto standard and an
>> open source one at that.  However even today parts of redhat are
>> special sauce and closed source.  Still their contributions to open
>> source are vast.
>> Sure it's harder copy and distribute a printer.  But in both cases a
>> return on investment in the open source technology was needed to
>> drive
>> development and adoption.  In both cases a commercial entity rose up
>> and was able to pursue a hybrid open / closed source model.  I'd say
>> there is a clear parallel.  Not much of a difference at all.
>> > Isn't there a way to find a license that would allow duplication
>> > facilitators of the first kind of open hardware to make a living? I
>> > know
>> > that open-source types frown upon "non-commercial" clauses, like in
>> > the CC,
>> > but couldn't something like that (maybe with a short time limit)
>> > help
>> > makerbot make a living while being a community actor ? I could
>> > imagine a
>> > clause saying "until <this date+one year>, only non-commercial
>> > duplication
>> > is allowed".
>> Open source doesn't frown on non-commercial clauses.  Free software
>> does.  These are two very different things.
>> You can be open source and still proprietary.
>> Heck I actually agreed with this approach in my post.
>> > This would prevent carbon-copy competition. This would not "protect
>> > profit
>> > generating innovation", as you put it, but this part seems
>> > antinomic with
>> > what the whole open-source/hardware movement is about.
>> As I said, I agreed in my post.  It is interesting discussion though.
>> > Yves
>> Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the Discuss mailing list