Recent searches
Search options
1/3 Warning: using a non commercial license (e.g. CC BY-NC) for your 3D print design may not protect your work as you might think! A copyright based license can't be applied on purely functional physical object!
A great white paper from @mweinberg to read:
https://michaelweinberg.org/docs/3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff.pdf
@mweinberg @3dprinting
2/3 The only way to protect your functional physical object is to use patents.
If you are looking for an open source license for a physical object I recommend looking at CERN OHL V2. As this license is designed to be purely open source there is no way to restrict the sales with it.
@mweinberg @3dprinting
3/3 If you want to use a license like CC BY-NC you may end up to have the worst of both world:
- You have no protection against clone sales
- You can't get all the advantages of open source (non commercial license are, by definition, non open source).
What are the full advantages of #opensource? Only that others can contribute without it having implications for you? If it is not open source and someone contributes, and you accept a pull request, then they become a "creator" and own a part of it. While open source licensing would allow you to freely use contributions, according to the open source license?
Legit question here.
@Stark9837 @bear_lab @mweinberg @3dprinting open source is just a method of developing software in the open, as in, for others to see and correct. It isn't inherently better or worse than other methods of developing software, as it's practiced very pragmatically in the name of developing better software. With no warranty by the developers, contributing doesn't incur any risk to the developers. Threats to divide developers with forks can allow requesters to steer projects with their edits.
@pantantrant @Stark9837 @mweinberg @3dprinting 1/ Great question @Stark9837 . The developer can accept or not a pull request. If it is a company/group then it is discussed internally. You almost never accept a pull request directly, you always review it, make some changes and test it.
When it comes to hardware it is a bit different. For a 3D print CAD it is rarely made by code so pull requests are more oriented on documentation and CAD changes are discussed in issues tracker.
@pantantrant @Stark9837 @mweinberg @3dprinting 2/ With hardware à, the responsibilities are also a little different than software and testing the modification can become a lot more complex. It is a slower process.
@bear_lab @mweinberg @3dprinting
It's also worth just not using nonfree licenses in the first place given the chilling effect on contributions when it comes to physical parts
@jookia @mweinberg @3dprinting yes you get the worst of both world
@bear_lab @mweinberg @3dprinting
It misses a more complicated scenario of: a user downloads a copyrighted file with an NC license and prints it. They then reverse engineer the design and create their own file, print it and sell it.
Or an alternative: instead of printing, the user uses a program to analyze and measure the features of the object in the file, then recreates the design.
Is a physical object a requirement? Or merely the rendering of it sufficient?
@bear_lab @mweinberg @3dprinting the separation between printing an object for yourself and having someone else print the file somehow nullifies a violation of the files license? If the file is transformed from it's original form (code describing an object) into a new form (a visual representation of the object) at what point does the copyright on the file no longer apply?
@stephlahs @mweinberg @3dprinting yeah I thought about this too, I don't know the exact answer. If you pair this complex scenario with all the "may" instead of "must" in Creative Commons license text it might be a very strong headache for a lawyer 
@stephlahs @bear_lab @mweinberg
That's another thing. I have a printer, my brother in law does not. He wants something and buys me the spool of filament to print it. I print it and there is some filament remaining. If I only give him the print and not the remaining spool, did I accept a payment in a sense and broke the law? What if he says it is fine and it's for my effort?
How many prints of another design can I print for friends, which they would print for themselves if they had printers and keep half spools of filament before I am commercially selling it?
@stephlahs @bear_lab @mweinberg
This is part of the "problem" with copyright. When do I infringebon it? If I take your STL and print it, when I literally look at your STL and simply redesign it, thus the core concept remains the same, and only the dimensions differ on a macro level? Or if, as you say, I create my own STL and redesign it to basically an atomic level. Line by line according to an STL or STEP file.
@Stark9837 @stephlahs @mweinberg @3dprinting 1/3 For personal use you can do whatever you want however if you publish it somewhere you have to follow the rules of the open source license. For example you have to give credit, use the same license and share your source file (e.g. native CAD file). On GitHub you can find a summary on top of the license file for most of them like here: https://github.com/gregsaun/prusa_i3_bear_upgrade/blob/master/LICENSE . It is well summarised. In case of doubt, do not hesitate to write to the creator.
@Stark9837 @stephlahs @mweinberg @3dprinting 2/3 A common mistake in 3D printing is to consider STL or STEP file as the source but it is rarely the case for functional part. Some licenses like CC are very vague on what is the source because it really isn't made for the purpose of functional parts, it is made for art stuffs. In the case of GPL or better CERN OHL V2 it is more clear that the source is the native CAD file that contains all the logic used to design the part (it can be very complex).
@Stark9837 @stephlahs @mweinberg @3dprinting 3/3 Open source roots is to not own the thing you design, everybody should be able to reproduce it and make derivations. So deliberately not sharing the source like native CAD file is not really agreeing to the open source rules. Also it does block your project as the community will feel much less invested and interested.
@bear_lab @Stark9837 @mweinberg @3dprinting
The most difficult part in this is how far a copyright can carry on a functional design.
Copyright can apply to a file, but doesn't cover the contents of the file? Or it applies to the contents, but not the usable object created from the contents?
Meaning, can you only control how/where the file itself is copied and used, but not how/where the object is used?
Finding where those rights end likely involves more explicit licenses than currently exist.
@stephlahs @Stark9837 @mweinberg @3dprinting I think that is what I am trying to explain, copyright cannot be applied on purely functional physical object so if you want to apply restriction there you must use patents. However, CERN OHL V2 is a license that applies open source rules to a purely functional physical object.
If your physical object is artistic then copyright can be applied and CC BY-NC will work on the object.
If you mix artistic and functional then it is very hard.