Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MakerBot Going Closed Source?

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the say-it-aint-so dept.

Open Source 182

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."

cancel ×

182 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

time to fork the project (5, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397509)

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.)

Re:time to fork the project (2, Insightful)

Makels (2735185) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397569)

How did Libre/OpenOffice win? Microsoft Office is still the most widely used, and best, office suite. Hell, even Apple's office apps are better than Libre/OpenOffice.

Re:time to fork the project (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397575)

How did Libre/OpenOffice win? Microsoft Office is still the most widely used, and best, office suite. Hell, even Apple's office apps are better than Libre/OpenOffice.

I meant out of the closed and open branches of the fork. not that would be the best in the world.

Re:time to fork the project (2)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397599)

How exactly is OpenOffice,org closed source?

Re:time to fork the project (3, Informative)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397669)

OpenOffice in the hands of Sun/Oracle was a very close development community, not close source, but extremely closed to accept contributions

Re:time to fork the project (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397675)

Because Oracle bough it. And companies are evil all the time. So if it was open source, they will close it Tommarow...

But I think they were saying OpenOffice vs StarOffice.

Re:time to fork the project (4, Informative)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398369)

>But I think they were saying OpenOffice vs StarOffice.
I would guess he meant exactly what he said: LibreOffice vs OpenOffice

Oracle was being a complete jackass about OO.o, so most all the contributors abandoned it and formed LO. After that, Oracle realized there was no point to holding on to it, so they donated OO.o to Apache. It lives on there, but is moving at a glacial pace compared to LO.

Re:time to fork the project (3, Informative)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397749)

Ever hear of StarOffice? It was a proprietary, free-as-in-free-beer office suite in the late 90s that was acquired by Sun. Sun opened the source around 2001, which became OO v1. It continued to release proprietary versions of OO as "StarOffice" until it was acquired by Oracle, which released a single version rebranded as "Oracle Open Office" in 2010 then promptly axed the project.

Re:time to fork the project (2)

Luthair (847766) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399069)

They didn't axe it, they moved the project to Apache and added IBM as a contributor.

Re:time to fork the project (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397657)

LibreOffice is reasonably good. Apple's office apps are Microsoft's Apple Office app. It has two advantages, being free of cost or subscription and it's open source.

No, it doesn't have the number of users or integration with other tools, but it works (well) for many user's applications.

Re:time to fork the project (2)

iamgnat (1015755) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398097)

LibreOffice is reasonably good. Apple's office apps are Microsoft's Apple Office app.

I believe they were referring Apple's iWork suite of office apps. While they are still lacking compared to MS Office (even the Mac version) I would agree that it is still better than OpenOffice/LibreOffice (and I really do try to use it).

No, it doesn't have the number of users or integration with other tools, but it works (well) for many user's applications.

Overall I like OO/LO as they've done a lot of work to make it work like MS Office (similar icons/menus, etc..), but it's biggest draw back is that it still doesn't handle MS Office documents correctly. At work I invariably have to revert back to MSO because the formatting is all messed up when I look at documents from other people (MSO users) and the ones I create in LO that look and print just fine end up looking like crap in MSO. This is true with documents, spreadsheets, and presentations (don't use the DB tools so no idea about that).

Given that the majority of Office suite use is in the corporate environment and that a wholesale overnight change is pretty unlikely, OO/LO won't gain much ground until it can seamlessly work in a MSO environment.

Re:time to fork the project (3, Informative)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398245)

Although there was some truth to this, much of this is mythological these days. I save to doc and docx with LO, and no one has been the wiser. Admittedly, they're not highly formatted with lots of font changes and document template disciplining. Nonetheless, no one has been the wiser for at least a couple of years now.

Wholesale changeover? No. I'm not even expecting that. I've also used MS Office on Apple.. but never used iWork apps as they weren't known for document interchangeability with the Office hegemony. Perhaps they were; if so, I was unaware.

Re:time to fork the project (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398383)

Install the MS True Type Fonts. that's likely the cause of your frustration

Re:time to fork the project (0)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397661)

Was LibreOffice a fork of Microsoft Office? The parent is talking about win/lose between branches of the fork

Re:time to fork the project (0)

joaommp (685612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397923)

Best? Microsoft Office was unable to handle the book I wrote. less than 200 pages , no fancy drawings or formatting and it would crash. Then I switched to Open Office.

Re:time to fork the project (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398431)

Then I switched to Open Office.

And?! I need closure on this anecdote!

Re:time to fork the project (1)

joaommp (685612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398551)

Then I switched to Open Office.

And?! I need closure on this anecdote^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hevent

call 1-800-OBVIOUS for a course about reading between the lines or 1-800-MCKAY for a course to improve sarcasm/irony skills.

Re:time to fork the project (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399475)

Then I switched to Open Office.

And?! I need closure on this anecdote^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hevent

call 1-800-OBVIOUS for a course about reading between the lines or 1-800-MCKAY for a course to improve sarcasm/irony skills.

Or google I need closure on that anecdote [google.com] to unwhoosh yourself . . .

Re:time to fork the project (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#41400055)

or 1-800-MCKAY for a course to improve sarcasm/irony skills.

Ironically, I was being ironic.

Re:time to fork the project (1)

rjr162 (69736) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397975)

Except I've found some things that OpenOffice does/handles better than LibreOffice and vice versa.

Re:time to fork the project (3, Interesting)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397989)

The interesting difference here is the barrier to entry: The Replicator 2 is a physical object. It needs a supply chain, and shipping arrangements, and a manufacturing base to fork it. (Instead of in pure software where the only thing besides the people you need is some web hosting.) So, it'll take others quite some time to set up a fork of reasonable size and quality, and a fair amount of money.

Should be interesting to watch the fallout of this.

Re:time to fork the project (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398459)

Will it?

I thought there were competing 3D printers for consumers out there, just that MakerBot was the most famous/popular?

Re:time to fork the project (5, Insightful)

gunnk (463227) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398701)

There are competing groups, but MakerBot was a sweet spot on openness, cost and ease of construction. That made the MakerBot Cupcake extremely popular. I have a Cupcake derivative that I built. I sourced some parts from MakerBot, others elsewhere, and fabricated some myself.

You can now buy a closed-source 3D printer much cheaper elsewhere. You can build a completely open source printer (see the RepRap project) and customize it exactly to your needs.

MakerBot is now offering a nice 3D printer (the Replicator 2) at much higher cost than its original sweet spot, but with all the disadvantages of a purely commercial product (no longer open and eminently hackable). Previous designs are still open, so they are free to go this way with their new printer if they like.

Now, however, they're alienating their best buyers/contributors at the same time they are pricing themselves too expensively for folks that want a low-end turnkey system. When they took venture capital I think they backed themselves into this corner. Too bad... I think they approached open source 3D printing honestly and enthusiastically and contributed greatly to its progress. The venture capital forces them to become much more commercial, but their open yet accessible approach is what made them so popular to begin with. It's a no-win situation.

Re:time to fork the project (2)

hweimer (709734) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398547)

The interesting difference here is the barrier to entry: The Replicator 2 is a physical object. It needs a supply chain, and shipping arrangements, and a manufacturing base to fork it. (Instead of in pure software where the only thing besides the people you need is some web hosting.) So, it'll take others quite some time to set up a fork of reasonable size and quality, and a fair amount of money.

The funny thing is that a few weeks ago, someone tried to create a fork [kickstarter.com] , but he got slashed pretty badly by the community and his Kickstarter campaign failed. I suppose this guy has a second chance now.

Re:time to fork the project (0)

citizenr (871508) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399439)

The interesting difference here is the barrier to entry: The Replicator 2 is a physical object. It needs a supply chain, and shipping arrangements, and a manufacturing base to fork it. (Instead of in pure software where the only thing besides the people you need is some web hosting.) So, it'll take others quite some time to set up a fork of reasonable size and quality, and a fair amount of money.

The funny thing is that a few weeks ago, someone tried to create a fork [kickstarter.com] , but he got slashed pretty badly by the community and his Kickstarter campaign failed. I suppose this guy has a second chance now.

he is one year too late
http://www.mbot3d.com/ [mbot3d.com]

Re:time to fork the project (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41400165)

The funny thing is that a few weeks ago, someone tried to create a fork [kickstarter.com] , but he got slashed pretty badly by the community and his Kickstarter campaign failed. I suppose this guy has a second chance now.

He didn't get funded because it seemed pretty scammy, especially considering the guy wanted half a million dollars.

From the KS, answering what he plans to do with all that money:

Raw Materials, Production and Quality Assurance.

QA? Was he planning to hire dedicated QA people?

Shipping and receiving.

Funny, I can receive packages for free.

Planned losses on international shipping.

Are they actual, realized losses? If you know they're coming, why not adjust prices on the front end?

Customer service portal.

FOSS.

Full time support staff (phones, email, and technical).

How many? Are you included? What is the "technical" contact method, exactly?

Replacement parts inventory.

Should be built into the price of the replacement parts.

Brick and mortar location for supporting and servicing the TangiBot.

Office park space is pretty cheap.

Shipping and receiving.

The expense so nice you name it twice.

R&D expenses to build on open source and give back to the community.

A blanket statement unbacked by anything other than a promise.

Re:time to fork the project (3, Informative)

citizenr (871508) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399421)

The interesting difference here is the barrier to entry: The Replicator 2 is a physical object. It needs a supply chain, and shipping arrangements, and a manufacturing base to fork it. (Instead of in pure software where the only thing besides the people you need is some web hosting.) So, it'll take others quite some time to set up a fork of reasonable size and quality, and a fair amount of money.

Should be interesting to watch the fallout of this.

you mean like this
http://www.mbot3d.com/ [mbot3d.com]
? :)

Re:time to fork the project (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398421)

Whenever this has happened the opens source fork wins (Mambo vs Joomla, LibraOffice vs OpenOffice - which then went open itself, etc.)

Actually.. for me, OpenOffice has won - at least in the Calc department. The LibreOffice devs have made several changes to bring LibreOffice's user interface closer to that of Microsoft products, losing superior functionality along the way, and being very inflexible on offering users choice within Libreoffice.

http://www.facebook.com/libreoffice.org/posts/120105584727720 [facebook.com]
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39438 [freedesktop.org]

Though truth be told this started in other areas with OO.o already, thanks to users screaming "Word does it this way, Excel does it this way" - perhaps the devs thought punishing those users by also copying inferior solutions was an appropriate response.

Re:time to fork the project (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398439)

There are these guys (I saw one of them posting in this thread) planning on building a bigger 3D printer. Now THAT would be fun. It will be more expensive and slower for sure, but some of us would actually like to have one of those in hand and be able to afford it. Some parts are just to dull to make on a shop. They want to be able to build things as big as desks. I read about it on their blog (http://report.ondatechnology.org/), but haven't found anything on their wiki yet.

Hypocrites (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397539)

Just goes to show their hearts were never in it to begin with and that it was merely self-serving, and when it no longer suited their interests.... well here ya go.

Re:Hypocrites (2)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397561)

If signed up to Kickstarter for this I'd be after a refund about now.

Re:Hypocrites (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397649)

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.

Re:Hypocrites (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398495)

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.

Re:Hypocrites (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399215)

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.

Re:Hypocrites (2)

citizenr (871508) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399463)

How does Kickstarter handle fraud?

they tax it :)

Re:Hypocrites (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398583)

Wierdly both right and wrong...

Correct in that you wouldn't expect a refund, but incorrect in that you can really be refunded something that you never paid.

KS only take the money once the project reaches the end of its funding period, and only if it has reached its goal. (kickstarter faq link [kickstarter.com] )

Re:Hypocrites (-1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397579)

Those greedy bastards they should have created a company that will go out of business, and when their Family asks them if they can buy food this week, they should sigh and say no, not this week. But I am making tech people with extra income happy by keeping my source open.

Re:Hypocrites (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397609)

Open source and making money can go hand in hand.

I'd buy one because I don't have the skills or resources to make one myself. I am one of many.

Re:Hypocrites (1, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397635)

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.

Re:Hypocrites (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397723)

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.

Re:Hypocrites (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397761)

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.

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398735)

By making your stuff too open it allowed your competitors to get an advantage over you.

If they can get an advantage on you, you are doing something wrong and you should find out what it is.

If they build upon your open work, and offer a better product, you should be able to build upon theirs. If you aren't, then you used wrong kind of open license, one that allows them to close the stuff.

If they simply tail you, copy your product and and cut your price, there are inefficiencies in your production and your costs are too high, or you were being greedy/enjoying advantages of first-to-market while it lasted, and it's time to move on!

Open source dictates short business cycles and continuous development. It is not for wimps and it is not for megalomaniacs. Marketability decays fast and you can't expect to live of selling your good old stuff. Your best and most successful products will be first to stop bringing profit in. Your marginal and niche products might provide you income much longer. Either way, your face and your geek creed is your greatest asset, you "live and die by it". That's why, IMHO, This might not end well for Makerbot Industries and for Bre Pettis. They burned bridges to their roots and they are not yet got to the other side.

Re:Hypocrites (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397653)

Do you really need a 3d printer, or is it just a toy?

Re:Hypocrites (2)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397677)

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.

fight the powah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399345)

freely-available dragon dongs and greased up Yoda dolls FOR ALL!

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397735)

Downloading object from the net and print them.
Cups, doornobs, replacement parts for my printer.

Comeon, this going to be huge.

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397737)

All you "really need" is a set of sturdy clothes and 1500 calories of food per day, of course. Everything else is "just a toy".

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397823)

I'd put air and water on that "really need" list...

Re:Hypocrites (2)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398213)

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 [thingiverse.com] and http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:22125 [thingiverse.com] 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.

Re:Hypocrites (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399633)

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.

Re:Hypocrites (4, Insightful)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397625)

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.

webcast fail (4, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397759)

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.

Re:Hypocrites (1, Offtopic)

Makels (2735185) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397603)

Just goes to show their hearts were never in it to begin with and that it was merely self-serving, and when it no longer suited their interests.... well here ya go.

That's human nature. Everyone is like that. And I mean everyone. I seriously loved my old girlfriend and thought she was in it with full heart, but then she fucked another guy.

Re:Hypocrites (1)

Tommy Bologna (2431404) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397655)

I told you to implement the PGP chastity belt, but nooooo you had to use freeware you found on the interweb.

Re:Hypocrites (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397695)

did you kill her? i know a good place to dump the body

Re:Hypocrites (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397775)

Hans, they're giving you internet access in prison? Why haven't you been contributing to your file system?

Re:Hypocrites (1)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397721)

...so she took the open source route?

Re:Hypocrites (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397763)

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?

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398043)

Well then everyone is self-serving and there's no point in not being so a little bit.

I doubt his ex wanted him to kill people. Or touch little boys. Or drive their car into a building full of cute bunnies.

Emotional pain can be just as bad as physical, and to a lot of people a relationship is between them and only them (but then again some people view it as only dating if there's no ring involved, so to them it's okay to check out other options at the same time until they get engaged/married.. which is one reason to let the other know of your views on that ahead of time)

Re:Hypocrites (4, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398081)

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.

Re:Hypocrites (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398251)

Love != possession.

Why would fucking somebody else be "cheating"?

There exist other sets of morals than yours.

Re:Hypocrites (-1, Offtopic)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398591)

No, love doesn't equal possession. But when someone makes a commitment to be faithful, and they violate that commitment, that IS cheating, and that's what "Adultery" is... cheating after you've made a commitment. It doesn't matter if you love the person or not... you STILL have no right to cheat on them without extracting yourself from the commitment first.

I think adultery should be punished with death, personally, and I would happily support changing the laws to reflect that, and I'd be quite happy to help throw rocks at adulterers until they are dead and bury them in a shallow unmarked grave.

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399267)

And I think you should be punished by death, and I would happily support changing the laws to reflect that. And I'd be quite happy to help throw rocks at you until you are dead, and then help bury your worthless corpse in a shallow unmarked grave.

Also, anyone who insults the prophet Steve Eley must be beheaded!

Also, you suck.

Re:Hypocrites (0)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#41400083)

I suppose we could draw the line at tattooing a scarlet letter A on them...

Re:Hypocrites (2, Insightful)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398259)

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.

Re:Hypocrites (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397925)

Naa, your dick was too small. Think baby carrot.

Re:Hypocrites (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398277)

He should have bought a 3D printer and made an extension...

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397997)

I mean everyone. I seriously loved my old girlfriend and thought she was in it with full heart, but then she fucked another guy.

Perhaps because she was your "girlfriend" and not your fiance or wife. The "*friend" is not a binding commitment...put the ring on her finger and then we have a COMPLETELY different view on this!

Re:Hypocrites (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397999)

I seriously loved my old girlfriend and thought she was in it with full heart, but then she forked another guy.

Fixed that

Re:Hypocrites (1)

denvergeek (1184943) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398215)

I'd branch and tag that.

No surprise (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397545)

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.

Re:No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397627)

SWGEmu. Set back the Star Wars Galaxies emulation scene by 5+ years.

Nexuiz stealing the name and going commercial.

Planeshift (code is 'open' but all media assets are closed (project 'leader' is a media guy, not a code jockey. And from what I'd heard the code jockeys got the short end of the stick.)

I'm sure there are others.

Re:No surprise (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397845)

Nexuiz, what I can extract from that is that the commercial variant is just a clone made by a company, which tried to get some momentum out of the name, Quote from Wikipedia: "It uses CryEngine 3 and it is based on the original free game called Nexuiz (which is described as Nexuiz Classic by IllFonic)." But Nexuiz uses a modified QuakeEngine and is placed under GPLv2, so the clone can only be a new developed...well, clone.

Planeshift, I don't know anything about the background, but the official explanation was to stop people from simply taking everything and setting up their own server. If that's reasonable is another question.

Re:No surprise (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398625)

Yea, abuse like that does seem to plague stuff like this.

The idea of FOSS seems great, but the actual execution often times leaves something to be desired.

How else can you get DRM? (5, Funny)

EdgePenguin (2646733) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397583)

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!!!??

Re:How else can you get DRM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397887)

Won't somebody PLEASE thing of the rent seekers!!!??

You mean the corporate welfare queens? I think we should cut spending by cutting programs like copyright and patent litigation that allow these non-producers to abuse the corporate welfare system.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

natural selection (0)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397597)

pretty positive to weed out douchebags early on

I don't get it. (3, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397805)

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?

Re:I don't get it. (1)

computererds (1613487) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398477)

I'm going to guess as a person that sometimes writes some of your own open source contributions and your knowledge of tort law that you are lacking in the skills of capital and fundamental economics. You have a new venture stealing code that just had in excess of $10 dollars added to their coffers. What do the people that need to sue have? Hopefully they are all phenomenal lawyers by day and writing code by night, because that is the only way they would have a chance without their own giant investment backing their suit.

Re:I don't get it. (3, Informative)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398655)

I think the issue is they presented it as one thing initially to garner support and monetary donations then now that they have that are changing it to be more beneficial to them directly.

Re:I don't get it. (4, Informative)

wytcld (179112) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398717)

If you think there's a licensing violation, sue their asses off.

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.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399095)

well, bitching and moaning is the only thing to do.
you see, lots of people bought their devices because they were promising to be an open company and stay that way and now they're trying to turn (at least in the media) to Apple of 3d printing.

how well they pull it off remains to be seen.

but I would have been more interested in stuff that pushes the envelope, like more sophisticated dual materials printing.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

raisin (30710) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399155)

If you're someone who spends all their time creating things, spending your life fighting about those things is a soul-sucking, wretched process that takes you away from doing what you love.

I've had work ripped off, sometimes in high-profile ways. But there's a choice to be made: do you keep creating new things and move on, or do you spend your life in litigation, calling people out, and dealing with discussions like what we see here. Being ripped off is bad, but the latter choice is truly awful, and means you're not making newer things and getting better at it.

rediculous (1)

methuselah (31331) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397841)

the point of interest in this product is its fundamental principal that it is open. so some dimwit comes along with 10 mill and say hey ill steal that idea and get rich. well uhm no. you will burn through 10 million and make i'ts present organizer very comfortable (i don't blame him a bit either). next door the rap rip will pick up where they left off. if he thinks he can steal rap rip's new effort then i suppose they will have to deal with the wrath of of the contributors to the new forked project who i am sure are at least loosely related to some lawyers some where. this is proof that you do not have to be smart to have money. note to investors: open source is not a playground for capturing, stealing, and exploiting the work of stupid altruists...

The cat is out of the bag already (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41397867)

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.

Re:The cat is out of the bag already (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397895)

We already have the latter, it is called the GPL. You can't take contributions that belong to someone else and are GPLed license and close them up. The GPL should just be expanded to cover hardware.

Re:The cat is out of the bag already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398503)

sure you can, it happens all the time if it is your code to begin with, you simply create a non-GPL licensed fork and from there you take it closed source. You don't need anyone elses 'direct' contribution, you can copy the code, modify it to your needs (in this case avoiding GPL) and then close source the result. It happens, if you look at every GPL case that has gone to court it is always about having the exact code included, no referenced or derivative works.

The 'Credo' was about commitment at the company level, not the code level. Its about the company making a commitment to open source, not whether the code is under GPL.

Re:The cat is out of the bag already (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399841)

It does happen, but things like this often need contributions to survive. Look at WINE vs CEDEGA.

This - The reason for the GPL (5, Insightful)

Sir_Kurt (92864) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397941)

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

Re:This - The reason for the GPL (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398829)

Please, in the name of all that is good and true, somebody mod this up! Parent is spot-on correct.

If you want to contribute code to a project and you don't want that project to be able to close your code then don't use a license that (wait for it) allows the project to take your code contribution and close it. It's that simple. ...and if you do somehow screw that up then please, please don't whine about it after the fact.

Adrian Bowyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399529)

I don't see Adrian Bowyer on here complaining...

Make it cheaper... (1)

Matt_Bennett (79107) | more than 2 years ago | (#41397943)

If it's cheap, far more people just aren't going to care about the license. Raspberry Pi is a good example- Yes, like the masses, I got one. Getting pretty frustrated now with the poor (nonexistent) documentation on the hardware, particularly with respect to the mechanical aspects of the design. I'd love to be proven wrong. Fact is, it's cheap and available, so it's popular.

Make a 3D printer really cheap and/or really easy to use, and the demands for open source are quickly drowned out by the sounds of people actually using it.

Re:Make it cheaper... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398487)

Fact is, it's cheap and available, so it's popular.

So's yo hypothetical momma, but that doesn't mean you have to be happy about the situation.

Re:Make it cheaper... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399435)

what makerbot did here was make it more expensive, and their device was already on the more expensive scale of the hobby printers. so by making it more expensive they labeled it as prosumer.. except that in cameras hobby cameras cost more than prosumer :). and do more.

prusa kits are starting at 800 bucks. ultimaker kits are like 1200euros.

"Theft"? Are we ACTA supporters now?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398209)

He "owns" nothing. What does "closed source" mean, when nobody cares? It's not like it suddenly becomes impossible to copy what he did, now is it? Everybody who's not a drone without own free will, will fork it, and continue the project. The only one who will be completely alone and ignored, will be that douche.

That imaginary property delusion grows crazier and crazier appendages... And people apparently also get dumber by the minute.

I bought because it was open source (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41398427)

I bought a Replicator 1 because it was open source. I was all happy and stuff. now I'm all mad and angry.

"Closed Source" Hardware? (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 2 years ago | (#41398731)

What does he mean the hardware is going "closed source?"

I have a commercial gantry for doing CNC plasma cutting. It's only 2'x2'. But nothing is stopping me from a bigger table utilizing the same design, same parts, and so on. My table certainly has never been "open source" in any way. But I can see it in front of me and that's as good as open.

The only thing that matters in here is the software. As long as it is open source, or there are good open source software solutions available, then there's no problem.

Sure the designs and plans have been shared in the past, but hardware is by definition open source and, thanks to first sale doctrine, is yours to reverse engineer to your hearts content once you buy it. So just have someone buy a replicator 2 and figure out what's so special about it. The only protection a business has over hardware is patents. And that really only protects a business from another business or money-making venture. But nothing stops you from implementing a patented idea for personal use, such as a fancy extruder nozzle system. Patents are public after all.

Re:"Closed Source" Hardware? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399119)

they didn't release entire sw stack this time, parts of their makerware program are closed source.
and they used to publish parts diagrams and such.

LOL hypocrites (0)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399591)

How can it be theft when the original creator(s) are not being deprived of their work? Oh right, this is just the hypocrisy where pirates are overly pedantic when it comes to copyright infringement on proprietary works but it's always called "theft" and "stealing" when the software/hardware/etc. is FOSS.

Re:LOL hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399875)

That's right! Give it all back to RepRap!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?