107
Open-sourcing CORE One CAD Files Under the New Open Community License (OCL) (blog.prusa3d.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/3dprinting@lemmy.world
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Today, we are releasing the full CAD files for the CORE One and CORE One L frames.

There seems to be a custom licence.

The Restriction: You cannot commercially exploit the design files (selling the product or remixes) without a separate agreement.

The Protection: It includes an explicit patent license grant, protection against AI data mining, and a codified Right-to-Repair.

Most of the linked article is about the licence.

There's been a lot of talk about Prusa turning evil. Maybe it's a good step back.

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 28 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

The commercial restrictions mean this license does not meet the open source hardware definition, one that was signed by a RepRap developer called Josef Pruša. https://freedomdefined.org/OSHW

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Even the creator of the open source initiative has said that open source has failed and we need more restrictive licensing because open source simply is too permissive and has been aggressively exploited at the expense of the people, who it was meant to empower.

    For me, source available licenses that are open source except specifically restricting for profit hungry, exploitative companies and corpos are with something like non-commercial clauses are fine for an end product. I use CERN OHL S v2, but I can't fault people for going noncommercial like the entirety of the art and 3D printing world pretty much already are to protect themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    How is Prusa turning „evil“? And please keep in mind other 3D printing companies exist that are potentially extremely harmful for end consumers already because of their ecosystem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I'm far from the most knowledgeable on the subject, but I remember hearing something about one of their prospective printers not being listed as open source, and that they partnered with some Israeli company.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Thanks for the info. I missed that. And although I can‘t say this is a huge thing by it‘s own I understand it leaves a bitter taste in some mouths.

    Personally I don‘t think it‘s good to see things so black and white. It‘s fair to say you‘re losing confidence over this but saying they‘re turning evil goes a bit far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    I think that it's a reasonable license for them to protect their business while continuing to provide full access to the community. The single user would still be able to modify or even build their own clone, but a private company would not be able to just sell a copy.

    In an ideal world where money did not exist this would be detrimental to innovation, but in the real world Prusa needs to make money to stay in business. And considering their competitors, I would much prefer them to stay in the business and as much ahead of the competition as possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    How would this be detrimental in a world where money didn't exist?

    The licence says CONMERCIAL exploitation, aka building a product to sell. In a world with no money, there's no commercialism. There's no commercial exploitation possible because the prerequisite for a commercial operation is commerce, aka the trade of products/produce for money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    I would much prefer them to stay in the business and as much ahead of the competition as possible.

    They are already behind the competition and have been for some time

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago* (7 children)

    Yet a lot of those businesses lean on the work of prusa.
    Friend of mine always used creality their shitty slicer clone for his ender 3 v2, then got a bambu and was amazed by all the settings and options, different supports etc etc.
    Told him he should have switched to prusaslicer ages ago, which bambu's slicer is based on and the sole reason its open source.
    (Also, orca slicer > bambu studio)

    Prusa has been fighting the enshitification of 3d printing so badly, they are going under while other companies are standing on their shoulders and pushing them under ><

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

    Yet a lot of those businesses lean on the work of prusa.

    Yes, a lot of the groundwork was done by prusa, and yes a lot of companies are standing on their shoulders. Prusa 100% deserves a lot of credit for enabling what 3D printing has become today, no doubt about that...but they haven't really been innovative or at the front of 3D printing for a while, they stagnated and have been overtaken as a consequence.

    Edit: most of the cheap Chinese manufacturers are ahead because they lean massively in to klipper and rely on the community there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (5 children)

    Prusa has innovated. Not on their printers, agreed there, but in the slicer they have. And imo, those brands that are standing on prusa's shoulders should pay them for that work but afaik, and do correct me if im wrong, they dont. Bambu does nothing back for prusa, the opposite even. They are killing the shoulders they are standing on and barely do something for communities. Creality was also that bad until they were forced to by a chinese maker that is now at large.
    Then other companies came and took creality's crown by using the opened designs.

    I joined the 3d printing scene at the wrong time as i saw giants like prusa slowly fall and be replaced with shit heads like bambu

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    My point is that any innovation by prusa, slicer or printer, is pretty much past tense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Granted it's from a partnership, but the INDX extruder seems to be on the cusp, so the idea that Prusa is behind seems odd. And the fact that they're more open and consumer friendly than Bambu is great. There are a lot of affordable printers that have benefited from Prusa's development while Prusa is still dropping new developments, seemingly at a greater rate now than previously.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    INDX is done by a completely different company, you cannot credit their work to prusa at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    It's a partnership and the INDX isn't a separate printer, just a new extruder, so it's not like Prusa has no involvement. I would say "completely" is inaccurate here. If it were solely the effort of INDX, they wouldn't need to partner with Prusa. There are other third parties that release mods for printers that aren't collaborations with the original manufacturer.

    If Prusa hired the INDX engineers from BondTech instead of partnering, would you still consider it completely separate? A company is just composed of current employees. At what point is it Theseus' ship of development?

    And that's not even considering the CORE One, the recent CORE One+ update, the CORE One L announcement, the OpenPrintTag, et al. They've been announcing more new stuff in the last year at a faster rate than previous years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    And im saying its not, because their changes still flow upwards towards the bambu slicer and the popular fork of fork, orca slicer, which are both based on prusaslicer and still integrate changes of prusaslicer. They have reduced in quatity and quality, because prusa is going under because of the shit of others

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    Just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or more importantly, how many demons can skate on a snowflake? How much purity is needed?

    The best licences protect everyone. This one seems to do a pretty good job of protecting both Prusa and the consumer. Is it perfect? No. But it's far better then Prusa getting raped and pillaged into nothing. And it goes a very, very, very long to protect consumers access to parts and design specifications.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •