RE: https://techhub.social/@rayckeith/115818529643049094

Not open source:

"Open Printer will use the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license for all of its files, including electronics and mechanical design files, firmware code, and the bill of materials"

So it will be illegal to manufacture it for a friend, manufacture replacement parts and sell them etc. ...

Openwashing should really be fought

@pojntfx

this is what open source means.

it is not free to do with as you want.

open source has never been about the rights of the end user, always about the rights of the developer.

@kim Open source is usually defined via the OSI definition:

https://opensource.org/osd

This does not meet that definition, neither does it meet any other accepted definition (the OSS definition in the EU CRA, the Free Software definition from the FSF etc.)

@pojntfx

you are correct.

however, it is how it is actually practiced.

@kim I don't disagree, but I also don't think we need to be ok with people intentionally openwashing things this way. In a software context, people are usually aware of the proprietary - source available - open source - free software distinctions. Heck, I even had a uni class about it!

@pojntfx It might not be perfect but at least it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will inspire others to take it further.

@pojntfx would it be illegal to produce parts?
CC licenses are based on copyright, and copyright protects code, texts, images, plans, etc. "Works of art".
NC does forbid to commercialize the plans or the firmware, but I don't think it's settled law that an industrially produced part can be considered a derived work of art in itself. And it's not intended to present the original art, like a physical book or CD are. So I'm really not sure any kind of copyright-based protection applies.

@pojntfx the NC part I get it, but what about the building and giving away for free? I used to be good on licenses, but I left that circle like 15ya...

@mdione You might be able to give it away for free? But that's not how you create an ecosystem of repairability at all; fabbing a PCB w/o any way to pay for it isn't sustainae. CC-NC is really intended more for culture and less for stuff like firmware or hardware components. If you want break the cycle around printer licensing, making it proprietary and not open source (unlike CC-BY-SA here would be here, for example) is not the way forward

@superblox @pojntfx Indeed!

After it releases we will have a list of items minimum necessary to build a printer and software and others can pick it up and also create printers with other designs. Even if not perfect it is a good start and I wouldn't shit on them because they are trying to break through a closed loop.

@NafiTheBear @superblox It's CC-NC-SA, with the "SA" meaning share alike. It is impossible to create a derivative of the "open" printer that is actually open as in open source without copyright infringement.

@pojntfx imho that's not what the CC license provides here : you CAN reproduce the parts, even sell them, NOT the files used to generate them. you can even adapt/modify the thing en sell modified versions of the hardware, just not the source files ...

@olm_e I wonder if you could then simply physically make it, scan it, and put those scans under an open source license ... probably not, right?

@pojntfx @mdione Really weird choice indeed. Their FAQ says: "The electronic boards will be purchasable through our distributors." so maybe they plan to provide exceptions for select companies? Can they do that?