RepRap - MakerBot Controversy!

Controversy erupted over the past few weeks where someone was providing an assembled electronics kit for RepRap based on the MakerBot electronics board. The controversy stemmed from the maker's (kymberlyaandrus) alleged lack of posting the required files with the electronics kit. 

 

The way it's supposed to work, according to basic open source concepts, is that when you create a derivative work, you must post all the files and documentation to permit yet another modifier to create a subsequent improved version. This cascading of intellectual property permits each maker to stand on each other's shoulders and drive towards the best possible solution. It breaks when someone takes the sequence proprietary and others are locked out. 

 

This is how certain open source licenses work in the software world, and it should work similarly in the hardware world, too. Of course, if you have other intentions for your intellectual property, there are alternative licenses with other terms and conditions.

 

In this case it seems to be that the maker wasn't fully aware of the requirements and didn't post the required files until notified after the fact. It appears that things are now mostly rectified to everyone's satisfaction, and you can read the discussions below for all the details. 

 

But what does all this mean? We think it demonstrates the infancy of open hardware, where licenses are not fully understood, facilities and protocols for complying with licenses are not easily found or understood, where hardware makers first encounter the bizarre world of licenses and intellectual property. To them, the license stipulations may seem strange and unnecessary, as they simply want to build stuff. But the truth is that these same license concepts were the driving force behind the staggering amount of free software we enjoy today. 

 

Let's do the same for hardware. 

 

Via RepRap Forums and MakerBot

Is Hardware Open?

We think hardware could be truly open, but only if the correct legal frameworks are in place. And they likely are not.

 

Software has gone through all this before, of course. In the 1960's software was basically homemade, but then commercial software companies emerged and grew in the 1970's and 80's. However, in the 80's and 90's people started to share software (much to the dismay of the commercial manufacturers). It was all pretty loose until standard legal frameworks such as the GPL and Creative Commons licenses showed up. Once they did, software sharing exploded and leave us where we are today. In software. 

 

Now personal manufacturing emerges and we see people starting to share designs as software was shared in the 1980's and early 1990's. Everyone realizes there are legal concerns, and thus licenses such as Creative Commons are used. There are even a few hardware oriented licenses, such as the Open Hardware License. 

 

But are these enough? Some people don't think so, because hardware has somewhat different implications than software, and we can't go on simply reusing the software licenses. What's needed is a comprehensive, easy-to-use legal framework that covers all aspects of open hardware and becomes a popular standard. A Hardware GPL, if you will. A workshop on this topic took place on 17th March at EYEBEAM, but we have not yet been able to determine the outcomes of that event. 

  

Like any project, this will start with the identification of all stakeholder needs, which can then be combined into a solution framework for debate. It's important because personal manufacturing should become much more widespread in the 21st century. Let's make that happen. 

 

Via EYEBEAM