Open Source

opensource@lemmy.ml

( Group)

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

lemmy

BeatL vía Open Source

ayer, 22:23

BeatL
ayer, 22:23

Open Source Printer coming before 2027

Open source printer with refillable ink, no bullshit, accept rolls of papers.

Finally an open source printer !
I dealt with so much stupidity with printers. it warm my heart.

I do have too much joy to practice mandatory critical thinking about the release of a new project.
Lets talk about it? i am not the only one to be happy about it, i have no info about the price though :/

OpenTools / OpenPrinter

Open printer is a reparable, durable and open source printer.

^{Open Tools}

#opensource

in reply to BeatL

Carlos Solís

in reply to BeatL ayer, 22:26

Slight open-washing involved though - the license is CC-By-NC-SA, which sadly makes it incompatible with open hardware projects, and restricted from being available as a pre-assembled kit.

like this

Open Source reshared this.

in reply to Carlos Solís

BeatL

in reply to Carlos Solís ayer, 22:48

Well you are right !
Still i see it as a massive positive win in this particular sector, but sure, lets see what happen and be greedy with licensing! May the next one/release/update be more open.

I thank you a lot

They do have a survey that includes the kit question.

Here is the link if you are interested: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc0MLIj1Mfv81vaiOIQG1yMEilruRfNgx7h36l5a0qC-G9TZw/viewform

From this update :
crowdsupply.com/open-tools/openprinter/updates/on-the-road-to-launch

Open printer : Shape your future printer

Almost there ! We’re working hard to get things just right, mind answering a few questions about your dream printer? Your feedback will directly shape the final product.

^{Google Docs}

like this

in reply to BeatL

adarza

in reply to BeatL ayer, 23:08

creative commons doesn't even recommend their licenses be used for software (it's in their faq). i'm guessing the same would apply to hardware designs as well.

like this

in reply to adarza

SwooshBakery624 [they/them]

in reply to adarza hoy, 5:21

Creative Commons does not have any guidelines about using their licenses for hardware. It would still be a better idea to use CERN-OHL for hardware though.

Licenses

OSI Approved Licenses Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition – in brief, they allow software to be freely used, modified, and shared. To be approved by the Op…

^{open-source-initiative-production (Open Source Initiative)}

in reply to SwooshBakery624 [they/them]

BeatL

in reply to SwooshBakery624 [they/them] hoy, 5:53

Thanks ;) I learned something!

in reply to BeatL

Telorand

in reply to BeatL ayer, 22:34 (Recibido ayer, 22:43)

Certainly a cool idea, and I hope it succeeds and turns out to be what it seems.

No price listed on their crowd fund page, so who can say what this might cost? Uses a Raspberry Pi Zero W for the brains and a STM32 for the cartridge board.

like this

in reply to Telorand

Carlos Solís

in reply to Telorand ayer, 22:58

While I understand why are they unwilling to allow commercial usage of the final product, it also makes it difficult to actually put in the hands of people. I agree, hopefully they can reconsider for a later iteration.

like this

Open Source reshared this.

in reply to Carlos Solís

warmaster

in reply to Carlos Solís ayer, 23:12

If it's not really FOSS, It's just an attention grabbing, open washing failure in progress, sponsored by people who don't understand the licensing implications.

like this

Open Source reshared this.

in reply to warmaster

BeatL

in reply to warmaster ayer, 23:24

I do understand your passion and i respect your disappointment.

While i understand the explicit implications of cc-by-nc-sa, (attribution, non-commercial,share alike) i fail to understand the implicits implications.
Could i trouble you to explain it ?

in reply to BeatL

doubtingtammy

in reply to BeatL hoy, 1:20

I think the criticism is that it's less likely to build an ecosystem like a Gnu Public License would (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap for an example of a 3d printer that very successfully used the GPL). The CC license prevents large corporations from stealing the design. But it also prevents someone from 3D-printing parts and selling them on a small ebay store.

Seeing the dissembled printer makes me want it regardless of license tbh

RepRap - Wikipedia

^{Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)}

in reply to warmaster

adarza

in reply to warmaster ayer, 23:41

i do enjoy the fact they're repurposing hp cartridges. but if this printer thing actually grabs some traction, i can totally see hp EOLing every printer that uses them and ending new production of those cartridges.

like this

in reply to BeatL

als

in reply to BeatL ayer, 23:47

In the linked survey they're talking about selling an ink kit. With that, the non-commerical license meaning nobody but them can sell spares, and them filing a patent, it's almost like they're just trying to start another printer company and just using the open source community to do advertising 🫠

like this

in reply to als

naught101

in reply to als hoy, 1:30

I think you're misinterpreting - the thing needs ink one way or another, and the kit suggested in the image is just a standard ink refill kit. They're just asking if people want them to provide that, or if they want to get it elsewhere - I selected elsewhere.

Open Source reshared this.

in reply to naught101

JustEnoughDucks

in reply to naught101 hoy, 6:50

What it means though is that nobody in the community can sell upgrades to the printer, sell spare parts, or, and by far most importantly, nobody can develop a fully open source printhead for this printer to sell.

Right now they are using a proprietary print head from a normal printer (understandably because it is by far the most complex engineering piece and is very complicated). However, an external team that wants to make an open hardware project taking on that engineering challenge with more expertise than this team will not be able to be compensated for their work if they make it specifically for this open source printer. According to my understanding of the license.

in reply to als

justme

in reply to als hoy, 7:23

I'm not an expert in those legal fingerprints, but i can imagine that you might need a parent even if you want to open source it, simply so nobody else can patent it. on the other hand, in right now to lazy/sleepy to read the article, so don't mind me :)

in reply to BeatL

Buhbyelittlegumshoe

in reply to BeatL hoy, 0:00

Aren’t printers pretty restricted due to needing to have surveillance and anti-counterfeit features? Is this legal at scale?

in reply to Buhbyelittlegumshoe

doubtingtammy

in reply to Buhbyelittlegumshoe hoy, 1:01

I think the feds just asked printer manufacturers nicely

in reply to Buhbyelittlegumshoe

CardboardDecoy

in reply to Buhbyelittlegumshoe hoy, 4:15

I don't actually know but I imagine it's all voluntary. It seems like kind of an endless tail chase to constantly limit anything that could feasible be used to commit a crime. Actual counterfeiting with any success requires some pretty specialized shit. Honestly if this printer could be configured to meet those specifics them more power to them. End of the day though I wouldn't imagine this being the gateway to massive expansions in the counterfeit market.