this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
620 points (98.0% liked)
Open Source
49098 readers
297 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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 ?
I think the criticism is that it's less likely to build an ecosystem like a Gnu Public License would (see https://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
Finally a real answer haha, had to scroll awhile.
So the licensing thing is just mostly people complaining that it isnt the most truiest of openness since people tend to conflate floss with accessibility when people call it open and they mean accessibility.
Still getting a reliable printer that I can fix that I'm not vendor locked by that does all the things I could want a printer to do, since this was their goal I'm glad its happening.
The limits imposed by the license will harm adoption, I hope I'm wrong but there will be no community around this. It will most likely be DOA. Which is a shame... The AGPL would better protect his interests.
Idk how their choice of license limits me front buying their printer and doing the things I want to do with it.
The 'non-commercial' license means no one other than the creator can profit from these designs.
This means no one else can sell products or services so the ecosystem around the product will be limited to just the original company.
It does not stop you buying the printer and using it. It means there will never be anywhere else to get spares or service so you are relying on their continuing good behaviour, effort and existence (with no one else is allowed to compete), a monopoly. As I understand it will be refillable with third-party ink though.
This approach annoys some as the company seeks to profit from the claims of being 'open' whilst not being truly open as (in this case) no one else is open to offer commercial services for the printer. It is slightly better than a truly proprietary printer as at least we can see the designs.
You could decide this is ok for you as it stands. They could also change the license in future to drop the non-commercial restriction.
In the Discoed it seems they just said they do plan to open it up more as time goes on