this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
619 points (98.0% liked)

Open Source

49079 readers
313 users here now

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

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

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

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
kevincox@lemmy.ml
CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml
619
Open Source Printer coming before 2027 (www.opentools.studio)
submitted 2 days ago by BeatL@pawb.social to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 :/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Not Open Source hardware or firmware.

License is CC-NC-SA, which fails all formal definitions of Open Source.

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 hours ago

Also why are they using a content license for software and hardware? We need to create an online course that teaches people how not to suck at doing foss... and then license that course with a eula, cause that would be so fucking funny.

[–] Augmented1207@feddit.org 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree. Open source can mean many things, this license permits you to do anything with it, just not selling it.

Only thing is, you have to use the same license when publishing changes, which is normal for almost all open source.

I dont See anything wrong with it and calling it non open source is a bit misleading i think

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

No they're right, cc-nc-sa is not open source or freedom respecting.

Edit: I'll elaborate. The core principles of the free software movement will follow. All other definitions not only do not conflict with this basic definition, but often expand on it with additional rights expectations. The Four Freedoms:

  • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).

  • Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).

  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Restrictions on commercial use are a suppression on freedoms 2 and 3, and notably (at least as far as I'm aware), none of the licenses to come out of the FSF have commercial restrictions.

And in the Open-Source definition, it's literally in rule 1:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.