Dd89dc24749db7d3f59c03be7318f6fa?default=blank&size=170

Dani Epstein

Activity

Favored Labyrinth Gift Box over 5 years ago
Favored Headband - wide about 6 years ago
Favored Nozzle torque wrench about 6 years ago
Favored OpenRailway EMD SW1500 1:32 Locomotive about 6 years ago
Favored Ducati 1199 Superbike (Complex) over 6 years ago
Published Max Steel Ripcord over 6 years ago
Published toilet seat fitting over 6 years ago
Published Child's play watch almost 7 years ago
Commented on Ultimaker 2 Source files almost 7 years ago
I think that the complainers are barking up the wrong tree, or are incredibly naive. "Open Source" can mean just about whatever anyone decides it means. Just because opensource.org describes it one way does not make that description canonical. They are not the pope. Secondly, creative commons licences are commonly regarded as opensource. So, by those standards, Ultimaker have done really well. Opensource does not mean having to share your Solidworks file, your chair or your sandwiches. It simply means that the component data - what makes up the machine - is publicly available. Ultimaker have done that. The purpose of opensource is not for one company to pay for all the research and then hundreds of competitors spring up to take advantage of that and make cheaper machines. That's a ridiculous idea that will instantly stifle any kind of commercially funded research, and it's that kind of research that makes Ultimaker instead of RepRaps. Nothing wrong with RepRaps, but Ultimaker plays Ferrari to RepRap's Ford. Even if we were to agree that Ultimaker did not really go open source (and I dispute that thoroughly), you do have to realise that the opensource movement in the hardware department is still rather wet behind the ears. What you are accomplishing by whining is simply scaring off anyone to go opensource. So, don't whine. If anything, make a funny comment that gets the message home and leave it at that. I will try to think of one for you. Tried, but sadly failed.