3DPrinting
3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.
The r/functionalprint community is now located at: or !functionalprint@fedia.io
There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml
Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
-
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
-
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
-
Do not create links to reddit
-
If you see an issue please flag it
-
No guns
-
No injury gore posts
If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe/ may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is 
Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible
view the rest of the comments
The commercial restrictions mean this license does not meet the open source hardware definition, one that was signed by a RepRap developer called Josef Pruša. https://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
Could this be a response to Bambu Lab?
Absolutely.
Like Open source software licenses changed over time to include some mechanisms to protect the software against exploitation. E.g. large scale use and no kickback in support for paying additional developers. I feel that this is happening here and the no compromise idealistic manifest from the beginning needs amending.
Those aren't open source licenses, they violate point six of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd
Then call them something else. They are here for a reason and so is the ocl.
They're called "source available", the issue is Prusa calling something open source that isn't open source.
I still accept the idea behind it as an open source idea. Use it, change it, own it. That might not fit into a more strict definition of opensource but I am okay with that while still calling it opensource. That's what I meant by idealistic approach and realistic. Needed to change some aspects because they got taken advantage of, still kept the (to me) relevant parts to count as open source.
And believe me when I say that I am very passionate about opensource. Only run OSS and even bought a core one (which not as polished as myx1c that I am selling) to go back to my ideals.
I feel like a term for open source with the exception of no commerical allowance is needed
Even the creator of the open source initiative has said that open source has failed and we need more restrictive licensing because open source simply is too permissive and has been aggressively exploited at the expense of the people, who it was meant to empower.
For me, source available licenses that are open source except specifically restricting for profit hungry, exploitative companies and corpos are with something like non-commercial clauses are fine for an end product. I use CERN OHL S v2, but I can't fault people for going noncommercial like the entirety of the art and 3D printing world pretty much already are to protect themselves.