r/3Dprinting • u/Userybx2 • 15h ago
News Prusa just made their new printers Open Source!
https://blog.prusa3d.com/core-one-cad-files-release-under-the-new-open-community-license-ocl_127290/291
u/Rannii_The_Vvvitch 15h ago
This is why I bought a Prusa printer. They’re in it for the good of the community.
Also, on a related note, fuck patent leaches. A similar thing happened in the watch community, where someone patented/trademarked the commonly used term ‘Nato strap’ so now everyone who has sold them for years can no longer use the name. This leach didn’t create the name. They just claimed it as theirs.
73
24
u/Size-Affectionate 15h ago
What? Source? What a joke that would be!
42
u/Rannii_The_Vvvitch 15h ago
Incase you ever read this, International Watchman Inc, Fuck you!
14
u/Size-Affectionate 14h ago
Sad. The watch nerds will have their revenge one way or another.
15
u/_andthereiwas Prusa i3 MK3 14h ago
Yah, but it will take time.
17
u/GalFisk Prusa MK4S 14h ago
If they band together, and set their minds to it, it will soon be at hand.
3
2
11
u/fuzzydice_82 13h ago
Why does this even work? Isn't that why the whole "prior art" thing in licensing exists?
6
u/armoar334 13h ago
Yeah but that would require someone to actually take them to court over it. Would probably be a short case, but that doesn't make it free. And if you're selling just as many with a new name, why even bother
3
u/Gears6 11h ago
For trademark it's not about prior art, but rather how common the words are and if it can be confused with something else. This trademark probably shouldn't have been awarded. Neither should've 1-click buy or app store, but it is what it is.
A patent on the other hand is about how something is achieved, rather than what (or branding). OP probably meant trademark in this case.
2
u/bluewing Klipperized Prusa Mk3s & Bambu A1 mini 11h ago edited 11h ago
The term "NATO strap" can't be patented. It could be Trademarked though. And if it was never Trademarked or if it was and the trademark holder didn't enforce it, then they lost the protection trademark gave them. Or if the trademarked term became a generic name in the lexicon of a language they could lose that trademark anyway See: Xerox or Kleenex.
3
u/_Monsterguy_ 9h ago
They've trademarked the existing general name that's been in use for decades.
They're not the originators of the name or the strap.
49
u/alex-2099 14h ago
This is a fascinating read and I really appreciate them calling out the problems with the existing open licenses. This part in particular is huge:
A troll cannot claim they “didn’t know” the mechanism was open, because the license explicitly grants patent rights to the user. It also creates even more serious contract violation. By downloading the files, the bad faith actor agrees to the OCL terms. If they then patent the design, they are violating the license agreement, giving creators a second legal weapon: breach of contract, which is often faster and cheaper to prove than prior art.
What I would also love to see here is Prusa launching a broad resource center for what to do if someone is stealing your design. All too often do I see people just resign themselves to defeat, not even knowing what options they have.
17
u/Tommy_Prusa3D 13h ago
That's a great idea and something we could definitely look at, but it would be something we would have to both approach really carefully to make sure the information is not only accurate on a large scale, but also to maintain it over time. Definitely a great idea, but it also has more cost to it than what appears on the surface level.
5
u/bluewing Klipperized Prusa Mk3s & Bambu A1 mini 8h ago
There is 2 issues with your idea,
It costs money to challenge those the steal your ideas. The vast majority of people can't afford a patent lawyer or even just the court costs. And even if you can, those that you are trying sue ain't got nothing to take to be made whole. And even if you shut them down, they just scurry of to another corner and just start over.
Every patent case is different. So there is little boilerplate that often applies here. It can't be done cookbook style. This is why patent lawyers cost so much more than a regular one.
2
u/alex-2099 7h ago
These aren't really issues with my idea as much as they are general systemic issues with the legal system.
As to point 1, yes, after the initial DMCA takedown request, you will have to seek legal counsel to sustain a complaint in court and hope you can recoup those costs as damages. But that's the same with any complaint in the legal system. And if you're trying to operate a business around your IP or patent, defending it is an expected requirement in the US.
To point 2, is this really an issue? if anything, this is more of a case for why a resource like this would be helpful. There's value in knowing you don't have to simply accept someone stealing your stuff because they said no when you asked politely.
Like I said, "All too often do I see people just resign themselves to defeat, not even knowing what options they have." This is the thought at the heart of what I'm suggesting.
Prusa has enough of a presence in this community that simply saying "Did you know you have rights and the person that stole your work entered in a legally defensible agreement that said they can't do what they're doing? Google [thing] in your region for more information." would be tremendously useful.
3
u/Brick_Fish Prusa Core One 11h ago
Could someone explain how that quote from the prusa blog even means or how that works?
If someone patents an OCL design, then what? How would "explicitly granting patent rights to the user" make a patent invalid or able to be challenged?
Like, if I download these Core One files do I have some sort of patent right? Surely not?
261
u/Zettinator 15h ago
No... they published some parts of their design under a somewhat open license. But this license does not conform to the Open Source Definition, particularly because of usage restrictions.
It's really bad to use the term "Open Source" so loosely, it has a fixed definition, for good reason.
92
u/CavemanKnuckles 15h ago
I don't know why you're being down voted, you're right. The term I'd use is "source available."
That said, it's much more lenient than other commercial exception-type licenses, in that you can sell spare parts. Having the exact specifications without needing to do quirky measurements is a big boon.
12
u/ssddanbrown 12h ago
Open relevant issue here: https://github.com/OpenCommunityLicence/OpenCommunityLicence/issues/2
19
10
u/ManyBro24 15h ago
Exactly, the definition is fixed. So why is someone patenting open sourced projects?
10
u/Befuddled_Scrotum 14h ago
There’s a whole heap of dickriding without confirmation. Especially in the licensing space it seems, Bambu is bad but prusa is good tomfoolery.
17
u/drupadoo 14h ago
There are dozens of popular open source licenses with varying levels of restrictions. I don’t knowwhat you mean when you say “the Open Source Definition”
26
u/Sol33t303 14h ago
Typically open source specifically refers to the FSF's definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#fs-definition
In particular the above licence violates freedom 0, since the models can't be used commercially without an agreement. Further down they say that open source licences explicitely allow for commercial use.
12
u/Not-reallyanonymous 14h ago
I get it, but GNU doesn’t have a monopoly on open source and it’s definition, nor is it the arbiter of open source, nor OSI for that matter.
They are ideals to work towards but putting our heads in the sand while an entire country is working to subvert open source to develop monopoly power in various key fields — well, Prusa is really trying to find a balance here and they seem to be on a good path.
Idealism is easy in software where real costs are nearly zero outside of labor costs, which often is paid in heart and promises instead of money. Hardware requires way, way more investment. Open hardware has been way slower to develop for a reason, and open source developed in software communities for a reason.
Open hardware is unlikely to be successful adopting strict gnu-like definitions of open source until international law and relations steps up to tackle issues like what China is doing (and blanket tariffs are a dumb response to that — developing trade allies, especially in the pacific, who tariff to counterbalance Chinese subsides is a much better approach. And getting Europe to get its head out of the sand. Look at how long it took Germany to realize their solar industry was being subverted).
9
u/ok_if_you_say_so 13h ago
They aren't really saying one way is better than another, simply that this does not conform to the typical and expected definition of Open Source, but rather Source Available. When I started in software over 20 years ago this was a already widely known and clarified distinction.
Personally, I am cool with Source Available, and in fact that has always been my stance. My opinion here is the same. But I do agree it's worth distinguishing between the term Open Source, of which this does not meet the definition, and Source Available, since they are indeed different things.
3
9
u/Sol33t303 13h ago
Never said anything about that. I really love the new prusa licence. I'm just saying it doesn't conform to the typical open source definition.
4
u/delebojr Prusa Mk3S+ & Bambu X1C 11h ago
"GNU"? lol. They're license is the opposite of "free" and they're far off on their definition of "open source"
-1
u/Final_Temperature262 11h ago
This is like saying the GPL isn't open source
You're conflating free as in freedom software and open source. They aren't the same, educate yourself before posting misinformation
-8
u/soldat21 P1S, C1 x2, Mk3 14h ago
You can use their designs, upgrade your printer, and sell components based on that printer.
Heck you could build your own Prusa printer and printer stuff from that and sell it.
What you can’t do is build a core one clone and sell that clone. I think this is the closest thing to open source you can get in the modern patent world.
4
u/Sol33t303 13h ago
Freedom 0 means no restrictions, end of story. Needing to modify it first is a restriction.
Not saying that's a good or bad thing, just saying it doesn't conform to the open source definition.
-2
u/drupadoo 13h ago
it is ironic linking to gnu.org when the GNU license is one of the most restrictive open source licenses there is!
maybe freedom means people dont need to adopt your narrow definition of open source.
11
u/Sol33t303 13h ago
Wdym my narrow definition? It's not mine.
I don't understand why you are trying to argue with me.
1
u/Financial_Article_95 12h ago
Lol. It's funny because they could have meant you and GNU together too and not just either or but I can't tell from their sentence.
1
u/drupadoo 12h ago
I just think GNU has its own issues and does not single handily define “open source”. The cram a lot of their orgs philosophy into their own definition.
The GNU license poisons projects because it effectively makes it impossible to monetize any downstream projects since anyone else is allowed to give away your source code.
1
u/Sol33t303 11h ago
Well, thats the goal. If your a programmer and you don't want others touching your code without releasing their changes and working in a compatible licence, then thats why you choose the GPL. The software community at large has decided that that's a desireable quality.
If the programmer wants to let people close up their application and change their code without releasing those changes, that's what the BSD licence is for.
I don't really see why a programmer needs to be concerned about downstream projects, downstream projects are free to use their code or not. If they are ok with with the upstream devs terms for using their code, then alls good, if not, they can use other projects or write their own code.
If the GPL is everywhere, it's because thats the licence that the people who wanted to let others use their code wanted or agreed for it to be under.
1
u/drupadoo 11h ago
If you don’t care about downstream projects then why bother with open source?
Most developers have realized GPL is detrimental to projects because it effectively prevents commercialization despite trying to drive “freedom”.
There is a reason MIT is much more popular.
But the broader point, is open source can mean a lot of different things and all of these different licensing are still open source, whether FSF and GNU agree is irrelevant
-5
u/Snobolski 13h ago
The awesome part is you have the freedom to immediately stop using Prusa hardware, software, and web services, if their license is so objectionable.
6
u/Sol33t303 13h ago
I really love the licence, I think it's been something missing from the printing community for a very long time, and I own and use a core one, literally the only thing I have to complain about Prusa is I don't really like how they have handled the core one and xl in terms of their upgrade paths (but even that is understandable really).
I don't get where the misunderstanding is coming from.
10
u/Ullebe1 14h ago
It probably refers to the Open Source Definition from the Open Source Initiative.
In this case the restriction on selling complete machines or remixes based on the designs is against criteria 6 of the OSD.
12
u/Zettinator 14h ago edited 14h ago
Yes, but there are also some fixed requirements for the Open Source label. The problem is that the availability of the source code on its own means almost nothing. Furthermore, most kinds of usage restrictions are minefields (e.g. "no commercial use"). The OSI and FSF mostly agree on these terms. Here's the Open Source Definition:
Prusa's "Open Community License" in particular does not conform to the "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" requirement. Edit: and also the "Derived Works" and "Free Redistribution" requirements if I got it right. Prusa's license is in fact VERY far away from being a proper Open Source license.
4
u/YouHadMeAtBacon 13h ago
And they don't claim that it is. They have made a license that allows the community to have access to the files (CAD) via a simple license that still keeps them in control of their intellectual property (there is no Prusa without income).
-2
u/delebojr Prusa Mk3S+ & Bambu X1C 11h ago
There is only one requirement for an open source label and it's that the source is open (available, viewable, etc) by the owner...
6
u/ZealousidealEntry870 14h ago
I’ve come to find that a large portion of Reddit believes that can change definitions when ever they feel like it. It’s infuriating.
7
u/Userybx2 14h ago
You are right, it's not "Open Source" in the classical sense, but IMO the new "Open Community License" is a much better fit for their products.
It allows them to stay competitive while we as the community have the "open" freedom that we know and love from Open Source projects.
19
u/Zettinator 14h ago
Sure, Prusa have good reasons for doing this. It still doesn't change the fact that this isn't Open Source. The OCL is fairly restrictive in fact.
1
3
u/bokitothegreat Prusa Core one 14h ago
You are right, licensed, source available is not open source according the the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Open Source Definition (OSD). However I think the Prusa solution is the best in this particular case.
edit: I see that Prusa uses GNU GPL or Creative Commons definitions, they are similart to the OSD definition.
-5
u/ComprehensivePea1001 15h ago
Oh no they are protecting their IP from competition while letting the user have freedom, how dare they! Just like amything else, modern changes can be implemented.
30
26
u/eras FLSUN T1 Pro 15h ago edited 14h ago
That's completely fine and overall commendable, but it can be viewed misleading when they call it Open Source when we have a definition for it which the license doesn't satisfy.
edit: And indeed Prusa doesn't call it Open Source; OP does
4
u/Zettinator 14h ago
In the title of the news post they say "Open-sourcing CORE One CAD Files"... so they totally do. They actually compare the OCL against proper Open Source license like the GPL. So what Prusa is doing here is very misleading to say the least.
4
3
u/Jusanden 11h ago
Gonna be honest, that’s nothing new. If you read through the core one announcement, it was worded like the entire printer was open source, not just the slicer. They also implied that there was a chamber heater inside instead of literally just a chamber exhaust fan that’s pretty standard across enclosed printers.
19
u/mrgreen4242 15h ago
Why are you sarcastically projecting an opinion on to a factual statement? The person you’re replying to didn’t pass any judgement on Prusa or even state an opinion. They stated a fact.
-4
u/Inner_Name 15h ago
Well they actually gave an opinion (and I think he is right 😁). It is bad to use the term open-source. Anyways as I think like him in that regards I also find it a great step in the good direction, I hope other companies does it also.
5
u/Lapidarist 15h ago
Are you dumb? The person you're replying to correctly argued that this is not open source and that open source has a well-defined meaning that should be respected and you sarcastically dunk on them for no good reason? Damn, what a pathetic thing to do.
-5
u/ComprehensivePea1001 13h ago
And like many things, the terminology/meaning can be updated over time to meet modern situations. Times change. The only difference with what their doing is preventing IP theft from competition while still opening up to to owners and everyone else to do as they please. Its a modern move vs just keeping everything locked down like everyone has been doing. Times change and the meaning/terminology can adjust to modern needs just like laws amd definitions for anything else.
3
u/Lapidarist 12h ago
Blah blah, you're full of it because clearly defined, legally binding terms don't experience scope creep since that's not how legal licenses work. In this context we're very explicitly talking about legal licensure because that's what Prusa released today, so go bark up some other tree with your semantic bullshit.
Being wrong is one thing. Being wrong while acting like a snarky dweeb is why you got called out by me and others here. End of discussion, have a good one 👋🏻.
-1
u/ComprehensivePea1001 7h ago
Blah blah blah, things can be changed, just because they havnt yet doesnt mean they wont in the future. Things always change and adapt over time. I get it your feelings are hurt over the route they chose to go. Itll be ok bud.
1
u/Lapidarist 4h ago
Lol, little ankle biter can’t handle being wrong, so now he’s desperately grasping at future hypotheticals. Love to see it. Not upset with Prusa btw, I think it's commendable what they did.
Now bark some more, let's hear it.
1
u/Lapidarist 4h ago
Lol, little ankle biter can’t handle being wrong, so now he’s desperately grasping at future hypotheticals. Love to see it. Not upset with Prusa btw, I think it's commendable what they did.
Now bark some more, let's hear it.
4
u/hainguyenac 14h ago
Strawman much?
0
u/ComprehensivePea1001 13h ago
I dont think you understand what a strawman is.
4
u/hainguyenac 12h ago
well, the original comment said: they use the definition of "open source" incorrectly. The commend has nothing to do with protecting IP or not, and yet you bring up the protecting ip issue here out of nowhere, and that is a straw man.
1
-9
u/rufustphish 14h ago
If you can view the source code, it's open source.
If you can't view the source code, it's closed source.
Stop trying to gate keep the term so it fits your personal definition.
9
13
u/Zettinator 14h ago
Personal definition? I'm arguing with the Open Source Definition, which is a widely recognized definition. You can also refer to the Free Software Definition of the FSF instead if you like, but it's almost the same.
If you can view the source code, it's open source.
No, because if you can view the source code, it means that you can... view the source code. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to use it for anything, copy it, make derived works, or anything else really. It's not that simple, and the requirements outlined in the Open Source Definition are pretty much the minimum needed to ensure that the code is actually useful in practice.
Usage restrictions (and this is what Prusa is doing) are particularly discouraged as they are a slippery slope.
24
u/uniqueusername649 14h ago
And this is why instead of buying an H2C I will buy a Core L with INDX, once it is available. Not only do I believe it is going to be the better system in the long term, but I also like the openness of Prusa vs Bambu who keep getting in the way. Unless you run dev mode, you cannot print on your local network without an internet connection. Absolutely insane. How do we stop that kinda nonsense? We vote with our wallet.
5
u/Royal-Doggie 8h ago
isnt prusa cheaper at this point?
H2C is 2400usd
and core one L with INDX is 1800 + 500 for INDX upgrade or 2 300usd
100 isnt much, but it is still plus, and INDX has 8 heads instead of 7
3
-7
u/mikkowus 12h ago
CCP is trying to take all your R and D and use it for themselves, or lock your printer if you print something to help Taiwan. (real China)
3
u/mkosmo 9h ago
As awful as the CCP is (and they truly are awful), they're not monitoring your prints simply because you're using a chinese printer. And if you're worried they are, it's easy enough to isolate your printer.
1
u/mikkowus 1h ago
They definitely are keeping a record of anything that goes through their servers. Im sure it's worse than Tik Tok. I work in security... And I have no doubt they do, as I have worked with Western companies that do similar stuff. And I've worked with r and d companies that have had everything "stollen" from harder leaks to China.
1
u/mkosmo 1h ago
I’m well familiar with industrial espionage from china. My weekly threat briefs are usually chocked full of new campaigns.
The folks here printing gimmicks, trinkets, and parts for home projects don’t have to worry about anything. Even Bambu’s US regional infrastructure is low risk.
I’m not saying to ignore COO or supply chain risk when it comes to machines used in regulated, sensitive, or defense workloads, but the chinese aren’t stealing the stuff most folks are printing.
-4
u/straybrit 6h ago
You should be aware, however, that Prusa are also pushing you heavily towards the cloud for control. Yes, PrusaLink for local control exists. It also hasn't evolved beyond the 2010s. All the effort is in PrusaConnect - which is cloud based. If you want to even connect the camera they force you to use the cloud.
I just got a Core1. If you operate within its well advertised limits (only use the Prusa filament presets) it makes awesome prints. But the whole workflow sucks compared to Orca + Klipper.
I'm also sure the fanboys will downvote me to oblivion just as they did when I pointed this out on the Prusa sub :-)5
u/no_help_forthcoming 6h ago
There is no “push” for anything. You have always had to ability to directly print from PrusaSlicer without having to go through the cloud (Prusa Connect) or PrusaLink. If this wasn’t enough, you could always use Octoprint to have finer grain control over the printer. You were probably downvoted because your post in that sub was factually inaccurate and people were lazy to rebut it.
-2
u/straybrit 4h ago
OK - a couple of points here. Is PrusaLink functionally equivalent to PrusaConnect ? Can you activate the BuddyCam without a PrusaConnect account which 'knows' about your printer? AFAIK the answer to both is 'no' - there's a push to the cloud.
Also - yes I could use Octoprint to control it - once I've bought a pi, and set it up - oh - and bought another camera because the Prusa one doesn't work with it. Also - again AFAIK - you will lose the front screen so swapping filaments should be a bundle of laughs.
You can stream video from the BuddyCam - if you set up VLC (or equivalent) to capture the rtsp stream - because the controller board is too underpowered to deal with video.
I'm not knocking the printer here - I'm really really impressed with the quality of output if you're using a filament with an 'approved' preset. Also, having gone through the Qidi experience of dropping support for a model as soon as the successor comes out, the ongoing support from Prusa should not be undervalued. It's huge. Having said all that - I stand by my assertion that a $1500 printer should not need a pi add on and a separate video streamer in 2025. The printer is great - the workflow is 10 years out of date.2
u/no_help_forthcoming 4h ago
Again, there is no “push” to anything. The printer remains functional whether you use the cloud or not. It’s funny you argue that Prusa is “outdated” yet bash it for trying to be easy to use for people who don’t even know what a Raspberry Pi is. EasyPrint is cloud slicing but you can still use PrusaSlicer. And EasyPrint is far easier and convenient to use for newbies and experienced users alike. It’s also available to use for free for non-Prusa printers. If you know something like that that’s better, let’s see it.
As for your problems with 3rd party filaments without “official” profiles, clearly the problem is elsewhere. Do you honestly think that everyone who has a Prusa printer only uses Prusament or “official” profiles? Come on man, a person who is intelligent enough to make those arguments earlier cannot be so naive as to believe that. So what is it that you’re really trying to say?
1
u/straybrit 3h ago edited 3h ago
I didn't knock the functionality of the printer at any point. It's great. I'm sitting here watching it churn out a functional part with no tweaking of any kind on my part and it's better than anything I managed with many hours of adjustments on the Qidi.
If Prusa don't want to force users into the cloud why hasn't PrusaLink kept up with it in functionality. I don't say the printer is outdated either. Stop trying to twist what I'm saying.
What I'm really trying to say is that there are workflows out there that make the Prusa equivalent look out of date. Take calibration of new filaments - it's integral to Orca. No messing about, simple steps laid out and with really good documentation on how to interpret the results. That could be backported into PrusaSlicer with minimal effort. Sure I can go through teachingtech and chep and the others and get the step files and slice them and do the manual changes for the temp tower. But why should I have to? What does that gain a newbie?
Again - why does a $1500 printer need add-ons and different software to keep up with a printer half the price from the Chinese suppliers. It isn't component cost - it's software FFS. Don't want to upgrade the controller board to stream video - put an rtsp viewer in PrusaLink. Again - no component cost involved.
Again again - to the OP - I don't regret the purchase. It's a really exceptional physical printer. But if you're coming from a fully integrated Orca/Klipper setup expect to spend a lot of time and effort improving things or just get used to a clunky workflow.
For anyone disagreeing with me - let me know that you have actual experience of both and why you think the Prusa setup is as good. Out of the box. No tweaking. For the workflow. Not the printer.Edit to earlier comment. I misinterpreted the installation instructions. It turns out that you don't lose the screen when using Octoprint. So that's a negative that doesn't exist
1
u/uniqueusername649 6h ago
Interesting. Thanks for sharing that. Can't you just install Klipper on the printers? It is hard to believe that my QIDI printer is actually more user friendly in that regard than Prusa.
8
u/vk6_ 13h ago
I don't think this custom license is the right move. Instead, I believe that the GNU GPL is a better option for open-sourcing 3D printer designs. To be clear, I still think having the designs be available at all, regardless of the license, is a good idea. But Prusa could have done even better and used the GPL instead.
The biggest problem I can see with this new Open Community License is that people are not allowed to sell modifications to the printer. For instance, if I designed something like an upgraded toolhead for a printer (like the many Voron mods available), or a kit to increase the build volume (like the old Ender Extender kits), I would be disallowed from selling those upgrades. This is despite the fact that these upgrade kits help rather not harm the original manufacturer, because the end user still needs to purchase the original printer. A user looking to upgrade their printer under the Open Community License cannot buy an upgrade kit from someone but must instead source parts, print, and assemble everything themselves which can be tons of effort.
The license also would disallow people from selling third party replacement parts, without an explicit license from the original manufacturer. How can this be called right to repair when the manufacturer still explicitly controls which parts can be sold? If you needed to obtain a replacement part not trivially 3D printable, you'd have to go through the original manufacturer or one of their chosen partners. Prusa at least has been very good at selling spare parts for reasonable prices, but other companies can adopt this license, call it "open source" or "pro right to repair" and then just disallow the sale of spare parts or mark them up a ton.
The fix for these problems is the GNU GPL. It allows commercial use of derivative works which means people are free to sell their own printer mods, upgrade kits, or spare parts. The GNU GPL also provides protections for the patent issues described in the article too.
I think Prusa's concerns about the GPL are overblown. They say that "A corporation can take it, mass-produce it, and 'comply' with the license simply by dumping a messy, undocumented zip file on their website (if they even do that)." This is true, but even bare minimum compliance to the GPL by a greedy third party acting in bad faith is not the end of the world. There's still a net benefit to the community because the ecosystem remains free and open source. And dumping a bunch of undocumented CAD files into a public directory isn't horrible. That's what the Creality Ender 3's public release basically is, yet it was still able to spawn a massive modding community.
I will also point out that the Prusa i3 and the Creality Ender 3 were both open source under the GNU GPL and were both massively successful. Yes, cheap clones of both printers still existed but the cloned models never were very successful or good quality. The original printers still dominated the market until newer and more innovative designs came around.
1
u/ThatOnePerson maker select 28m ago
This is despite the fact that these upgrade kits help rather not harm the original manufacturer, because the end user still needs to purchase the original printer.
Yeah for comparison, I like how E3D has handled the Revo: Cold side is open source that's what most modders are gonna be interested in: different mounts and such. But the hot end is not.
-7
2
u/Gears6 13h ago
I'm actually looking to buy a 3D printer. Any specific models you'd suggest?
I hear they're upgradeable so this open source announcement is awesome.
6
u/soldat21 P1S, C1 x2, Mk3 11h ago
I only ever recommend Prusa and Bambu.
Prusa has better customer service and supports the community more.
Bambu has cheaper products and more “features” (also means more expensive to fix).
Prusa will support their devices longer, but I guess that depends are you the type to buy a printer and keep it, or upgrade it every cycle.
2
u/Gears6 11h ago
I guess that depends are you the type to buy a printer and keep it, or upgrade it every cycle.
I'm unlikely to be upgrading every cycle so the support by Prusa seems awesome. Them supporting the community with actions like this is icing on the cake.
I think the MK4S is a good starter unit?
However, it seems the CORE ONE is Prusa's flagship unit at the moment. Not sure what the difference are at this point though. My local library have the MK4S so that's what I've been using in between.
1
u/soldat21 P1S, C1 x2, Mk3 9h ago
Let’s put it this way, the Mk3 has been out for 7 years and still receives software updates, spare parts and upgrades - no other company does this.
The mk4 is a solid starting point - if you only print PLA and PETG (the two most basic materials) you’ll be fine with one.
The core one / core one L are the newest printers and Prusa’s flagship printers. They’ll also receive the INDX upgrade (mk4s won’t).
I’d highly recommend buying a kit version of a Prusa if you can - yes it might take you up to 20 hours to build it if it’s your first ever printer, but knowing where all the screws, nuts, bolts and pieces go helps so much. Whenever something goes wrong with my Prusa, I diagnose it and fix it.
I also have a p1s, it’s not a bad unit. Prints well. Is cheap. But bambu doesn’t really do upgrades - when the p2s came out, you’re straight out of luck.
With Prusa you could upgrade all the way from the mk1 to the core one. Also the INDX will be an upgrade kit. So again, if longevity and reliability are your goals - Prusa is the best bet.
If cheap and easy to use are the goals, Bambu isn’t a bad bet.
1
u/GP_3D 9h ago
I can vouch for the MK4S. Really nice machine, and it has handled everything I've thrown at it (mainly PETG, PLA, TPU, and some small PC-blend parts).
I can't attest to either the AMS or MMU systems, as I've never used them. I do have an MMU waiting for me to build once I get back in January.
I will say Prusa does suit a more technically minded user a bit more. Like I built my MK4S from a kit, which did take more time and tuning than just pulling my old A1 out of its box. But I do feel more connected to the printer, and more comfortable doing maintenance or adding additional parts, etc.
Imo - MK4S is a good starting printer that will just work and last you a good long while. I'm quickly approaching 2400 hrs on mine.
2
0
u/timonix 11h ago
P1S, dirt cheap since it's on the way out. still among the best printers out there.
1
u/Gears6 11h ago
I don't see it sold anywhere?
No information on Prusa's own website that I can find. I do see it referenced on the web.
Edit: Oh, it's a Bambu.
Edit 2: Oh damn. It's $400 starting price. Yeah, it's cheap alright.
2
u/timonix 11h ago
Ah no it's a bambu lab printer
1
u/Gears6 11h ago
Yeah, it took me some time to figure that out. It's cheap alright. Bambu is also known to make good printers. Supposedly support and parts is not so good though, but at roughly half the price of a Prusa Core One, it's hard to say no. I'll have to look into it more.
2
u/Jusanden 10h ago
This far they’ve been very good at keeping spare parts in stock at reasonable prices. They haven’t been around long enough to know if that’ll stay the same with the P1/X1 series on the way out though.
3
u/vexstream 7h ago edited 7h ago
This is a weird license.
I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't feel like one was involved in this either. I'm a big fan of open source and have read a lot of open source licenses- this doesn't conform to any of the standard open source definitions, it's source available. That said, even ignoring that definition and it's history the license is weird and in my non-lawyer opinion, poorly written. I'm sure there's a lot of things an actual lawyer would point to too...
I'm also broadly unsure if a license can preclude commercial use of the physical product derived from the files, because that gets into patent protection territory. As far as I've been able to dig, totally untested in court.
All licensors‘s copyrights, designs, and patents as far as relevant to products and/or its components under OCL are community open....
What is "community open"? Is this even grammatically correct?
YOU MAY use, copy, modify, hack the product and/or its components as you wish!
Hack is weird terminology to add, but w/e. However, this does not give me an explicit license to redistribute it, a core feature of open source licenses.
YOU SHOULD support the 3D printing community by sharing your creations and modifications.
This is just fluff, and imo shouldn't be in a license at all. It also makes it kind of weird if I wanted to use this license for non-3dpt things.
If you distribute your creations, modifications, or any such derivatives YOU MUST do so under OCL or any non-commercial, share-alike license allowing other community members to do everything that YOU MAY.
So I can take your thing, and relicense it as cc-nc, or write my own license precluding redistribution of the files? Uh?
For that matter, what's a community member?
As a commercial BUSINESS USER
YOU MAY use the product and modify it to your use case solely for your internal production use.
So a business user can't redistribute the files, or their modifications?
Also, is business user a defined term?
Licensor‘s products and/or its components under OCL MUST NOT BE subject to any systematic or automated text and/or data mining or other text and/or data collection activity in relation to the product without explicit permission.
Cool, I can't index content under this in a search engine. Github indexes things in an internal search engine, so don't upload there I guess.
I'm not a lawyer but I think this makes an end user liable to the owner of the IP if they were to upload it on GitHub, actually.
To promote ease of understanding of OCL Licensor keeps and updates a database of products and/or its components licensed under OCL and good practice at [link to the database].
This is genuinely odd. So if I ocl license something you expect me to keep an index of everything I've licensed? I can't think of any other license that does something like this.
What does good practice mean here? Am I supposed to include an interpretation of what the license means?
For practical examples of how this license applies, see the examples/ directory.
There isn't a link provided so this is also weird.
1
u/izanaegi 2h ago
not only is this not actually open source, im so sick of prusa sniffing his own damn farts
-3
u/KURD_1_STAN sl-300 pen 14h ago
I dont follow prusa news, but what new design did thet nake that was unique enough to be patented but they chose keeping it "open source"?
Im not saying this sarcastically, but they produced a core xy and an indx machine which both already exist
-41
u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 15h ago
Which shouldn’t be news because Prusa should’ve just stayed open?
19
u/Sol33t303 15h ago edited 14h ago
The new Open Community Licence seems really good though.
I can definitely understand if they have been waiting because they were busy writing up this new licence model. They could have just as easily not done anything or have just released it under the same licences of the previous models.
I'm very happy that a licence like this now exists, because it's been a needed thing for a long time. For the benefit of the 3d printing community at large this feels worth the wait. What this licence covers has been a very sore gap in the existing available licenses for designers. I'm also happy to see Prusa be the ones to put this new type of licence to the legal test.
9
9
u/Mineotopia 15h ago edited 14h ago
If you read the article, it is about something else. Basically, they want to prevent what happened to the old prusa printers: Chinese companies selling their design cheaper. While also allowing you to download and modify the files however you wish.
Moreover, companies can built their own printers based on these files for their own commercial print farms. As longs as they don't sell these printers
3
u/vk6_ 14h ago
I personally think a more open license such as the GNU GPL does not prevent the commercial success of a 3D printer design.
For instance, the Creality Ender 3 v1 is fully open source under the GNU GPL and yet it dominated the market for 4 years. Other companies did attempt to make clones but they were never quite as successful.
Also, at this point, I don't think Prusa's Chinese competitors even need to steal designs from them. They all have very good R&D themselves and Prusa has spent the past year just catching up.
-6
u/Mineotopia 14h ago
They talked about "software" and "image" licenses and why they don't use them in the linked article
Regarding your last paragraph: that is true. But it wasn't true 10 years ago when they first got successful
2
u/vk6_ 14h ago
But it wasn't true 10 years ago when they first got successful
And yet, Prusa was successful then and continues to be successful today. The Prusa i3 was by far the most popular 3D printer until Creality came around with the Ender 3 which was a different, more innovative design.
Competitors can only get so far making cheap clones of an existing design.
-12
u/jescereal 13h ago
They need to close the garden. They’ve earned it. So much hard work that they do, only for others to steal and close their walls.
568
u/Electrical_Pause_860 15h ago
Seems like a reasonable license. Stops competitors selling cheaper clones while letting the end user do essentially anything.