Comment on Open-sourcing CORE One CAD Files Under the New Open Community License (OCL)

RobotToaster@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• 1100101000110@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Could this be a response to Bambu Lab?

  source

  • prenatal_confusion@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Absolutely.

    source
• prenatal_confusion@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Those aren’t open source licenses, they violated point six of the open source definition opensource.org/osd

    source

    • prenatal_confusion@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Then call them something else. They are here for a reason and so is the ocl.

      source

      • RobotToaster@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        They’re called “source available”, the issue is Prusa calling something open source that isn’t open source.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  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.

  source