there is no GPL license! This whole thread is masturbatory at this point discussing something that does not exist! See the terms under which it was released. (screams in frustration)
Ahh, yes. Just read the license supplied with the files. it is the MIT license. There are no restrictions in use and no requirement to release derivative works. The only real requirement is that if you redistribute you have to include the original license text. You can argue that you do not even have to include attribution with derivative works.
So @plastichub to answer your earlier question. There is no requirement for people to release designs for derivative works.
@plastichub
With regards to CE. This is not something that PP need to concern themselves with UNLESS they want to manufacture and sell machines directly to the public.
If you build the machine yourself, you do not need CE approval.
If you are a vendor of machines, who builds and sells machines, then the machines need to meet the safety laws of the jurisdiction that you are selling the machines within. Even if this differs from the jurisdiction in which the machines were built.
If you are an importer of machines that you did not build yourself, you are still liable for ensuring that the machines are compliant within the jurisdiction into which you are selling, even if this means that you have to modify the machines to be compliant.
Now here’s the curve ball. if PP apply for CE certification for their designs, it will only hold true if manufacturers build their machines exactly the same, using the same components and the same assembly techniques. As soon as something changes, the CE certification becomes void unless the change is submitted for approval. Which means the vendor will need to seek CE certification for THEIR product as it differs from the PP product. The issue with this is that most vendors will have no idea that this is the case and will continue to use the PP CE approval with their products.
It is a veritable quagmire and one that would be taken advantage of by machine vendors as the expense of the PP name.
I would advise that machine design, along with controls and safety systems are designed to be compliant with ISO/IEC standards but that final certification is left to the vendor. You do not want to carry liability for third party design misinterpretations. This also has the added benefit of weeding out the vendors that are just trying to make a quick buck and have no regards to safety standards.
In reality, this is exactly the current status quo, as like it or not anyone currently selling a machine needs to comply with current CE requirements. Under current law it is the vendors responsibility. This is clearly defined with current standards.
there is no GPL license! This whole thread is masturbatory at this point discussing something that does not exist! See the terms under which it was released. (screams in frustration)
@plastichub
Actually the GPL does cover hardware (in a roundabout way).
The GPL covers the design itself – the drawings and files that represent the physical hardware. It’s not an exact fit, as the GPL and similar licenses are specifically developed for software, but as long as the design files are released in a software format then the GPL can be applied.
Of course, you will get some smart schmuck who will argue that whilst the content of their file may be identical to the original design, it is in fact a new file, but once the design is out there in the open domain it cannot be patented by someone else as their own idea due to the legal construct of prior art.
If you release a design under a non-commerical GPL license and then find that someone is selling the product commercially you have full legal recourse to be able to recover damages. It will stand up in court.
The main issue with open source, or even with individuals or small companies, is that to take action against a third party with respect to copyright infringement is not a cheap exercise. If neither party wants to back down and legal proceedings need to reach their reach their full conclusion for a decision to be made, it will run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for even the smallest breach. And that’s where most not-for-profits, individuals and small businesses don’t really stand a chance. It is simply too expensive to pursue.
So what this effectively means is that for small business and not-for-profits, is that open source licensing is little more than a statement of intent. It does not matter if it does not 100% align with copyright law, as you will never take it to court. However, the fact that it forms prior art in a legal sense is all that is needed should you wish to do so.
I don’t understand this thought that profit somehow makes the recycling effort less noble. If we could magically make every workspace (and by extension the machine builders) as profitable as a McDonalds or Starbucks, and there was one on very corner. With people following me to grab the plastic spoon as soon as I’m done scooping ice cream with it. The oceans and rivers would be empty of plastic and I would be a happy man.
I have nothing but respect for the amount of labor the machine builders are willing to put in for a reasonably priced machine.
@sharma-sagar need I refer you back to the terms and conditions also?
Quote:
Terms
Originally we planned to write one of those long terms and conditions things here. Yep, super boring to read and write. So we made the short version: Everything is free for whatever use (commercial or personal). We would appreciate it if you mentioned our name somewhere though. Oh, and you can’t sue us if something goes wrong. Be careful!
………
As far as I am concerned, further discussion on this is a waste of time.
@xxxolivierxxx I would like to nuance the last part of your statement. from the beginning there was a profit motive, but not by Dave personally. The guy has done some amazing stuff given what he has to work with. 300k is nothing in the grand scheme of things when it comes to organizing something as big as this.
However He said in the intro and I am paraphrasing here, It has to be profitable for those to build the machines and use them for the project to be self sustaining.
Hippie art projects will not pay the bills. We need to produce real things with real value if we are to get others on board to recycle plastic in a meaningful way.
Considering that the Philippines is the third largest ocean plastic polluter I have a very big road ahead. The amount of plastic in the water around Cebu city for example is absolutely mind blowing. Like a literal soup of plastic. In order to get more people to recycle this plastic, the machinery to do this must be as affordable and profitable as buying and running a pushcart food franchise.
I’m not sure what licenses people think are in place. The terms page https://preciousplastic.com/en/info/terms.html is pretty clear that nothing exists. Is there some other document that states that something other than individual goodwill is in play?
Edit: typed this before I saw Olivier’s post. It appears consistent
@btmetz
No need to add more fuel to the argument buddy. The design is yours, you don’t have to share it with anyone, period. If anyone wants to force you to share your designs, just tell them to F*** themselves.
If anyone wants to take the original PP shredder design, build a shredder, paint it Pink and sell it as a “Premium Shredder” for $20.000, go for it.
If anyone wants to modify the original PP designs and keep the modified designs for themselves, who cares.
If anyone wants to make a clothes pin mould and they don’t want to share the designs because they are looking to make profit out of it, and then someone reverse-engineer the mould and shares it with everyone? Sorry, you should have waited for the patent to be fully approved before showing everyone your product, now deal with with
The point is, people should stop complicating themselves about this open source crap. Precious Plastic was given to the world for free and people can do whatever they want with it. The only thing you should not do is selling the original PP designs, but someone has to be really dumb to buy something that is available for free.
By the way, don’t worry about Dave, he’s well fed and can afford his weekly dose of chocolate. Royalties, tips, and any other fees given to the project are optional, no one HAS to give money to PP if they don’t want to, because the project was never intended to be a money-making thing.
@btmetz, please don’t consider open-source bad for your business; it’s quite the contrary; look; it’s just like with software; If I can build on your design; ie: making addons; count on that you get this all for free; that’s the whole idea
Ah yes Sharma, because profit is evil. Since you seem to be in charge around here lately. To affirm your stance I suggest you send me some paperwork by registered mail kicking the Philippines out of the project. You can DM me for the mailing address.
I am talking specifically about the files for this frame. Does this look like anything in the videos? NO
Sure the PP shredder unit attached to it is open source, and I share those blueprints freely. I even sell just that part seperately.
However I got some yahoo going to me directly DEMANDING I give him my blueprints for that frame as well.
I cant even get y’all to acknowledge our work over here in the Philippines and now I got some random dude wanting my blueprints and apparently according to one guy money?
there are not that many options; indeed but a poll to vote on ‘yes, it’s an open source project’ (that would be the first time); inside out just as people join a software project, contributing because of certain values reflected in the license. What we have now is a ‘open single source of truth’ project; you can’t even commit small simple things; a one way project where we have even people selling thermo-couples for 80E or an injection-heatband set for 700 Euro. It’s kinda rotten. Of course this is a free market and platform but as one-army lacks contributors because of a silly project description with too many bold claims, I can confirm : there is need for action and improvements and those are not too hard to do. A simple poll and a few new custom attributes in the bazar and we’re set.
Will the real @davehakkens please stand up
Seriously will someone from PP HQ reply to this topic and make it clear what their views on this issue are. Ideally Dave would be the best person, since all licenses are in his name and thats what ultimately matters. But anyone is welcome to reply here and give their opinion, just so we know what the general consensus is.
@deeemm there isn’t a GPL for hardware and the open hardware licenses around are immature and insufficient to enforce anything. As you already pointed out, we can (lol) introduce rewards and create awareness in the community that there are contributors who do the extra-mile. As it is now; Eindhoven collects ALL the money and IMO spents too much on nonsense – also on the shoulders of the community – and there isn’t apparently any attempt to change things or provide better support for machine & product development outside of Eindhoven. Certification : 20-30 % asks for CE certification; you’re basically not allowed to sell a machine in the EU without. Those are pretty expensive, especially looking at the amount of machines and components. That can be only fixed if we crowd-fund the process but yet, without open-source minded people around that whole story would remain an adorable experiment
If the design is yours and not a derivative works – ie not based on the previous PP design then it is yours do with as you please. You do not need to share it or release it.
However if it IS a derivative works – ie is the the PP design, but it has been modified, then under the open source license that the original design was released under, your design has to be put into the public domain, your design has to be released as open source, irrespective of how much it may have cost you. There is no avoiding this, it is the entire premise on which open source is based.
I have not seen your design so do not specifically comment with it in mind, but the requirement that derivative works are released under the same license as the original design does seem to escape many people.
btw; the more we fragment designs the less likely we have a solid candidate for certification any time soon; not to mention being able to develop add-ons like a PET grinder, auto-reverse module, etc…. Iterations of foreign designs in CAD and on the customer site are absolutely necessary to get a real product out for the public market and just in case you don’t know : there is a huge unsatisfied market for Fablabs, waiting to get PP machines out of the garage and in their shop.
Guys; calm down. I haven’t spent too much in such productions but general rule of thumb in this very DIY, semi-professional world:
1. design and produce your machines
2. release the plans; also subject for comments, feedback in the community (outside of PP)
3. re-iterate; the ‘competition’ will be always behind anyways
please, also consider this a niche business or better: volunteer activity; we rarely can’t pay all bills with that and seriously; if you picked this project up; the goals and rules were clear from the beginning but as often forgotten on the way to ‘much bigger’ goals (v4). It seems that the whole thing slipped out of Dave’s hand; time he takes over back the leadership or better, at least puts a senior/veteran in such regards in place
btw. most serious vendors release their plans; it just makes it soo much easier to integrate and buy; we wouldn’t have part libraries for CAD otherwise.
