Open source printer with refillable ink, no bullshit, accept rolls of papers.
Finally an open source printer ! I dealt with so much stupidity with printers. it warm my heart.
I do have too much joy to practice mandatory critical thinking about the release of a new project. Lets talk about it? i am not the only one to be happy about it, i have no info about the price though :/
Slight open-washing involved though - the license is CC-By-NC-SA, which sadly makes it incompatible with open hardware projects, and restricted from being available as a pre-assembled kit.
Well you are right ! Still i see it as a massive positive win in this particular sector, but sure, lets see what happen and be greedy with licensing! May the next one/release/update be more open.
I thank you a lot
They do have a survey that includes the kit question.
Here is the link if you are interested: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc0MLIj1Mfv81vaiOIQG1yMEilruRfNgx7h36l5a0qC-G9TZw/viewform
From this update : https://www.crowdsupply.com/open-tools/openprinter/updates/on-the-road-to-launch
Sacré bleu, c’est magnifique!!
I’m not sure if most will know, but an open source printer is a very challenging thing to do correctly. Tons of people have been pouring their hearts and souls into this effort.
One primary issue has been practicality. Open source is only as good as the ability to actually utilize that openness in practice. This includes the being able to actually repair the device as an end user whether on your own or with assistance. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that if it doesn’t print well, it doesn’t matter how open it is because nobody will care to use it.
Obviously this is pre-release so don’t quote me on this, but I think this may just be one of the best attempts I’ve personally seen. Parts are off the shelf and reasonably priced, it can print in multiple sizes right at release, and from the videos the print quality looks very good!
I wish I could get my hands on one of these. I can’t say too much publicly, but there is a group of people who I would love to demonstrate this to and educate about. I know for a fact that even for those who don’t give a damn about open source, people do give a damn about the realities around modern-day printing.
For everyone’s sake, these need to reach the average Joe and be understood. Much of my life seems to be acting as a bridge between the OSS heavyweights and the average consumer if I think about it.
Cool!! i was literally just thinking about this as part of my effort to be more analogue. I will follow this hungrily.
Certainly a cool idea, and I hope it succeeds and turns out to be what it seems.
No price listed on their crowd fund page, so who can say what this might cost? Uses a Raspberry Pi Zero W for the brains and a STM32 for the cartridge board.
While I understand why are they unwilling to allow commercial usage of the final product, it also makes it difficult to actually put in the hands of people. I agree, hopefully they can reconsider for a later iteration.
If it’s not really FOSS, It’s just an attention grabbing, open washing failure in progress, sponsored by people who don’t understand the licensing implications.
Not Open Source hardware or firmware.
License is CC-NC-SA, which fails all formal definitions of Open Source.
I disagree. Open source can mean many things, this license permits you to do anything with it, just not selling it.
Only thing is, you have to use the same license when publishing changes, which is normal for almost all open source.
I dont See anything wrong with it and calling it non open source is a bit misleading i think
No they’re right, cc-nc-sa is not open source or freedom respecting.
Edit: I’ll elaborate. The core principles of the free software movement will follow. All other definitions not only do not conflict with this basic definition, but often expand on it with additional rights expectations. The Four Freedoms:
-
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
-
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
-
Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
-
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
-
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Restrictions on commercial use are a suppression on freedoms 2 and 3, and notably (at least as far as I’m aware), none of the licenses to come out of the FSF have commercial restrictions.
And in the Open-Source definition, it’s literally in rule 1:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
I agree that its weird to use a content license.
But in what way do your listed requirements not apply to this project and license?
You can do whatever you want, besides makind money with it or sharing/changing it without attribution.
As far as i know hardware licenses are a bit strange still?
But i just dont unterstand your point and would like to
The restrictions on commercial use are what make it unqualified as an open-source license.
-
