[zczc]

From the specs:

  Compatible cartridges  
  HP 63 and HP 63 XL (US)
  HP 302 and HP 302 XL (Europe)
  HP 803 and HP 803 XL (Asia)

So they just use HP inkjet technology. That makes it less open-source, but even "open source" parts are going to be under non-commercial license (CC BY-NC-SA) anyway.

[userbinator]

I suspect it's because the protocol for driving those cartridges is known and others have used them:

https://spritesmods.com/?art=magicbrush

https://spritesmods.com/?art=inker

[szszrk]

Make sense. But at the same time sounds like another way to support the biggest predator in that space, no?

[rbanffy]

Remanufactured cartridges for these printers are available. They profit from the first use of the cartridge, but make nothing out of the refilled ones (I've been using them for some time now).

[szszrk]

You still pay for it to the company that has decades of hostile practices towards their clients. Their mechanisms are so bad that they even disable valid original cartridges sometimes, good luck with getting that refunded.

But maybe I'm emotional, as that company has been taking premium for a broken experience of so many people I know. I didn't expect such project going for their equipment.

[phoronixrly]

> even "open source" parts are going to be under non-commercial license (CC BY-NC-SA) anyway

You're saying this as if it is a bad thing? I absolutely welcome this decision by the authors!

[lima]

Non commercial licenses are not generally considered open source

[worik]

Yes

But how important?

[__float]

If it is not an open source license, you should not call it open source.

Imagine someone saying the same thing about MongoDB's license, for example.

[Sankozi]

Is there a Linux server run on fully open source hardware (what would that mean btw?)? Should we stop using "open source" because almost all computers are not fully open source?

[sehansen]

Quite a lot of open source hardware is licensed under the BY-SA Creative Commons license which is an actual open source license. E.g. the Arduinos and things like the Milkymist One which can actually run linux.

[hannasanarion]

What are you even trying to say? The fact that this is hardware isn't what makes it non-open source, there's plenty of open source hardware out there. The thing that makes it not-open-source is that the license is non-commercial.

If you can't legally use the product, the fact that the source is available is meaningless. CC-NC is a source available license, not an open source license.

[dpoloncsak]

A Raspberry Pi running any flavor of linux, right?

[happymellon]

Why? Restricting it in this way doesn't make sense to me.

If we have a common design them surely we want people to be able to build their own, or buy a prebuilt?

[whilenot-dev]

Why is the CC BY-NC-SA stopping me to build my own?

[happymellon]

I didn't say it did.

If it is a noncommercial licence then it removes the other option to set up a business selling these pre-built. Not everyone wants to build a printer.

[wizzwizz4]

No, it doesn't: I can build a machine described in an All Rights Reserved book. CC BY-SA-NC grants additional permissions on top of that, but it doesn't remove any. You're thinking of patents.

[happymellon]

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en

> NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

I mean, the licence says that I can't...

[numpad0]

dmca?