[esskay]

Unless I'm missing something using this in a commercial application would be a license violation:

> Open Printer is distributed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

> This means that everyone is free to use, share, and modify the project, provided they credit the original author, share derivatives under the same license, and do not use it for commercial purposes.

It's also not opensource yet, there's a vague mention of "when its ready" it'll be released.

[SwellJoe]

What about that license makes you think you can't use the device (i.e. print things) for commercial purposes?

The license applies to the thing, not the thing you print using the thing. Me writing software or prose on a computer running Linux using a GPL editor wouldn't change that the copyright of what I write belongs to me, the author.

You can't make a commercial competitor of this printer using their design, but using the printer for its intended purpose (printing) is obviously unrelated to that.

[avianlyric]

> You can't make a commercial competitor of this printer using their design

Which means it's not open source. Open source means you have the right to distribute work however you want, including commercially, provided you also provide the source under the same license terms as the original.

The second you slap a non-commercial limitation on there, it ceases to be open source.

[stavros]

Of course it's not open source, there's no source to even be open or closed yet! It is Creative Commons, though, which is different.

[cwillu]

It may be using a CC license, but nothing that's marked NC is meaningfully part of the commons. Yes, some guy can make a part to fix his printer, but that guy can't sell those parts to other people.

The existence of a service manual doesn't mean you can get parts once the company disappears or loses interest.

[SwellJoe]

I didn't plan to go into the printer manufacturing business, and there's nothing more open, AFAIK. HP won't let you fix it when they brick your printer for not using their more expensive than blood ink.

[poulpy123]

It's open source : you have the right to study, copy, share and modify

[Aachen]

but conditions apply to that. Those rights you mention are not available in every circumstance, specifically in commercial settings in this case. That's the point being made; why many consider that not an open source license (not saying I agree or disagree)

[dofm]

This is probably inevitable at this point and at least it's a legit licence and not the weird sad bespoke wobbly nonsense Prusa went with. They clearly need something like this for exactly the same reasons.

[esskay]

Ugh yes agree, that Prusa one was a massive misstep.