Creative Commons VS Open Source

Talk about all things CNC
Post Reply
halfnormal
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:44 am
Location: Flagstaff AZ

Creative Commons VS Open Source

Post by halfnormal » Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:34 pm

I love it when the discussions here make you think. I thought I would share some info and thoughts brought about by a discussion in another thread.

So what is the difference between creative commons vs open source? I found a great explanation on the The Open Source Hardware Association's website.
http://www.oshwa.org/2014/05/21/cc-oshw/

Shapeoko 1, 2 and makerslide are based on what is known as Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). Simple explanation here; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Full put you to sleep version here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

Shapeoko 3 is based on what is known as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US). Simple explanation here; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ Full put you to sleep version here https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by ... /legalcode
This license includes the NonCommercial clause. Here is a link to what means https://wiki.creativecommons.org/NonCom ... rpretation

So what is the bottom line to all this and what it means? Well according the the license that Shapeoko 3 uses, (and I summarize) it means that they will make all drawing information available for you to use for "personal" use. You CANNOT take said drawings, make the parts in the drawings and sell them at a profit.

So saying that the products are OPEN does not always equal easy to come by or source, cheap to buy or anything else other than have fun making it yourself!
Last edited by halfnormal on Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

cvoinescu
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:50 pm
Location: Camberley, UK
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons VS Open Source

Post by cvoinescu » Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:42 pm

Shapeoko 1 and 2, and MakerSlide, are CC BY-SA, not BY-NC-SA.
Proud owner of ShapeOko #709, eShapeOko #0, and of store.amberspyglass.co.uk

halfnormal
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:44 am
Location: Flagstaff AZ

Re: Creative Commons VS Open Source

Post by halfnormal » Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:12 pm

cvoinescu wrote:Shapeoko 1 and 2, and MakerSlide, are CC BY-SA, not BY-NC-SA.
Thanks for pointing that information out. I have corrected my OP and added some additional information.

redrex
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:10 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons VS Open Source

Post by redrex » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:07 am

halfnormal wrote: So saying that the products are OPEN does not always equal easy to come by or source, cheap to buy or anything else other than have fun making it yourself!
Talk about timing! So since you have been reading up on this perhaps you (and others) would care to weigh in on something for me. I'm looking to launch a new product and I want to embrace the OS/CC community. I'm trying to decide which system/license to go with. I want to enable people to use the plans to make whatever they want. And I like the idea of someone using the same plans to make products that they could then sell BUT I also then feel that if they were to do that I should get a small license fee or something. Is that wrong? Am I being short sighted on this? My hesitation to adopt total OS stems form the fact that there is a strong history of not just carpetbaggery but outright design theft in the moonshine industry. While I would love to see others take this design and improve on it, I can just as easily see the larger companies do nothing more then copy it and put their own name on it.

The product's name is the MakerStill. Yep, my sig is not a joke. One of my businesses is a "Micro Publisher", and my top IP is a book I wrote called The Home Distiller's Workbook. I wrote the first edition in 2001 and revamped it when they opened up the Kindle to self publishing about 4 years ago, and since then it has been the best selling book on the subject (/end of self aggrandizement). One of the biggest barriers to entry in this hobby is the still. They are expensive to buy and difficult to make (for most people). I'm going to launch a product that allows easy construction of a still for home use. I plan to give away the plans for DIY types at the same time.

Quick background on me. Even though I'm just now getting into CNC and 3d printing I've been part of the Maker community for some time. I was also lucky enough to move out to the SF bay area just as the whole dot come thing was taking off and since then I've had a front row seat for the Open Source movement. In my day job I'm the COO for a independent video game dev house, so most of my experience with the OS movement has been on the software side.

So what is the best path to follow?
Open sourcing Moonshine since 1999

halfnormal
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:44 am
Location: Flagstaff AZ

Re: Creative Commons VS Open Source

Post by halfnormal » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:26 am

Personally I would suggest hiring a lawyer who specializes in this type of licensing. As with all things legal, it comes down to what is, is, especially if you plan to enforce your licensing.

edwardrford
Posts: 1250
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Dixon, IL
Contact:

Re: Creative Commons VS Open Source

Post by edwardrford » Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:37 am

halfnormal wrote:...You CANNOT take said drawings, make products and sell them at a profit...
There was a similar sounding interpretation of this sentence on twitter and I want to make sure the point is being made correctly, so I'm going to re-iterate, just for clarity:

The non-commercial clause of the license is only regarding the machine design. It simply means that you can't take the CAD files and clone the machine directly. The clause has nothing to do with the products that you make with the machine.

-Edward
Shapeoko 1 #0 - a couple of upgrades.
Shapeoko 2 #0 - a couple of upgrades.
Shapeoko 3 #2 - Stock

halfnormal
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:44 am
Location: Flagstaff AZ

Re: Creative Commons VS Open Source

Post by halfnormal » Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:35 am

edwardrford wrote:
halfnormal wrote:...You CANNOT take said drawings, make products and sell them at a profit...
There was a similar sounding interpretation of this sentence on twitter and I want to make sure the point is being made correctly, so I'm going to re-iterate, just for clarity:

The non-commercial clause of the license is only regarding the machine design. It simply means that you can't take the CAD files and clone the machine directly. The clause has nothing to do with the products that you make with the machine.

-Edward
Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity of the statement. I have corrected the OP to now read "You CANNOT take said drawings, make the parts in the drawings and sell them at a profit."

RobCee
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:33 am
Location: Birmingham, UK

Re: Creative Commons VS Open Source

Post by RobCee » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:37 am

Given the number of blatant and direct copies of the SO2 (including the unlicensed use of images and description copy) I can understand the desire to make it more legally challenging to directly copy the SO3 product. As a small company, there is nothing more frustrating than somebody taking all your work and undercutting your prices, given that their investment is so small compared to yours.
In my mind, the Open Source (CC BY-SA) idea works well if you are a creator in your garage working on something in your spare time to prove out an idea and find a market. The CC BT-NC-SA variation makes perfect sense if you are a small company with overheads that wants to make a living from selling a product that you have invested your research time, effort and money into. It embraces the ideals of folks that would like to emulate you in a not for profit way, but protects you from those trying to exploit your idea.
The non-compete would be a particularly important factor if you were to attract investor funding or venture capital of any sort - those guys will want to protect their investment and see a return.
ShapeOko2 #3400 - Chinese 800W AC Spindle - Stiffened X-Axis - TR10 Z-Axis - Inverted Z Motor - Hall Effect Limits - Drag Chains & Custom Brackets

Post Reply