643
Open Source Printer coming before 2027 (www.opentools.studio)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 :/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    i do enjoy the fact they're repurposing hp cartridges. but if this printer thing actually grabs some traction, i can totally see hp EOLing every printer that uses them and ending new production of those cartridges.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    I do understand your passion and i respect your disappointment.

    While i understand the explicit implications of cc-by-nc-sa, (attribution, non-commercial,share alike) i fail to understand the implicits implications. Could i trouble you to explain it ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    I think the criticism is that it's less likely to build an ecosystem like a Gnu Public License would (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap for an example of a 3d printer that very successfully used the GPL). The CC license prevents large corporations from stealing the design. But it also prevents someone from 3D-printing parts and selling them on a small ebay store.

    Seeing the dissembled printer makes me want it regardless of license tbh

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

    Finally a real answer haha, had to scroll awhile.

    So the licensing thing is just mostly people complaining that it isnt the most truiest of openness since people tend to conflate floss with accessibility when people call it open and they mean accessibility.

    Still getting a reliable printer that I can fix that I'm not vendor locked by that does all the things I could want a printer to do, since this was their goal I'm glad its happening.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    The limits imposed by the license will harm adoption, I hope I'm wrong but there will be no community around this. It will most likely be DOA. Which is a shame... The AGPL would better protect his interests.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Idk how their choice of license limits me front buying their printer and doing the things I want to do with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The 'non-commercial' license means no one other than the creator can profit from these designs.

    This means no one else can sell products or services so the ecosystem around the product will be limited to just the original company.

    It does not stop you buying the printer and using it. It means there will never be anywhere else to get spares or service so you are relying on their continuing good behaviour, effort and existence (with no one else is allowed to compete), a monopoly. As I understand it will be refillable with third-party ink though.

    This approach annoys some as the company seeks to profit from the claims of being 'open' whilst not being truly open as (in this case) no one else is open to offer commercial services for the printer. It is slightly better than a truly proprietary printer as at least we can see the designs.

    You could decide this is ok for you as it stands. They could also change the license in future to drop the non-commercial restriction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •