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
[–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    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

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

    @Augmented1207@feddit.org @AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net their point is that commercial restrictions go against both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement as layed out by both of their definitions and it's harmful for several reasons (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html)

    sit with the thought for a moment, what if the GNU operating system or the Linux kernel, etc.. had a commercial restriction on them, there would be more complications then, and the physical copies made by other distributions wouldn't be made, and so on

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent