Today, we are releasing the full CAD files for the CORE One and CORE One L frames.
There seems to be a custom licence.
The Restriction: You cannot commercially exploit the design files (selling the product or remixes) without a separate agreement.
The Protection: It includes an explicit patent license grant, protection against AI data mining, and a codified Right-to-Repair.
Most of the linked article is about the licence.
There’s been a lot of talk about Prusa turning evil. Maybe it’s a good step back.
Like Open source software licenses changed over time to include some mechanisms to protect the software against exploitation. E.g. large scale use and no kickback in support for paying additional developers. I feel that this is happening here and the no compromise idealistic manifest from the beginning needs amending.
Those aren’t open source licenses, they violate point six of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd
Then call them something else. They are here for a reason and so is the ocl.
They’re called “source available”, the issue is Prusa calling something open source that isn’t open source.
I still accept the idea behind it as an open source idea. Use it, change it, own it. That might not fit into a more strict definition of opensource but I am okay with that while still calling it opensource. That’s what I meant by idealistic approach and realistic. Needed to change some aspects because they got taken advantage of, still kept the (to me) relevant parts to count as open source.
And believe me when I say that I am very passionate about opensource. Only run OSS and even bought a core one (which not as polished as myx1c that I am selling) to go back to my ideals.