Comment by TaylorAlexander
14 days ago
Prusa gave everyone permission to make copies of their i3 series machines, make modifications, and distribute modified versions. It’s not theft if you have been given explicit permission to make copies.
“You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty.”
“You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above.”
https://github.com/prusa3d/Original-Prusa-i3/blob/MK3S/LICEN...
> Prusa gave everyone permission to make copies of their i3 series machines, make modifications, and distribute modified versions. It’s not theft if you have been given explicit permission to make copies.
Indeed. But I guess Prusa also expected that people will buy the original such that this support this open-source mission can be sustained. This is where I personally see Prusa's fallacy of thinking.
Sure, their choice to give it away may not have gone as they hoped, I’m just pushing back against the idea that making copies of a thing the creator explicitly gave permission to copy is “stealing”. The core of open source is that making and distributing modified or unmodified copies is good. Calling it stealing undermines the very important social work we can do with open source.
> The core of open source is that making and distributing modified or unmodified copies is good.
The core is not that it is "good", only that it is allowed (i.e. we won't sue you if you do).
The Chinese are good at cloning, with or without access to design files. You'll be a fool to not have a plan.