51 Reply by Snickers

  • Snickers
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2013-10-15
  • Posts: 31

Re: Solidoodle again appears to violate GPL V3 licence

Skyminer wrote:

As an observer with no skin in the game (other than owning a SD3), this whole thread seems like a bit of a witch hunt. I don't think there is any doubt that Solidoodle was out of compliance for too long, however are now in compliance. Nothing can change what happened in the past, and I might argue that it's only because of the mistakes of the past that they are now compliant.

So what's the expectation here to "resolve" the issues?  Acknowledgment of non-compliance prior to such-and-such date? A formal apology?

I understand people being sensitive to the GPL not being followed, but harping on about what happened in the past won't change it.

Not trying to sound hostile but are you suggesting that we just forget about what even happened?

52 Reply by Skyminer

  • Skyminer
  • Skyminer
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2014-01-11
  • Posts: 54

Re: Solidoodle again appears to violate GPL V3 licence

Snickers wrote:

Not trying to sound hostile but are you suggesting that we just forget about what even happened?

No, not at all.. I'm just wondering what the "end goal" is.  There's no sense in belaboring a point unless there is a goal to be achieved.  I'm simply asking, "What's the goal?"  Generally when someone (person or company) doesn't comply with some requirement, there is a penalty for doing so.  Once the penalty is fulfilled, everyone moves forward, either by losing the privilege to do whatever they were non-compliant with, or the penalty itself is deemed sufficient to allow them to make the appropriate corrections to become compliant.

From what I see, Solidoodle was non-compliant.  They are now compliant.  I'll admit, I've not read the entire thread, but if no one (here) has the authority or capability to penalize for misuse of the GPL, what is expected to happen to put the matter to rest?

53 Reply by elmoret

  • elmoret
  • Filastruder
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2012-10-11
  • Posts: 6,048

Re: Solidoodle again appears to violate GPL V3 licence

I think most folks would be content with an acceptance of fault and a genuine apology from Sam, as well as an explanation for how they "love and support open source".

Until then, I think some folks want it to be known that Solidoodle is a company that doesn't respect licensing or the folks that made the PCBs/firmware their company was built upon.

I for one would be happy to put it to rest if Sam came in and did the above.

Filastruder - the robust, inexpensive filament extruder
E3Dv6 All Metal Hotend - the premier 3D printing hotend

54 Reply by DePartedPrinter

  • DePartedPrinter
  • Moderator
  • Offline
  • From: Colorado
  • Registered: 2012-08-14
  • Posts: 1,478

Re: Solidoodle again appears to violate GPL V3 licence

Skyminer wrote:
Snickers wrote:

Not trying to sound hostile but are you suggesting that we just forget about what even happened?

No, not at all.. I'm just wondering what the "end goal" is.  There's no sense in belaboring a point unless there is a goal to be achieved.  I'm simply asking, "What's the goal?"  Generally when someone (person or company) doesn't comply with some requirement, there is a penalty for doing so.  Once the penalty is fulfilled, everyone moves forward, either by losing the privilege to do whatever they were non-compliant with, or the penalty itself is deemed sufficient to allow them to make the appropriate corrections to become compliant.

From what I see, Solidoodle was non-compliant.  They are now compliant.  I'll admit, I've not read the entire thread, but if no one (here) has the authority or capability to penalize for misuse of the GPL, what is expected to happen to put the matter to rest?

+1 for your logic

While I would love to hear a response from Sam, I just doubt that is going to happen...


It might be arguable that this thread is hurting the community as a whole.

SD2 with E3D, SD Press, Form 1+
Filastruder
NYLON (taulman): http://www.soliforum.com/topic/466/nylon/

55 Reply by foofoodog

  • foofoodog
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2013-08-16
  • Posts: 146

Re: Solidoodle again appears to violate GPL V3 licence

DePartedPrinter wrote:

It might be arguable that this thread is hurting the community as a whole.

No harm in getting things out in the open and having a discussion, better than letting things fester.
Even after all this, even if SD had some lapses, personally I think they are doing mostly the right thing and they have my respect for now. Look around the marketplace, there are other choices, more and more are cold blooded corporations and I would rather the vitriol and contempt be focused on them given that they too rose on the shoulders of giants and are now disregarding and turning their backs on their roots which is real scumbaggery.

56 Reply by Hazer

  • Hazer
  • Hazer
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2013-07-19
  • Posts: 478

Re: Solidoodle again appears to violate GPL V3 licence

This rant would have some meat to it if Solidoodle had ever tried to claim the work as their own. But their marketing was based upon stating the designs came form the 'open source community'. The motherboard has the attribution printed right on it. Their non-compliance at this point is simply timing.

As a SD3 owner, I have no personal interest in Sam apologizing for this.

Instead I got my SD3 in a timely manner.
My support emails were answered promptly.
9 months of average use and I have a fully functioning completely stock SD3 performing to my expectations.

I read through other forums and find that I was not wrong in my choice of vendor.

So what will be the take-away from this thread at this point? Really? I mean, if you put aside your personal satisfaction. What do current and future customers get?

Chuck Bittner is a quadriplegic gamer who is petitioning the major console developers to include internal button remapping in all console games. You can help.
Sign Chuck Bittners petition