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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

foofoodog wrote:

It looks like the GPL community force worked and that a company that allegedly was non-complaint, is now toeing the line.

Partially compliant (Sanguinololu schematics for the reworked/rebadged SD motherboard are where ?)

And only compliant because Someone yelled. Same way they only became compliant with the Printrboards after much public commentary. Took weeks of a thread here before they suddenly came into compliance. The lack of GPL notificiation was raised back then, and ignored.. until the latest round.. when again, after a few weeks, they 'suddenly' where in compliance and making statements about loving and embracing Open Source (but only after they are caught out multiple times about not correct loving or embracing it... ) So the only things that have been bought into compliance, are the things that strangely have been vocalized publicly. And not once, but multiple occasions. Not a single act of compliance has been bought about by Solidoodle preemptively or of their own accord. It is only after pressuring them.

I find it difficult to award a gold star for compliance when essentially, I have been acting as Solidoodles Compliance Officer... I raise it, ride it, push it, and voila... they'll fix it.... and then act like its always been that way I mean... 2.5 years to start complying with the little slip of paper inside the printer when it ships!?!??! And then making statements that 'you've checked and they are there' whilst not offering any apology to the community or explanation as to why they were never there in the first place.........

As for why it matters - If you have actively or otherwise do contributed to Open Source, you'd understand why its disheartening when people use the work that has often very little in the form of requirements to comply with for commercial gain, and then play games about it. I'm sure you can feel it starts to appear borderline deceitful when it happens repeatedly from the same organisation.

Overall - it also seems a long long way from 'loving and embracing' open source when until a few weeks ago  they didn't even comply with the most fundamental GPL principles. And then there was the time before that they didn't comply either. Oh and the time before that, that they still aren't compliant for, over the Sang's.

*shrug*

The schematics are here, and have been here for quite some time http://www.solidoodle.com/solidoodle-mo … -firmware/ - The "Solidoodle Motherboard" you refer to corresponds to these schematics.

The Sanguinololu was unmodified, and we haven't sold it in over a year. Repeat, we do not stock or sell the Sanguinololu, or anything like it, and do not intend to ever sell them again.

We have never lied about the authorship of the boards.

However, in this case the authors have released it under a license, a license which in the case of Solidoodle, hasn't been honored. That's a bit like agreeing to do some consulting for xxxx dollars, and then at the end of the contract the company deciding not to compensate you.

These authors chose the licenses they wanted to use. Solidoodle had a choice: Use the open source hardware and firmware while honoring the license, or don't. They picked a third option (use the work, don't honor the license) and that's what people have problems with.

If you have actively or otherwise do contributed to Open Source, you'd understand why its disheartening when people use the work that has often very little in the form of requirements to comply with for commercial gain, and then play games about it. I'm sure you can feel it starts to appear borderline deceitful when it happens repeatedly from the same organisation.

Yes and No.

About 8 years ago there was a big fad about modifying xbox360 controllers to have a 'turbo' button. The term for such a thing was called rapidfire controller. When this started, people were programming microchips to send a repeated high speed pulse to the trigger of the controller, and charging about $30 a 'kit' (read: a $1 chip with some wire) where the code was simply a single speed pulse. I thought this was outrageous.

I made up my own code, which had multiple speeds, flashed LEDs for feedback, and could be turned on/off easily. I posted this code and instructions as open-source. Real open-source, as in I did not care about GPL licencing and all of that. The first place it was posted was on the PIC microchip support forums. The thread has since gotten 750,000 hits, 2000+ replies, with the code itself over 15,000 downloads. I also posted the code on other forums for Xbox enthusiasts. My Mediafire has reported over 20,000 downloads.

Now, since that code was posted, people have been selling this code and/or kits for alot of money. And I never got credit. I never even made a single dime. And I never intended to. I would have to be a complete idiot to think that people would NOT profit off of open-source releases. And trying to 'protect' it under some licence is a joke, since modifying the source should entitle one to claim ownership to some extent.

It looks like the GPL community force worked and that a company that allegedly was non-complaint, is now toeing the line.

Partially compliant (Sanguinololu schematics for the reworked/rebadged SD motherboard are where ?)

And only compliant because Someone yelled. Same way they only became compliant with the Printrboards after much public commentary. Took weeks of a thread here before they suddenly came into compliance. The lack of GPL notificiation was raised back then, and ignored.. until the latest round.. when again, after a few weeks, they 'suddenly' where in compliance and making statements about loving and embracing Open Source (but only after they are caught out multiple times about not correct loving or embracing it... ) So the only things that have been bought into compliance, are the things that strangely have been vocalized publicly. And not once, but multiple occasions. Not a single act of compliance has been bought about by Solidoodle preemptively or of their own accord. It is only after pressuring them.

I find it difficult to award a gold star for compliance when essentially, I have been acting as Solidoodles Compliance Officer... I raise it, ride it, push it, and voila... they'll fix it.... and then act like its always been that way I mean... 2.5 years to start complying with the little slip of paper inside the printer when it ships!?!??! And then making statements that 'you've checked and they are there' whilst not offering any apology to the community or explanation as to why they were never there in the first place.........

As for why it matters - If you have actively or otherwise do contributed to Open Source, you'd understand why its disheartening when people use the work that has often very little in the form of requirements to comply with for commercial gain, and then play games about it. I'm sure you can feel it starts to appear borderline deceitful when it happens repeatedly from the same organisation.

Overall - it also seems a long long way from 'loving and embracing' open source when until a few weeks ago  they didn't even comply with the most fundamental GPL principles. And then there was the time before that they didn't comply either. Oh and the time before that, that they still aren't compliant for, over the Sang's.

*shrug*

If I knew then what I know now, there's no chance I would have purchased a Solidoodle.

So tell them you were duped and ask for your money back. Or start a class action suit. Easy case, they made profit by saying they were GPL when they were not, if that can be proven.

I think what I am hearing from you is that there is no other recourse short of SD leaving the market due to no sales from a bad rep. That seems drastic.

It looks like the GPL community force worked and that a company that allegedly was non-complaint, is now toeing the line.

Solidoodle is a company that willfully disregarded licensing requirements for years, only coming into compliance when enough people complained about it. Sam, their CEO, has said they "love and support the open source community", but failed to provide examples when asked.

To me, that is something that should factor into a buying decision. If I knew then what I know now, there's no chance I would have purchased a Solidoodle.

As for open source being taken seriously, Marlin/Sailfish/Printrboard/Sanguinololu/RAMPS/Rumba/Melzi are all open source, and comprise over 90% of the controller/firmware market. Without them, 3D printers would not be anywhere near where they are today. Do you think Solidoodle could have hired a PCB engineer or a firmware engineer in their early days? No way. I doubt they could have purchased a copy of Altium.

Hobbyist 3D printing is where it is today due to standing on the shoulders of giants like Joem, Erik, and Kliment, just to name a few. Willful disregard for the credit and licensing of their hard work should absolutely be something a consumer is aware of when choosing a printer to purchase.

As a casual observer though I wonder what all the fuss is about. As a customer I knew the firmware at least was based on open source before I bought the machine and figured if I had an interest in hacking it I could get it. Though I never looked into that and it did not really figure into the purchase.

So what if Sam gives the mea culpa that is being demanded here, what then?

No harm no foul. Otherwise, prove there was harm, quantify it and seek relief. A subpoena might work better than bumping a thread on a hobbyist message board. With all do respect, put up or shut up.