Now i understand the idea of putting food on the table. I also understand that when you have a good idea you can provide services and you get rewarded for this. What i find is parasites infiltrate open systems and trying to take advantage of this FREE OPEN environment. Now the idea of OPEN BUILDS is one of sharing human knowledge. The idea is to share and help others around the world. This is a symbiotic relationship it benefits both parties. Symbiosis (from Ancient Greekσύν "together" and βίωσις "living" If you are a non participating shop owner that just want ideas to make money off, then please find another hole to crawl into and leave, your not welcome here. If however you are HUMAN and are after a symbiotic relationship please participate with your brilliant ideas. We the HUMANS are feed up of bottom feeders, go find someone else to feed off.!
Hello @ADarkGerm, Remixing, selling, re-sharing open source projects is what helps to build this community. Everyone not only has this right but is encouraged to share these open source builds with everyone. This is the vehicle that helps to bring open source to everyone and is the only way that makes it work. When a build is shared as NC (non-commercial) its dead in the water therefore never gets to be improved on. So builds like this are locked and thats no good for anyone. What make it grow is its value to the community who also help to improve it and help to spread it across the world. This is why we like to encourage the sharing, remixing and selling of open source projects with everyone. Too many times we have seen this mentality with business close sourcing an existing open source project taking from a community of ideas and then closing the doors once they have what they need. This is against the spirit of open source and should be frowned on. If someone is not willing to share a project as open they should not be posting it on an open source site. So with our builds we try to make sure that others have a full rights to share and get them out there. If they abide by the licensing rules of re-sharing it (giving proper credits and re-share under the same licence) as open source upon release of their version. The people who have business investing time and money to get open source machines and projects to the masses should be commended on their efforts in helping to ensure open hardware for future generations to come. This link is a helpful study on laying out the idea of open source http://www.oshwa.org/definition/
Well, while I agree with the sentiments of the OP, I have a different approach to dealing with it. We already tried making a license that said "nobody can profit from this", it was called "non-commercial use only". While this was successful in the beginning, it got crushed. The next try was "you can profit from this but you have to give me credit". And now you see Ubuntu taking over... Fedora... and ultimately Open Hardware like openbuilds, arduino, raspberry pi, etc. I believe this is called the GNU Public License version 2(GPLv2). It has worked remarkably well and now we are finding little loopholes. The new license is GPLv3 which says "you can't use any loopholes and you can profit from it but you have to give me credit". It's also called "creative commons" and "share and share alike". Anyway, my approach is more open and transparent and let people make their choices(e.g. choose your side). If you want to stifle other people in your attempts to make money, you will be exposed and lose everything. If you make money helping other people then you'll be fine.
Also if we document a new process or method here then it is considered prior art and cannot be patented by anyone. They can use it but they cannot stop us from using it also. Bob
