[Editor’s note: A few days later, it looks now like Prusa pulled the models of their own accord, because of their interpretation of the copyright law. Creative Tools and NTI claim that they were not involved.]

Nobody likes reading the fine print, least of all when you’re just downloading some 3D model. While printing a copy for personal use this is rarely an issue, things can get a lot more complicated when you make and distribute a derived version of a particular model.

Case in point the ever popular 3DBenchy model, which was intended to serve as a diagnostic aid by designer [Creative Tools] (recently acquired by [NTI Group] ). Although folks have been spinning up their own versions of this benchmark print for years, such derivative works were technically forbidden by the original model’s license — a fact that the company is now starting to take seriously, with derivative models reportedly getting pulled from Printables.

The license for the 3DBenchy model is (and always has been) the Creative Commons BY-ND 4.0, which requires attribution and forbids distributing of derivative works. This means that legally any derived version of this popular model being distributed on Thingiverse, Printables, etc. is illegal, as already noted seven years ago by an observant user on Reddit. According to the message received by a Printables user, all derived 3DBenchy models will be removed from the site while the license is now (belatedly) being enforced.

Although it’s going to be a bit of an adjustment with this license enforcement, ultimately the idea of Creative Commons licenses was that they set clear rules for usage, which become meaningless if not observed.

Thanks to [JohnU] for the tip.

[Bruce Perens] isn’t very happy with the current state of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), and an article by [Rupert Goodwins] expounds on this to explain Open Source’s need for a new mission in 2024, and beyond. He suggests a focus shift from software, to data.

The internet as we know it and all the services it runs are built on FOSS architecture and infrastructure. None of the big tech companies would be where they are without FOSS, and certainly none could do without it. But FOSS has its share of what can be thought of as loopholes, and in the years during which the internet has exploded in growth and use, large tech companies have found and exploited all of them. A product doesn’t need to disclose a single line of source code if it’s never actually distributed. And Red Hat (which [Perens] asserts is really just IBM) have simply stopped releasing public distributions of CentOS.

In addition, the inherent weak points of FOSS remain largely the same. These include funding distributions, lack of user-focused design, and the fact that users frankly don’t understand what FOSS offers them, why it’s important, or even that it exists at all.

A change is needed, and it’s suggested that the time has come to move away from a focus on software, and shift that focus instead to data. Expand the inherent transparency of FOSS to ensure that people have control and visibility of their own data.

While the ideals of FOSS remain relevant, this isn’t the first time the changing tech landscape has raised questions about how things are done, like the intersection of bug bounties and FOSS.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

This week our own [Donald Papp] wrote a thought-provoking piece on buying and selling 3D-printer models. His basic point: if you don’t know what you’re getting until you’ve purchased it, and there’s no refund policy, how can you tell if your money is being well spent? It’s a serious problem for these nascent markets, because when customers aren’t satisfied they won’t come back.

It got me thinking about my own experience, albeit with all of the free 3D models out there. They are a supremely mixed bag, and even though you’re not paying for the model, you’re paying in printing time, filament, and effort. It pays to be choosy, and all of [Donald]’s suggestions hold in the “free” market as well.

Only download models that have been printed at least once, have decent documentation about things like layer height, filament type, and support, and to the best of your abilities, be critical about the ability to fabricate the part at all. Fused-deposition printers can only print on top of previous layers, and have a distinct grain, so you need to watch out for overhangs and print orientation. With resin printers, you need to be careful about trapped volumes of uncured resin. You want to be sure that the modeler at least took these considerations into account.

But when your parts have strength requirements, fits, and tolerances, it gets even worse. There’s almost no way a designer can know if you’re overextruding on your first layers or not. Different slicers handle corners differently, making inner surfaces shrink to varying degrees. How can the designer work around your particular situation?

My personal answer is open-source. Whenever possible, I prefer models in OpenSCAD. If you download an STL with ten M8 bolt holes, you could widen them all in a modeling program, but if you’ve got the source code, it’s as easy as changing a single variable. Using the source plays to the customizability of 3D printing, which is perhaps its strongest suit, in my mind. Nobody knows exactly how thick your desk is but you, after all. Making a headphone hook that’s customizable is key.

So even if the markets for 3D prints can solve the reliability problems, through customer reviews or requirements of extensive documentation, they’ll never be able to solve the one-size-fits-nobody issue. Open source fixes this easily. Sell me the source, not the STL!

Trouble in the Golden State this week, as parts of California were subjected to planned blackouts. Intended to prevent a repeat of last year’s deadly wildfires, which were tied in part to defective electrical distribution equipment, the blackouts could plunge millions in the counties surrounding Sacramento into the dark for days. Schools have canceled classes, the few stores that are open are taking cash only, and hospitals are running on generators. It seems a drastic move for PG&E, the utility that promptly went into bankruptcy after being blamed for last year’s fires, but it has the support of the governor, so the plan is likely to continue as long as the winds do. One group is not likely to complain, though;  California amateur radio operators must be enjoying a greatly decreased noise floor in the blackout areas, thanks to the loss of millions of switch-mode power supplies and their RF noise.

Good news, bad news for Fusion 360 users. Autodesk, the company behind the popular and remarkably capable CAD/CAM/CAE package, has announced changes to its licensing scheme, which went into effect this week. Users no longer have to pay for the “Ultimate” license tier to get goodies like 5-axis machining and generative design tools, as all capabilities are now included in the single paid version of Fusion 360. That’s good because plenty of users were unwilling to bump their $310 annual “Standard” license fee up to $1535 to get those features, but it’s bad because now the annual rate goes to $495. In a nice nod to the current userbase, those currently on the Standard license, as well as early adopters, will get to keep the $310 annual rate as long as they renew, and The $495 pricing tier went into effect in November of 2018, while anyone still on the $310 annual price was grandfathered in (and will remain to be). At that time there was still a $1535 tier called Ultimate, whose price will now be going away but the features remain in the $495 tier which is now the only pricing option for Fusion 360. Ultimate users will see a $1040 price drop. As for the current base of freeloaders like yours truly, fear not: Fusion 360 is still free for personal, non-commercial use. No generative design or tech support for us, though. (Editor’s Note: This paragraph was updated on 10/14/2019 to clarify the tier changes after Autodesk reached out to Hackaday via email.)

You might have had a bad day at the bench, but was it as bad as Román’s? He tipped us off to his nightmare of running into defective Wemos D1 boards – a lot of them. The 50 boards were to satisfy an order of data loggers for a customer, but all the boards seemed caught in an endless reboot loop when plugged into a USB port for programming. He changed PCs, changed cables, but nothing worked to stop the cycle except for one thing: touching the metal case of the module. His write up goes through all the dead-ends he went down to fix the problem, which ended up being a capacitor between the antenna and ground. Was it supposed to be there? Who knows, because once that cap was removed, the boards worked fine. Hats off to Román for troubleshooting this and sharing the results with us.

Ever since giving up their “Don’t be evil” schtick, Google seems to have really embraced the alternative. Now they’re in trouble for targeting the homeless in their quest for facial recognition data. The “volunteer research studies” consisted of playing what Google contractors were trained to describe as a “mini-game” on a modified smartphone, which captured video of the player’s face. Participants were compensated with $5 Starbucks gift cards but were not told that video was being captured, and if asked, contractors were allegedly trained to lie about that. Contractors were also allegedly trained to seek out people with dark skin, ostensibly to improve facial recognition algorithms that notoriously have a hard time with darker complexions. To be fair, the homeless were not exclusively targeted; college students were also given gift cards in exchange for their facial data.

For most of us, 3D-printing is a hobby, or at least in service of other hobbies. Few of us make a living at it, but professionals who do are often a great source of tips and tricks. One such pro is industrial designer Eric Strebel, who recently posted a video of his 3D-printing pro-tips. A lot of it is concerned with post-processing prints, like using a cake decorator’s spatula to pry prints off the bed, or the use of card scrapers and dental chisels to clean up prints. But the money tip from this video is the rolling cart he made for his Ultimaker. With the printer on top and storage below, it’s a great way to free up some bench space.

And finally, have you ever wondered how we hackers will rebuild society once the apocalypse hits and mutant zombie biker gangs roam the Earth? If so, then you need to check out Collapse OS, the operating system for an uncertain future. Designed to be as self-contained as possible, Collapse OS is intended to run on “field expedient” computers, cobbled together from whatever e-waste can be scrounged, as long as it includes a Z80 microprocessor. The OS has been tested on an RC2014 and a Sega Master System so far, but keep an eye out for TRS-80s, Kaypros, and the odd TI-84 graphing calculator as you pick through the remains of civilization.

It seems a simple enough concept for anyone who’s spent some time hacking on open source code: once you release something as open source, it’s open for good. Sure the developer might decide that future versions of the project close up the source, it’s been known to happen occasionally, but what’s already out there publicly can never be recalled. The Internet doesn’t have a “Delete” button, and once you’ve published your source code and let potentially millions of people download it, there’s no putting the Genie back in the bottle.

But what happens if there are extenuating circumstances? What if the project turns into something you no longer want to be a part of? Perhaps you submitted your code to a project with a specific understanding of how it was to be used, and then the rules changed. Or maybe you’ve been personally banned from a project, and yet the maintainers of said project have no problem letting your sizable code contributions stick around even after you’ve been kicked to the curb?

Due to what some perceive as a forced change in the Linux Code of Conduct, these are the questions being asked by some of the developers of the world’s preeminent open source project. It’s a situation which the open source community has rarely had to deal with, and certainly never on a project of this magnitude.

Is it truly possible to “take back” source code submitted to a project that’s released under a free and open source license such as the GPL? If so, what are the ramifications? What happens if it’s determined that the literally billions of devices running the Linux kernel are doing so in violation of a single developer’s copyright? These questions are of grave importance to the Internet and arguably our way of life. But the answers aren’t as easy to come by as you might think.

Copyleft and Ownership

The GPL is what’s known as a copyleft license, which is designed to add additional rights for the end users which would otherwise be limited by copyright laws. For example, it gives the user the right to duplicate and create derivative works. But an important distinction is that copyleft licences such as the GPL don’t actually replace the original copyright, they are merely supplemental. The original author of the code still holds the copyright, and is ultimately its sole owner.

This allows for the concept of dual licensing: wherein the sole author of a program can chose to license a program under multiple licenses at the same time, one of which generally being more permissive than the other. For example, the Windows version of a program could be closed source, while the Linux version is open source; even if the actual code is identical. More often, this is used to provide one license that applies for commercial use of a program, and more permissive licensing for individuals.

Some open source projects, generally large ones with corporate backing, occasionally have what’s known as a Contributor License Agreement. This document explains any additional requirements and rules for submitting source code to a project, and will usually have a clause explaining that the submitter is granting their copyright to the project’s parent entity. For example, here is the relevant section from Google’s “Individual Contributor License Agreement”:

Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to Google and to recipients of software distributed by Google a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works.

It’s worth noting that Linux does not utilize such an agreement, and the copyright for any submitted source code therefore remains the property of the original developer.

Reputational Losses

So if a developer is free to license their code in diametrically opposed ways (simultaneously closed and open source), and it’s acknowledged that in the absence of a Contributor License Agreement they retain the uncontested ownership of any code they write, the situation becomes tricky. Does it not follow that they have the right to walk back a promise to make their source code open, if a scenario presents itself in which the author feels it’s no longer appropriate?

Eric S. Raymond, one of the founders of the Open Source Initiative and author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar believes they may have that right. In a post to the Linux Kernel Mailing list, Eric specifically addresses the threat some developers have made about attempting to pull their code from the kernel:

First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.’s opt-out of the “moral rights” clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an even stronger case.

Section 6 of the Berne Convention explains that the original author of a work, even if they have granted their rights to another entity, can object to its further use if they feel it has been utilized in a way which “would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.” So in theory a disgruntled developer need only convince a judge that the maintainers of a project have damaged their reputation, say by publicly banning them for violating the Code of Conduct, and have a case for forcing the project to stop using their code regardless of preexisting licensing agreements.

Critical Language

But the question remains, can a developer actually “revoke” the rights given under the GPL? If we’re talking about the GPLv2 (which Linux is licensed under), the closest thing we find is Section 4:

However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Interestingly, if we take a look at the GPLv3, we see relevant language was made much stronger:

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.

Some believe the distinction here may prove to be critical. In a legal context, it’s generally understood that “revoke” means an agreement was retracted by the entity offering it (here, the original developer), while “terminate” simply means to end an agreement. This leaves room for interpretation, and one could potentially argue that since the GPLv2 does not specifically state the developer can’t retract the offer, it remains an option.

Here Be Dragons

Between the Eric S. Raymond’s assertion that a developer could claim divisive elements within the project are damaging to their reputation and the fact that the current licensing arrangement of Linux means there’s no specific language saying developers can’t withdraw their submissions, the situation becomes murky. The truth is, nobody is really sure yet. We’re in uncharted waters, and old assumptions may not hold up to legal scrutiny if it comes to it.

It’s also worth mentioning that the concept of “Promissory Estoppel” could come into play; which essentially prevents an individual from going back on a promise if the other party took action based on that promise. In other words, if you told somebody they could use your code and they used it to produce a successful project, you can’t then go back on that promise because it would be to their detriment.

Practically speaking, even if an individual built a case saying they wanted their chunk of code removed from Linux, it would be physically impossible. In lieu of being able to delete their code from the now-copyright-infringing devices, said developer would likely receive some monetary settlement. Which would still be a terrible precedent to set for the open source community: get mad, get paid.

At the end of the day, talk of revoking open source licenses is misguided. To paraphrase the character of Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park: angry developers are so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they haven’t stopped to think if they should. If legal precedent is set that a developer can take their source code back, it will be ruinous to the open source community. Its taken decades for free and open source software to rise to its current prominence in the software world, but the rash actions of a few unhappy developers could be enough to drag it back down to being little more than a wishful idea.

I am always torn about the title of “engineer.” When I talk to school kids about engineering, I tell that an engineer is a person who uses science and math to solve or analyze practical problems. However, these days you hear a lot of engineering titles thrown around to anyone who does any sort of technical (and sometimes non-technical) work. “Software engineers” don’t have to be licensed to practice, while civil engineers do. What’s in a name and does any of this matter?

Are you an Engineer?

The truth is, though, most US states have strict laws about who can call themselves an engineer to the public. This is especially problematic for the hacker who wants to offer services to the public. In 1907 Wyoming started requiring engineers to be licensed and by 1947 all states followed suit.

This isn’t surprising. After all, in the late 1800s, the only thing you needed to be a physician was the willingness to tell people you were a doctor. Eventually, this became such a public nuisance that laws required a certain amount of education and testing. Same for lawyers. You can imagine after a few bridges or building collapsed, that engineering certification started to sound like a good idea.

Bad Days

With computers getting more and more an integral part of everyday life for everyone, you wonder if we aren’t going to see something happen that will require some types of electrical or computer engineering to be certified in some way. Self-driving cars, autonomous vehicles (like drones), and computers that handle large amounts of money are all things that could make normal people take notice when they go bad. It won’t take too many drones crashing into a crowd, self-driving cars killing their drivers, or a computer bug losing a few hundred million dollars before people are going to start asking who is creating these public menaces.

For Example

One of the reasons that building projects require professional engineers is that someone has to be responsible when things go bad. For example, consider the Hyatt Regency walkway disaster in Kansas City. The original plans called for the elevated walkway to be suspended on some threaded steel rods. The builder didn’t want to thread the entire rod (required for the original design) and proposed using two rods in place of each single rod.

Common sense tells you that two rods would be better than one rod, right? Unfortunately, common sense doesn’t always work in science and engineering. For example, common sense tells you a brick will fall faster than a pebble, but common sense is wrong. Turns out, the original design didn’t have enough safety margin, and the new two-rod design actually doubled the stress on the supporting beams. Here’s a good video that demonstrates what happened.

The engineering firm — full of professional engineers, I’m sure — approved the changes over the phone without looking at any drawings or performing any calculations. When 114 people died and 216 people were injured in the worst building collapse until 9/11, that firm and several of their engineers were held responsible.

Just like a driver’s license doesn’t mean you won’t get in a wreck, an engineering license doesn’t mean you will always do the right thing. Besides that, a drivers license doesn’t mean you can drive like [Jason Statham] and an engineering license doesn’t mean you always know what to do in any given circumstance.

What’s a License Worth?

Professional licensure serves at least two purposes. First, it can help to prevent unqualified people from doing bad things.  However, it can also prevent qualified people from doing anything if those qualified people didn’t do things per the status quo. For example, I understand that for many years Texas would refuse to recognize correspondence law schools. Some states allow you to take the bar if you work as an apprentice in a law firm under certain circumstances, but most won’t. Like engineering licensure, this is done by the state in the US, so if you want to practice Federal law (like immigration or bankruptcy) you don’t care about the state regulations.

What I fear is that we will wind up with licensure that doesn’t actually prove the licensee is competent, and also inhibits competent people from contributing to the state of the art. However, I think some form of regulation is almost inevitable, just as we’ve seen the FAA start to take interest in drones. I’ve seen industries stave this off by self-regulation if they do a good job of it, but the reality is that engineers or hackers or programmers or whatever you want to call people who do what we do are way too diverse a bunch to make that very realistic. All it takes is one bad incident. If you think it would be strange to require a license to put up a Web application, remember that in most places hooking up to the electric system or the water mains requires a master electrician or plumber.

What about You?

Do you know the engineering licensing laws where you live? Do they affect you? Or could they? Are they meaningful? Do they allow for competent people to practice regardless of how they became competent? How would you react if certain kinds of projects became regulated?

Over the last few months, the internal struggles between the various founders of Arduino have come to a head. This began last November when Arduino SRL (the Italian version of an LLC) sued Arduino LLC for trademark infringement in Massachusetts District court. To assuage the hearts and minds of the maker community, Arduino SRL said they were the real Arduino by virtue of being the first ones to manufacture Arduino boards. A fork of the Arduino IDE by Arduino SRL – simply an update to the version number – was a ploy to further cement their position as the true developers of Arduino.

This is a mess, but not just for two organizations fighting over a trademark. If you’re selling Arduinos in your web store, which Arduino do you side with?

[Nate] from Sparkfun is answering that question with a non-answer.

Currently, Arduino SRL is the only source of Arduino Unos. Sparkfun will continue to buy Unos from SRL, but they’re not necessarily siding with Arduino SRL; people demand blue Arduinos with Italy silkscreened on the board, and Sparkfun is more than happy to supply these.

There are, however, questions about the future of Arduino hardware. The Arduino software stack will surely be around in a year, but anyone that will be purchasing thousands of little blue boards over the next year is understandably nervous.

This isn’t the first time Sparkfun has faced a challenge in Arduino supply. In 2012, when the Arduino Uno R3 was released, all the documentation for their very popular Inventor’s Kit was obsoleted overnight. In response to these supply chain problems, Sparkfun created the RedBoard.

Sparkfun has always offered to pay royalties on the RedBoard to Arduino LLC, just as they do with the Arduino Pro and Pro Mini. Effectively, Sparkfun is on the fence, with offers to manufacture the Arduino Zero, Uno, Mega, and Due coming from the LLC.

The reason for this is consumers. If someone wants an Arduino SRL-manufactured board, they’ll buy it. If, however, a customer wants to support Arduino LLC, that option is on the table as well.

It’s not a pretty position to be in, but it does show how someone can support one Arduino over another. In a year or two, there will only be one Arduino, but until then, if you have a preference, at least Sparkfun is giving you a choice.

Credit to Sparkfun for the great Spy vs. Spy image. Why don’t you sell googly eyes?