Is OpenBuilds itself Open Source?

I'm not a patent/trademark attorney (or any kind of attorney for that matter ), nor am I affiliated with Open Builds in any capacity, so my comments really have absolutely no weight, so with that...

My thought is that at least some (if not all) of the parts themselves are protected under some form(s) of copyright, trademark or patent. Reasoning is that if you look at their V-Slot extrusions, the term "V-Slot" has a registered trademark symbol next to it, as does "C-Beam". The term "OpenRail" has a trademark symbol next to it. The "Xtreme" wheel kits have trademark symbols, and so forth. It only seems logical that these parts are likely not open source since they have the trademarks on quite a few of their parts' names.

If I were in OpenBuilds' shoes, I'd be extremely careful in how those questions are answered in the open (or in writing), so their answer (or lack of) is understandable in my opinion. There's way too much at stake for OpenBuilds to make a blunder in answering the question. My $.02 worth...

 

One point I'd like to make here that I've seen elsewhere in FOSSH and has always rubbed me the wrong way; the use of "clone", "knockoff", etc. to describe alternative vendors' releases of open source parts. By definition, you can't "knock-off" an open source design, you can only reproduce it. It seems very odd to use these tonally negative descriptors to describe other people... Using the system as intended?

Seems like a more community-spirited approach to accomplishing largely the same communicative goal would be to invert the sentence subject and go positive; "We use trademark to ensure a benchmark level of quality", "the trademarks are how we guarantee the consumer their expected quality demands", or whatever. It's about what YOU do, not what the other guys do (which could, in theory, be just as good as what you do, and indeed hopefully is, in terms of the health of the overall ideology and ecosystem).

Just a 2c that's been building for a few months now.

 

That's all I'm getting at- something to be bearing in mind. We have a tendency to bring our zero-sum western IP mentality to a lot of things because it's simply the framework we tend to exist within, but I think it's important to actively self-evaluate. In terms of nomenclature, I'd argue that OpenBuilds isn't here to make value judgements on work anyway (which was my original fundamental point), merely enforce its IP- and even then, it's important to be as judicious as Trademark law allows (not very, I know) in keeping with the spirit of open source.

The parts aren't "counterfeit" though. There's no such thing in open source. They're simply a vendor's version of a particular design, which, quality depending, may or may not be very compatible with that actual system. Community-based reviewing systems could be a useful aspect here. It sometimes feels like there's a morality judgement at play when someone does or doesn't buy OEM OpenBuilds parts, which is absurd within the context of the purpose and philosophy of the movement. Not everyone can afford to pay $50 for something they can grab on eBay for $13. In terms of prototyping it makes more sense to experiment with low-cost import versions anyway, before potentially going with the higher-cost, higher-reliability/warrantied/supported components later on. Some people simply don't have access without importing, which costs a fortune. Others live in economically depressed or developing countries and for them, $13 may as well be $50.

I dunno, it just seems like OB is focusing a little too much on itself sometimes, at the expense of inclusiveness. The store and brand are great and support the community, but it's the community and builds and ideas generated through the power of open source that truly matter and are the fundamental purpose for its existence to begin with. Obviously the fact that it makes decent money allows for it to employ a team of people and give away a lot of stuff, which are fantastic things, but it seems like it takes those things just a little too much to heart in terms of the wider world. Maybe it IS trying to pivot, become more of a Sparkfun or Adafruit with the self-branded products and educational marketing content. Which isn't inherently a bad thing, I'd just argue some introspection is important to stay open and communicative with the people who provide it with value to begin with (both money and information) and that it doesn't drift toward becoming a MakerBot.

"Invasive species". "Weeds". We're talking about random dudes in Shenzhen with no social safety net trying to keep their machines running to keep the lights on here, as far as I'm aware. Why begrudge someone their couple nickels if they can provide people with a needed service?

Now, when you're talking about actively attempting to brand themselves as OpenBuilds and effectively impersonating a brand, things become very different, and C&Ds, DMCA notices, etc. become valid. However, I'd argue that it's important to distinguish between "Hi, we're OpenBuilds" and "This is a piece of OpenBuilds(TM) VSlot(TM)." Because... It is. No, it's not OEM, but it's still a piece of extrusion of the VSlot design originally by OpenBuilds. It's OpenBuilds VSlot, because that's what it is. A tautology, I know, but you see my point. It's not "compatible with..." or whatever. It IS that. That's what an open source design is. Anyone can make it.

For example, Ubuntu is a trademark of Canonical. If I put Ubuntu on a disc and sell it, well... It's still Ubuntu. It's not "my version" of it, it just is what it is. Debian's a trademark too, for that matter. If I was to distribute a copy, it would still be Debian, because that's literally what it is, not because I have any rights to the trademark. I might be belabouring the point a little here, but I'm trying to be precise about how I'm framing it.

That's an inherent downside of open source products. It's the whole "freedom vs security" scale, and open source is deciding to sit firmly on the "freedom" end of it. Really all you can do is build a repository of community-sourced review materials and try to get the word out there who does and doesn't do good versions of the design. Coming looking for help from OpenBuilds seems like a good thing. The community is literally here to help with problems, and even if the particular problem is unsolvable (ie. they just got bad parts) at least they're now in a place where they can get good information and good parts, or directions to good parts. Wasting time and money is frustrating, sure, but it's not like those aren't common to the entire open source world, especially hardware. If you want something to work right first time and always be fixable, you're better off with proprietary.

You just can't counterfeit an open source product. The names and photos are legally protected and can be subject to takedown notices on the part of the marketplace companies. If they're also offshore and don't subscribe to our IP laws- which also isn't the worst thing in the world- then there's not much you can do. If the parts/kits are good, then what's the problem? "As if they were genuine" is a defacto meaningless statement for an open source design. You've released it to the world, there is no "genuine". You can argue OEM if you'd like, and there are certainly pros to going with the supported route, but it's not the only route, nor is anyone else precluded from building an OB competitor that also provides support and maintains quality standards. If someone builds a reputation on AliExpress, good for them. More quality parts is good for the whole community.

Do people try to get clone support from Prusa themselves? Probably. Do Prusa chase down photo theft and any trademark infringement? Also probably- it's almost a dead certainty that someone out there is trying to sell clones using OEM materials. It's part of the deal. If you don't want to be dealing with that, try going proprietary, but you'll still be dealing with clones and IP infringement because reverse engineering and industrial espionage are trivial these days when everything's made in the same place. Proper branding and marketing are the key, which OB do tend to focus on a lot, to their credit.

If the silkscreen is copyrighted, then they have possible recourse there, and I'd imagine they do for the larger infringers. Of course, it's probably not worth the hassle and expense vainly attempting to chase down every last back alley operation. The money is almost always better spent working on improved products, support and marketing. In this brave new world of infinite copyability, leading from the front and cannibalising your own market are the only way to stay ahead.

Whether something's made in the US or EU or China is irrelevant as long as the quality standards are met. Open source is supposed to be about the betterment of humanity as a whole, every nation and continent, a singular entity, not petty nationalistic protectionism- we have way too much of that going on as it is. I'm not necessarily accusing you or anyone else of making that argument, just a point I'd like to make on the general topic.

Hopefully I'm still vaguely on the original point? Hahaha.

Edit: Just had a thought that I should add that some of my points are licensing-dependent, and open source is a sort of sliding scale. But I'm going off Gray's proclamation that OB are so open you can feel the breeze.