Move somewhere other than proprietary MakerWorld

[Fmstrat]

As an MIT licensed project (nice!), I was surprised to see this on MakerWorld, a Bamboo Labs owned entity beholden to their Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, requiring agreement for anyone wishing to download the models (who aren't familiar with GitHub).

It would be great to host the project on a more open ecosystem to better reflect the openness of the project itself. Somewhere like Printables where Prusa supports open source printers, allows un-logged in downloads, and has very explicit details in their terms and privacy policy come to mind, however I'm sure there are others that might make sense.

[spetzreborn]

I'm very new to homeracker (thanks hackaday that I discovered it!) And have just started printing parts and testing. I have not used MakedWorld, but instead generaded the parts from OpenSCAD locally. I'll think there is improvement to be done and to my knowledge Printables lack any customiziser ala MakerWorld and what Thingiverse used to have.

There is a article on Printables as well:
https://www.printables.com/model/1457986-homeracker-core

My egoistic standpoint is that I want homeracker to be as easy as possible to generate locally, and so far that works very well.

[spetzreborn]

Have looked around in makerworld now and I think I understand your concern. It looks like a lot of models there uses the "Standard Digital File License" which is very restrictive.

"
You shall not share, sub-license, sell, rent, host, transfer, or distribute in any way the digital or 3D printed versions of this object, nor any other derivative work of this object in its digital or physical format (including - but not limited to - remixes of this object, and hosting on other digital platforms). The objects may not be used without permission in any way whatsoever in which you charge money, or collect fees.
"

IANAL, but hardly allows downloading and printing at all? And definitely vendor lock-in.

I was hoping to implement a few in OpenSCAD so it could be hosted directly in this repo.

[kellervater]

I appreciate your concerns about openness - that's exactly why I keep the core spec fully open while using the rewards program to sustain development.

I think there's some confusion here.
Let me try to clarify:

It would be great to host the project on a more open ecosystem to better reflect the openness of the project itself. Somewhere like Printables where Prusa supports open source printers, allows un-logged in downloads, and has very explicit details in their terms and privacy policy come to mind, however I'm sure there are others that might make sense.

HomeRacker Core -> everything published in here (core model, rackmount ears) are licensed under CC-BY-SA and MIT (code).
You can find the core model on

• Makerworld
• Printables (as @spetzreborn pointed out)
• Thingiverse

That said:
I want to emphasize that these licenses intentionally ONLY apply to HomeRacker Core, so people can do whatever they want with it (almost) -> create remixes, base their extensions/adapters on it, even charge money for anything they come up with based on this core specification.

However, that does INTENTIONALLY not apply to any other extension which I publish on Makerworld exlusively.
Their rewards program finances this hobby for me. When I publish exclusively on Makerworld (Standard Digital File License) I get more rewards.
After some time I mostly change the license of models to more open ones, so people have more freedom with my extensions.
For example: I recently lifted the SDFL from The Magnus Underdesk Drawers.

I was hoping to implement a few in OpenSCAD so it could be hosted directly in this repo.

@spetzreborn you can. As I said: The core model is published under the license I listed above and which is clearly stated on the homepage/README

does that clarify things for you @Fmstrat ?

[PeterMarkuson]

I think this has advantages and disadvantages. While fully understanding the wish to earn some money it is definetly slowing down creativity and evolvement.

My personal example would be the unimount.scad file which is not on the repo (or at least didn't find it) and the deprecated version states that the successor will be closed source by intention.

However, I have some improvements which I would like to share - but I can't for two reasons.

1. I think I will violate the licence
2. What would be my compensation in helping you making more money with an improved script.

It is the 2nd point which concerns me, because it is not free and open community thinking which I don't want to adopt.

That being said as my 2 cents its nevertheless a great idea and system and also highly appreciated that you spend such an effort into the design and documentation.

BR/Peter