Loading
Me wearing printed glasses

Occupy Thingiverse Test cube

by prusajr, published

Me wearing printed glasses
Occupy Thingiverse Test cube by prusajr Sep 19, 2012

Description

I'm leaving Thingiverse after seeing updated Terms of use thingiverse.com/legal , over next few days I will remove all my stuff. It will be downloadable on my website josefprusa.cz or reprap.org I prefer to by owner of my own designs :-)

We are not trolls, as Raldrich said

"The fact that the legal ramifications of MakerBot's TOS weren't discovered until today doesn't magically give them a free pass.

The fact that they don't intend (today) to exercise the rights they've granted themselves also doesn't magically give them a free pass. Companies change - take a look at their stance on Open Source Hardware."

Also Replicator 2 is Closed Source, at least everything looks like it and guy on Makerbot support phone told me so.
Check out my open letter to Bre Pettis here josefprusa.cz/open-hardware-meaning/
Help out by spreading the word! reddit.com/r/Reprap/comments/10642q/open_hardware_meaning_josef_prusa/
slashdot.org/submission/2267155

Link it, tweet it, comment it! Help the cause and show them we want it Open Source!

First alternative garyhodgson.com/reprap/2012/09/githubiverse-a-github-pages-template-for-3d-printing-projects/

Print the Test Cube as ugly as you can and post picture of it as "I made one" :-)

Jo Prusa, RepRap core dev

Recent Comments

view all
So when you make a part, you open up notepad and start writing an STL in binary? My point is that an STL is (usually) a binary file which is generated *from* the source. IMO it is not the source itself, but I appreciate the "grey area" aspect of it.

I can open up any number of proprietary files and hex edit them. That doesn't mean that the company has handed me their source code. Just because an STL is an open format that can be interpreted by any number of programs does not make it a source file. The source file is the one that is used to generate the STL.
No, at the point this thread was created people despised Bre and MBI. I have since chilled a lot towards Bre but I am still very cautious about MBI, and I do not like ANYTHING that mixes OS and CS together. Just doesn't seem right which the Replicator 2 does do. Make it all CS or all OS but not both. As I said I have nothing against Bre making money but do it like a real business and make it all Closed Source not some freakish hybrid.

Btw, I was wondering when someone would bring up this old thread and damn if it didn't happen the same day I was thinking about it.

More from 3D Printing Tests

view more
Good to know.  I will be using the site, but will just post a file with a link to my work on GitHub for my upload.  I will gladly give them an irrevocable permanent license to a file that only links to content on another site.
Interesting, I think if they opened up and published the database wikipedia style, they'd probably see a lot more traction.  Everyone would want to upload to thingiverse as it would become the world wide / defacto upload site to public your 3d models.   Instead, I think they let fear drive their strategy which will quite likely lead to competitors popping up.  Eventually, models will be dispersed across the internet and it will be up to Google and it's profit model to catalog them.
Sadly I agree but the part I don't agree with is their fear as I strongly believe they have set a goal to interleave Thingiverse into their business model and it will not be for the betterment of mankind but the betterment of MBI.
I agree that's their goal. 
I ment that I will delete all my stuff. I did so. Then I uploaded a video for poor makerbotters with old machines unsupported by MB, how to use new MakerWare. I will leave it here as it is now.

What I did, caused, that ppl ask questions. That is healthy and good outcome. 
So when you said "I'm leaving Thingiverse" what you really meant is "I'm not leaving Thingiverse"?
It's really a pity to see users implode like this.  I'm hoping we'll see them again on the much better than Thingiverse site they are building.  

Yes I'm looking directly at you DarkAlchemist and of course prusajr.  Please include us when you get the new site up and running.
Why look at me? All I want is Pettis' head on a silver platter for the damage he did and what he is doing to the movement. That is all and as far as leaving I never ever once said I hated Thingiverse but what I have advocated is that petty Pettis remove this site from under MBI's thumbs and let a third party run it that is 100% open source. If he did that I would gain back some respect for him but do I think he will? Nope.
He explained himself so stop trolling.
 I'm just causing people to ask questions, which prusajr says is healthy and good. One question people might ask is, why does prusajr say one thing and proceed to do the exact opposite?
Well, I understood what he meant. As I said before it was possibly, which he later confirmed, that his leaving meant his ideas and his work. Some would take that, as I used to before the internet was around, as they themselves were leaving but in this age of digital bits leaving has come to mean, most times, their work is leaving. I know if I left I would do the same so I could watch what people were doing and mostly that prat Pettis as I would watch him like a Hawk. The thing is with this being such an easy system to make an alternate account on why Prusa didn't just do that to watch us all only he knows.
Exactly what I thought you meant and said so in all of this.

Making people ask questions and to question is never a bad thing.
Looks like they censored it.  This isn't exactly what you expect from community leaders - they should let the community have an equal voice.

Seems to me that creating a fork of Thingiverse might be the way to go.
Exactly what I have been calling for since all of this started but let it be ran via a 3rd party that is 100% Open Source with a track record thereof.
He says on Sep 19th "I'm leaving Thingiverse" yet this site shows his last visit was yesterday, October 9th. So when is he leaving again?
Maybe he meant he left as in not posting any of his work but still checks the site to see what others are doing?
Sept 19th 2036.
I think we need to give Bre a little slack.  They're working hard and trying to build great printers.   However, they could make up for their close sourcing by opening up other parts of their organisation.

Thingiverse would be a great place to do this.   Do a nightly drop of the database (models, images, thumbs, likes, etc) on bittorrent.  It would be a friendly overture to the maker community at large that you actually want to support them.  

It also wouldn't be a huge leap either, much of the data is already CC anyways and is not owned by Makerbot.

Hopefully they'll see that working with us as a community rather than antagonizing us is the way to go.
They got rid of Hoeken...
There is nothing to stop you, or anyone else, from doing this yourself with stl files, etc, for things with Creative Commons licence on this site.
However, I doubt you are as free to copy the descriptions and pictures, as these count as website content owned by Thingiverse.
BTW, the secondary license covers "User Content"  which includes the descriptions, etc.
There isn't, of course, but why fracture the community?   I like Thingiverse.  The guys at makerbot have done a great job.   I think it should still have a central role to play.
As do I just not with MBI. Branch it off like I said.
If Thingiverse doesn't adopt a more open / WIkipedia model then I think as a community we should do that.  
Well, if it could be designed like Thingiverse then I agree. I really do like Thingiverse (not so much DISQUS as I can't even delete a reply now) and their 3d modeler is super nice now (when not overloaded and it forgets to render something) but get it out from under MBI is my rally cry. If they don't I am sure the modern web programmers (I am one from last generation of web programmers) could easily do it.
I love Thingiverse but after this fiasco I really believe it needs to be handed over to a third party organization that has no affiliation to Pettis or MBI AND is 100% Open Source minded. If there isn't an organization like that people should create one.
I agree, though I think it'd be OK if Thingiverse remained the central upload site and as a model for others.

I think Wikipedia is a great model.  Look how well they've done, people still use it all the time.

My concern is that Bre and friends may start censoring Thingiverse for anyone who wants to promote other printers, etc. Is this why we're donating all our content to them? So they can do this?
Just because Bre chose to make the next makerbot closed source doesn't mean he's going to make Thingiverse closed source. If he does go that route then I would fully support moving to some other site to share what I've created.   
I believe it should be done not just because of closed source vs open source but I can't believe Pettis, or MBI actually, wouldn't stoop to outright theft given the chance and with the long ass agreements you never know what you are giving up these days.
A third party site with no affiliation to MBI is really the best thing that could happen to Thingiverse and the only reason anyone, or MBI/Pettis, would have any objections to that is for nefarious reasons.
Hey It's only my opinion but you are free to go off on your own and create the next best thing. And IF it is better than what we have here I'm sure everyone will flock to your new site.  Please let us all know the address....
See, that is just a flippant and idiotic response. I never said I wanted to do it and I sure in the hell wouldn't be impartial but giving this to a third party open source repository would be the best PR move Pettis, and MBI, could do but they will not and eventually we will see. I expect MBI to go out of business anyway and that means Thingiverse will go too which is another reason I think it should be given to a 3rd party (an open source organization with a track record) so it doesn't just zap off the face of the planet.
I guess we can expect "Wonderful things" to come from the "DarkAlchemist"
Please enlighten us and share your new and wonderful new world.
If you ask me, the one biggest change Makerbot should make to their TOS is to put a minimum age on using the site.  Because I seriously can't believe how many personal attacks and childishness are being displayed in the comments.  Can't you people debate things like adults instead of slinging mud like children?  Props to posters who are sticking to the issues!!

 Shut up you loser!!! Oh, wait...
I wish there was a way I could not-like this to help vote it down from the front page.  zzzzzz
It's only on the front page because the combined actions of the Thingiverse populace has put it there.

You're seeing a Democracy that actually sorta works, and you're complaining?

And yes, I'm well aware that Thingiverse is more of a Mobocracy than a Democracy.
I like that you do not like this.  I also do not like this.
 Do a derivative and try to make it better ;)
Let's watch this from CES vs Cube. What would this Bre say to current Bre? 
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57368277-1/who-will-get-the-biggest-slice-of-3d-printed-pie/
Hi prusajr,

    Your post on September 19 said you will be leaving Thingiverse in a few days. More than 10 days have gone by and you are still here. Did you change your Terms of Service without telling us, or were you simply being dishonest from the beginning?

Sincerely,

czechczech
 I looked at my profile, I couldn't see a Delete button, otherwise I would have explained how to use it.
 ...anyway seems the Occupriest are all derived-out, time for this troll to go hide under the bridge again
He's not very good with deadlines, as his book shows.
Just a thought...

Perhaps people who downloaded a Thing that has been removed from Thingiverse, should, where the licence allows, reload it as a new Thing? Many licences will allow this.

Saves having the Things all over the place.

/troll>
Although IANAL, I don't believe the terms permit you to upload someone else's design (with the possible exception of public domain objects) without the creator's express permission. You have to grant thingiverse permissions that extend well beyond what is granted by the standard CC licenses. While you can do that if you own any and all IP in the design you cannot do that if someone else created the design -- you cannot wave rights of attribution for someone else, for example. In a country where moral rights exist you probably cannot upload public domain designs, at least that would be my reading of the terms.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

Attribution CC BY
This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation.

Attribution-NoDerivs CC BY-N

This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.
...
I have read the terms of all the CC licences (v3) , they all allow Reproduce and Distribute, which is the point of CC. They also grant worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work...

If a Thing was on Thingiverse the User has already granted Thingiverse all the necessary rights, and via the Secondary licence granted Users the rights as above.

What Occupy/Prusa  is saying is that they don't support real CC 'open' 'free' use of their works. They want to be able to spit the dummy and try to prevent everyone (ie selectivy not Makeabot or anyone else who they care to) from using their works. Not even possible with a NC licence as it may still be usable as part of a collection (read your licences).
Someone uploads a design in 2011 under the old terms. They come back in 2012 to find that the terms have been changed such that thingiverse is no longer required to follow the attribution requirement contained in the CC license under which the design was originally uploaded. They then take the design down. Do you still think they have granted thingiverse the right to ignore the attribution requirement contained in the CC license? 

This is not a case of anyone trying to prevent thingiverse from hosting a design under the terms of any of the CC licenses. It is thingiverse that apparently wants to distribute, etc, while being relieved of the attribution requirement central to most CC licenses. That, at least, that is my understanding of the central issue.
What is that thing over there <-
Looks like a CC licence attribution to me. Also when a derivative is created the site automatically show an attribution.
Jus so you know, Prusa started his own for profit company; Prusa Research. He is also publishing a book.
He's been writing the book for a while now.  And he started a company doing reprap workshops.

Both old news.
Funny how all the fuss is timed for a couple of weeks prior to the book being published.
What's not funny is that Prusa's book has had its release date pushed back several times.  We'll see when it actually comes out.
Book depository shows his book as published 30 Sept, but unavailable.
When it does finally arrive, after this occupy thingiverse rubbish, I'm prepared to be underwhelmed.
Now bookdepository shows the book as due 29th October.
Makerbot – “Some people will not like that we have gone closed source, but they all use Thingiverse whether they like it or not, we have the biggest community”

richrap.blogspot.de/2012/09/tct2012-show-report-and-industry.html

edit: Bre reacted on the Blogpost and said they were misquoted:
http://richrap.blogspot.de/2012/09/tct2012-show-report-and-industry.html?showComment=1348839808530#c3272178426686880914
I expect Thingiverse to eventually go for pay.
Too bad richrap hasn't responded...I'd like to hear his side of the story...  After all, he was there.

EDIT

So he did respond. And I believe him. I hope Bre read his response. Better yet, hope Bre contacts him.
I just don't trust him and never did even before MBI was born. He looks and acts shifty but we will see where all of this ends up within a year or two I think.
Right, lets base this on his looks. Sounds very scientific and logical to me.  
You missed where I said he acts. Yep, skimmed right over that part.
This guys have a very good idea : indiegogo.com/terms-of-service-didnt-read
They have a forum were we all can post things that we find in the " terms and conditions"

And is OPEN to everyone ...
Thanks for that. I really think those guys are onto something there. 
So this whole thing was just a storm in a teacup.
Yes and no - we got MakerBot to understand that we take the legal ramifications of the licenses that we're publishing our work under seriously, and that they need to take those licenses just as seriously as we do.

That said - I just removed one of my designs from Thingiverse - my "Occupy Thingiverse Test Pyramid" is destroyed, as it served its purpose.
I'm not sure there was a purpose for Mr Prusa, other than making himself look foolish.
Rather than starting a reasonable discussion and giving Thingverse a chance to reply to his misunderstanding of the unchanged TOS, he started this grandstand campaign and left in a huff.
He could man up and apologise, admitting that he was wrong, but I doubt it.
The thing is, there's no misunderstanding about the TOS - they way they're written now, they give thingiverse and makerbot carte-blanche to do whatever they wish to with your designs, whether that was your intention or not.

If that was unintentional, then their law firm simply looks foolish, and if it was intentional, then they look sinister.  Either way it needs to be fixed.
No they can't do whatever they wish. Full Stop.

edit/ Unless you chose a licence that lets them /edit

edit/ Just like anyone else, eg zhen3's selling prusha's cube on etsy! /edit

edit/ And if you don't like it, take your stuff elsewhere and stop pissing on the community here! /edit
There is a lot of people who still feel that MBI is shifty so your man up stuff is nonsense or rather naive. You sound like someone who waits until the barbarians have broken down your gates and crying then instead of manning up and making sure you send out alarm bells that something isn't right.
I'm not really sure what this means.
I know the difference between alarm bells and tossing my toys out of the pram.
This discussion could have all happened here without the occupy thingiverse and Mr Prusa's "I'm leaving thingiverse" grandstanding.
Thingiverse's shiftyness are opinion not fact.

edit
So maybe I don't have a monopoly on naivety.
/edit
They are now a for profit business so of course they are shifty as that is how a corporation makes money.
It only took a week!  That must be some sort of land speed record in the lawyerverse.
I'm selling these cubes on Etsy, yo. 99 cents each, plus shipping.
etsy.me/Utx1z0
ROFL
LIMITED TIME OFFER: I'll rotate the cube 90° in any direction (X, Y, or Z!) for FREE. That's right, three axes of rotation at NO COST TO YOU.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
 ;^}

The profit is in the shipping...
Looks like MBI is going to sit this one out.
oops wrong spot.
Please, just stop.

I understand the concerns, and sure lets put it out there so people can be aware of this issue. But this here is just unnecessary. Creating a new "thing" just to get attention and start drama. That's not how you do it. there are proper social mediums available, like forums and blogs to communicate these issues, please use them.

As for another use who commented suggesting people band together to buy thiniverse, that's a bad idea. your more likely to kill the site then to make it better, iv seen this sort of thing before. Thingiverses existence is doing nothing to prevent you from creating your own website to compete.

You're on the internet. No one is making you be a user here or upload your content here. if you don't like it, go find another site or start your own. There is no point to occupy this site but to only to cause drama and troll.
The whole point is for MBI to fix the ToS or at a bare minimum explain the second sentence.  Both of which they have failed to do.

EPIC FAIL MBI.  EPIC FAIL.

I don't want thingiverse to splinter into half a dozen competing sites.  That would be disastrous.  We *WANT* to use thingiverse, but can't in good conscience until the ToS is fixed.

What I was driving at with trying to purchase thingiverse from MBI was this: What does MBI value thingiverse at?  How would they estimate the value of thingiverse?  If there is no value to the user-content (that they don't own) then thingiverse should be a low-value asset(worth only what the revenue stream due to advertising is).  But I'm pretty sure MBI would hold thingiverse as a primary asset - possibly more valuable than its 'core' 3D printer business.
The deed has been done and they are already splintering. Thanks MBI you greedy bastards.
So lawyers explain:
 'solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services'
and
'Company provides a service for users to share digital designs'

How does this allow MBI to do anything with peoples 'user content' apart from showing it on Thingiverse?

It doesn't!
Please read the entirety of section 3.2 - both sentences please.  
"You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and
assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User
Content."
That's just an ass covering statement.
All that does is mean that your licence granted above is meaningless because you have no right to grant it.

Anyway, if you don't like it stop polluting it for
others with this Occupy crap, just go away.
Why would I have no right to grant a license to content that I created myself? That's the whole point of content creation and the entire open source movement - if I create something I can grant whatever license I want. Someone can re-create my thing from scratch and I may not have a say in that, but if they actually used my content, I'm allowed to have a say in that.
 I was pointing out the absurdity of the clause.

If "You agree to irrevocably waive ...moral rights or attribution" (ie copyright ownership)

then you can't

 "hereby grant...an irrevocable,
nonexclusive, royalty-free and fully paid, worldwide license"

What you all fail to see is that the User Content, is a copy of your original work.
We see it.  What YOU fail to see is that "Trust us, we're lovely people!  Ignore the fact that all the founders worth anything have left and all you have left is smilin' Jack, we're still Suuuuper nice!"  doesn't have legal standing.  Interpretations of the ToS don't have legal standing.  The ToS DO.  
Michael, If you don't agree move on and stop trying to dictate what others should or should not be doing. kthx
 Double irony, I like it
was an error. sorry
You're so right whats-the-fuss. I'm a lawyer ( not in usa thou), i've never read so much silly comments in such a few time in all my life . 
Guys, when you signup, in your profile, YOU decide on WHAT licence you want to share your designs.. and That one only counts !!! This all stuff is personal, and certainly aimed to troll Makerbot for personal gain !
It's just funny  :P
Hm. As a lawer you may better read the ToS first. The licence you are talking about is the so-called "secondary licence", which is quite misleading given the article 3.2: "(...) You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content"
http://www.thingiverse.com/legal
and you all seem surprised to find this kind of article in a tos of a commercial company website ? 
This is what i really don't understand in your negative trolling movement.Did you ever read google tos ? microsoft tos ? ( i won't talk about apple here, i think my comment will just burn in hell :) It's so clear here :  Thingiverse -> a makerbot INDUSTRIES website ! it's all over the place. 
I'm surprised to find someone who describes himself as a lawyer defending article 3.2 of their TOS.  It's badly written, over-reaching, unenforceable in much of the world, and needs to be fixed, which is really what this is all about.
Now you see why the world has too many attorneys or at least I know we do in the states. Most I would never take on to defend me if I were up on murder charges (meaning they suck at what they do regardless if that is the type of attorney they are or not they just suck).
As far as  I can tell Josef Prussa has started his own company based on the open source Rep-Rap and may have a lot to gain if he gets a lot of people to hate his now competitor MakerBot. So think about that everyone jumping on the band wagon to abandon Thingaverse.
Yeah, so? I talked with him last night and I trust him more than I ever would Nathaniel Brehaspati Pettis.
Glad to see you were keeping him occupied.
I can live with misleading marketing (which includes this occupy thing) and with "stealing" of designs (when the license allows it). But those ToS seem to be sneaky, indeed.

Update: okay, I read the ToS more closely. Sorry for falling for the... "misleading marketing", as I put it myself. I realize thingiverse needs those extra rights for displaying (which probably counts as commercial use). There is reason to suspect that they ask for a bit more rights than really required (like, the right to sell copies of all your things on this site).

I share the feelings of prusajr about the whole "not keeping it open source" thing, but doing an unspecific attack after the ToS of this site (which has nothing to do with it except that it is run by the same company) was not really a gentleman's response to that. It's abusing the attention of the community. Since when do open source developers feel the need to attack the commercial competition with an anti-marketing campaign? I'm a FLOSS developer myself (not reprap related). Putting so much cleverness and energy into a hate-campaign doesn't feel right. Keep up the good constructive work instead!
Obvisouly Thingiverse needs the rights to display the designs on their site and we all are OK with it I think. This is no attack IMO, it is all about *defence*.

What really is a shame is the 3.2 ToS article, be it old or new it does NOT change anything. Thanks to Josef for bringing it to our attention. And closing the Makerbot makes 3.2 much more annoying.

To me, this article really asks for the right to steal without any attribution. May be they won't (and surely they are not... currently), but they keep the right to do so. Well, they ask for it -- I really think claiming to abandon moral rights is illegal in some countries --

And yes, formally, Thingiverse may not exactly be Makerbot LLC, but if there is a possibility to make money while legally ignoring the OS community, the investor WILL soon or later bridge this small gap. They want money, period.

Just remove or rewrite 3.2, and enforce only the "secondary" licences while keeping a right to feature the object on thingiverse and we are all OK I think.
Here's an idea -- post your STL files to thingiverse and link to the source code in a github or bitbucket repository with an open source license of your choosing.

People here treat STLs like they were source anyway. If you only post your STL files, you have not open-sourced anything!! STLs are distribution files like exe's.
Nonsense. I can mash-up STL files without any source files. I could download & print & sell a CC-by-NC model, which would be a license violation.
So when you make a part, you open up notepad and start writing an STL in binary? My point is that an STL is (usually) a binary file which is generated *from* the source. IMO it is not the source itself, but I appreciate the "grey area" aspect of it.

I can open up any number of proprietary files and hex edit them. That doesn't mean that the company has handed me their source code. Just because an STL is an open format that can be interpreted by any number of programs does not make it a source file. The source file is the one that is used to generate the STL.
why did they have to go and fuck up a perfectly good system, it's like EA sports & Origin. You couldn't just go with the flow could you?
What if, Thingiverse opened a non-profit foundation or give the rights to GNU fundation or alike. In that way they can protect everybody without the fear that a company running for profit may change their mind and become trolls?
Here's an idea.  Let's do a kickstarter to buy thingiverse and run it as a non-profit.
I just wonder how much thingiverse is worth to MBI...
I'm glad you changed the description to hide your ignorance. It was really making you look like you don't actually know what you are doing and were just digging to find anything that might be in any way a problem just to start a problem by saying that the TOS were just changed on the same day Makerbot made their Replicator 2 announcement. The TOS has not changed for sometime.
Brother,

MakerBot is not acting as a friend, comrade or patron.

They now possess a web-site which collects open-source ideas, and run a business that sells closed-source products.

It's cold, stale, unfavorable behavior.

Legal or illegal; their behavior is not tasteful.
Weird.  Makerbot just sent me $100 bucks to be allowed to commercially produce a thing I designed, and uploaded with Creative Commons licensing (cc-by-sa to be specific).  ( thingiverse.com/thing:16381 ).  Even though I tagged it as "commercial use is OK with attribution", those greedy bastards are giving me $100 for it.   Darn them for being so greedy, or something, I guess...

Seems to me you're objecting to something you should have taken the time to understand when you selected what license to publish your objects under, or if to publish them at all.  Making noise about your ignorance is highlighting something, that's for certain, but I'm not sure it's highlighting the thing that you intend.
Quite correct. I really could not agree more. I checked out the store, everything is beautiful. If you ignore the Trolls they just fade away like smoke.
 I know when I smell a plant, 5 leaf kind, and you are a plant or just ignorant.
 Please, expand on this thought.  Here I am, some guy who uploaded a trivial design 6 months ago or something, who was unexpectedly given 100 bucks for a design that I had already said "profit from this, I don't care, just give me credit for the work".

Somehow, by posting that I'm (a) the person who designed this thing, (b) released it by cc-by-sa, and (c) mentions that my experience and perception differs from yours and from Prusajr's, that somehow I'm a, what, plant or ignorant something?

Tell me, what am I ignorant of?  The terms of cc-by-sa licensing, the purpose and intent of open-source collaboration, or, something else?  I'm sure you're passionate about your point of view, it's just that you haven't done anything to help me understand what that is.

Until you give me something better to work with, I'm still stuck on "Damn those greedy fucks at Makerbot for giving me $100 for something I specifically said they could use for free as long as I get credit".
Shill is right and I stand by everything I said. flickr.com/photos/jabella/8007710528/in/set-72157631585306127/
Good day as I will communicate with a Bre lackey no more.
Open Source was not supposed to be about paying it was supposed to be about sharing but the point is that Makerbot has shat all over the open source community and you run in here "flashin' that new 100 dollar bill" like it solves everything when in fact it doesn't solve crap. Bre is a tool and a fool for all of the harm he has done and all of the good will he had with the community he just shat it down the drain. Good going Bre I think you just slit your own throat by the actions you have taken over these last few days.
The point, I believe, was that if MBI is going out of their way to pay content creators for their content, even when not required to do so, they are unlikely to be harboring schemes to steal everyone's content.
 Your point might be much better made if you'd drop the insults and just talk about what it is that is bothering you.  All I get from it, and I've read it twice, is, "tool fool harm idiot blah farking blah".

If you don't mind, could you try to take the emotion out of your post and state actual factual points, so I can try to see what your point really is?
Mjolnir - in reply to
 Thing is, the rostock project is SO much more interesting, and, they seem not to have a problem with the terms of publication.  I actually have a Prusa 80% built, but, stopped when I saw the Rostock.  Such a more elegant and revolutionary design.  I'm sure that this also somehow makes me a shill or plant, right?

/sigh.  Sometimes, things ARE actually what they seem.  Grow up.
Mjolnir - in reply to
 I'd love to be surprised by a coherent and intelligent response, but, I've been on Teh Intarwebs since 1992 or so...I fully expect that you will either (a) ignore me, or (b) the holder of this page will delete this dialogue before anything useful happens.  Will it be (c), once in decades?  Can it be?  Am I holding out false hope?  Is it POSSIBLE that once, just once, in decades, your type will respond with facts and logic?

/not expecting much.
matrhint - in reply to
  
Hey
Mjolnir, First, I want to say that the heart gear thing is awesome
and congrats on getting paid for it. Furthermore, I would like to
tell you that I like your little boy thing more than anyone else.

I
think there are many reasons people are upset. By what I have seen
through the evidence that the TOS was made a long time ago makes
everything better for me. The fact that I have seen a photo of your
design with a price tag on it WITH your name attached tells me that
they are doing right by us by giving us credit for our designs.

I
am getting parts together to build a Rostock too—That $100 should
get you a lot of the hardware. That is super cool that you got a
kick-back; you deserve it.

I
believe that one reason people are upset is that many of us in this
community want to share our ideas as a way to show how awesome 3d
printing is in hopes of creating a spark of interest for others to
want to join in—this kind of concept goes against the mind set that
things can be made and sold by whomever for large sums of money. Let
me followup with—I don't see there being anything wrong with their
decision to do so, but I can see it as pushing future
makers/designers/artists away from using thingiverse. This
differences in opinion on how open source material can or should be
physically distributed, the fear of loosing your association/credit
with what you made, and the thought that the next Makerbot is closed
source seems to have polarized some of the community as a “we want
answers” group, that is feeling a bit of distrust with MBI, and
another group that is a “we want you to shut up” group seems to
be starting. Thank goodness there seems to be people who are neutral
about this whole thing and continue to make things.

I
believe that both groups love thingiverse and that is the root of the
dispute—Both want it to remain good and both are making it worse by
pushing their ideas of what is going on. Although this topic is
popular, I don't think that there is any point in it any more;
Answers were requested and answers were delivered. I am sure that
there will be a rewrite in the TOS some time in the future, but I
believe the real issue is taken care of (for me: it is).

The
whole new Makerbot thing is another issue I feel like the decision of
the company should have been ran by me first; because I am a customer
and I feel like a member of MBI. Back in the real world that is all
MBI's decision and just because I have a makerbot, a makerbot coin,
and my silly feelings don't make me an employee, a shareholder, or a
businessman.

I
think it boils down to thoughts and feelings from the shock of the
new Makerbot being closed source coupled with the TOS being re-read.
Okay people, lets make some things!

The point is that one side wants to rape and pillage everything for a buck and the other side, the one I am on, wanted Thingiverse to remain pure to sharing amongst like minded people for the greater good of the world, even if that world is just in a small remote section of the planet it all adds up. Call that a hippie mentality or naive or whatever anyone would like because the world is in a turmoil lately and I see this century as a time when we all grow up and realize we as a group of humans don't need corporations using us anymore.
Yep, the 21st Century is the century when we all grow up or perish on many things not just a 3d printer or what Bre has done or is doing.
I like to start almost all paragraphs with I. P.S.: There is no secret code.  
I think nothing prevents copy all thingiverse things to elsewhere, 
all stuff has link like
thingiversecom//thing:yyyyy
and downloadable
thingiversecom//download:xxxxx
Ok, some has to grep from thing:yyyyy all links to download:xxxxx's
to keep relationship from thing to downloadables, and 
also there is valuable comments also, just an idea.
Who wants to join me in a kickstarter effort to make it real?
I am donating the domain wikicadmodels.org to the cause. It can be the ground to discuss/build the webapp we need.
Kickstarter means you want money. Gee..lookie there.
Why is it that 'greater good' is mutually exclusive with 'making a buck' to man OSH/S folks?
Occupy Thingiverse  --Quote, "Be the owner of your designs". 

(Unless you are the producer of the Replicator 2 --then you are evil for owning your design)

And really, giant banks that routinely rape poor people and the natural world can be compared to a fellow Nerd who kept his stuff as open as it could be until the size of his business forced him to do otherwise? 
It always annoys me that adverse rules are snuck in to TOS "updates". Thanks for bringing this to general attention.

It seems that Makerbot is now run by the money guys - people who invest $10M expect that. Ethics will always play second to return on investment.

I will not be publishing further designs on Thingiverse, and will transfer existing ones somewhere else.
Having a central repository for digital designs is a huge value to all of us. We need to make sure that does not get killed. Constructive ideas for making a better repository - Thingiverse.org or something new are here: thingiverse.com/thing:30880

Please add
Zach "Hoeken"'s words:
http://www.hoektronics.com/2012/09/21/makerbot-and-open-source-a-founder-perspective/

He created Thingiverse. He WAS the old Makerbot we loved. He was a founding member of RepRap. He IS truly "Awesome".
I just created wikicadmodels.org, whoever is interested can create an account and upload his stuff.
 we can make it happen.
I will find a model to support the expenses. You own your stuff, whatever you upload to wikicadmodels.org will follow under
"Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported"
Well people, after reading differents points of view, that everybody says, I think that the point 3.2 of TOS, leaves us a bad taste, and I disagree, with that point, but I have a question for everyone "why do you upload your designs in first place", in my personal case, it was to share for everyone, like a retribution of the learning that I have obtained in this place, and that why I use the open source license.

And in that order of ideas, when I use this license in first place i'm renouncing of all the rights that i have in that design, if someone sell that design, he or she can do it, is not ethic, but is legal. Something similar happen here, the only difference is that you share your rights with thingieverse, before you share with everyone, i would prefer that my design was cover directly with the open source license.

Like David L. Jones explain in his web page about the unwritten rules of OSHW ( youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&;v=NOUaoLjrNPo ), everybody can do what they want with the design, the only restriction our own ethic.

Well all this verbiage for just one thing, if we leave thingieverse, deleting all our designs, we are not betraying our original porpuse?

I leave you this for the reflection of everyone, and sorry for my grammar errors, english is not my forte.
JAP - in reply to JAP
Another thing after reading about Tangibot (http://solidsmack.com/cad-design-news/tangibot-an-exact-clone-of-the-makerbot-replicator/), is disgrace that actions like that, could damage the ideology of open source license, well and example of that is the replicator2, but we can't let that this type of action, guide us to destroy a place that everybody have received something, is like killing the chiken of the golden eggs.

Thanks to matrhint for share the original link
I stopped posting new designs to Thingiverse almost a year ago.  Not out of spite, or anything else.  I figure, what can you expect if you post stuff out on the open internet, and someone else controls the distribution?  As such, most of my designs were either public domain, or share alike.

Why bother flaming Makerbot for their decisions on how they want to make money.  They are a commercial enterprise, and just like Google, Facebook, YouTube, and everything else that starts out 'free', they have to monetize some day, and their policies will evolve to reflect that fact.

I think the best protest in this case is no protest at all, but rather just put your stuff where you want it, and move on with life.

I've tried to make my own blog site as informative of my designs as possible, so that I generate my own fan base, and don't rely on the innevitable changes that will occur with MakerBot and Thingiverse.

Thanks Thingiverse.  So long, and thanks for all the Fish!!
 Why flame? Simply because we purchased something that didn't say "won't work for a few weeks until you customize it" and "this is a product designed only for hobbyists who want to spend more time repairing their machines than using them" when we bought the replicator.  We bought them, then were understanding when the cheapest possible wiring harnesses melted.  We were understanding when the built platforms were warped.   We helped, and many of us gave back to a company that we felt was a partner in our adventure.   Now, we see that like many companies, they will drop their community and crap on all of the ideals they sold us on when we gave them money.   I don't know whether to be ashamed to be a MB owner or whether I should be proud to own the last real Makerbot.  
OK, so because they were an open hardware/software company you cut them some slack. And now that they're a "mainly open, but are still figuring a few things out" company you hate them? That seems like a huge over-reaction. They haven't said that they're not going to release their new designs. They have released almost all of the software as FOSS - the MakerWare GUI is the only closed software; Miracle-Grue, Skeinforge, Conveyor, etc., are all FOSS, and anyone can use them. So what really happened is that with every generation of hardware MBI has invested in making it better and more accessible to normal people, and now the investment is large enough that they're carving off some specific IP to keep proprietary so that a competitor can't legally ship identical products with no R&D costs. They appear to have picked the MakerWare GUI.
Yah, I had the same feeling when I purchased and built the first model of Cupcake from MakerBot.  A couple months of hair pulling/tinkering, then I purchased a Up! printer and never looked back (after buying plastruder, and upgraded electronics).  I guess my point about flaming has to do with their Thingiverse activities more than their general company activities.  I'd just move on, and not worry about your sunk cost in their current products.  It's always been an adventure, more about learning how to build a product, than actually using the product to get anything useful done.  If you want to actually print stuff, and feel the relief of "just print", then get something like the Up! or MakerGear M2.
I quite agree... but where are you positing now? Thingiverse really is/was a crossroads, and some of your 3D work were milestones :(

So what's the next step for MKI? Using some posted designs commercially in their next Makerbot? And then claiming they created them? It looks like they have the legal right to do so, what a drawback given this new light...

Eg. what about the new extruder of filament feeder I am working on? I am not sure I will be posting them to thingiverse.
It is time to find better repositories now, a kind of wikipedia for 3D files. There are some out but they surely do not have the momentum Thingiverse got.
MBI hasn't given themselves the right to "Using some posted designs commercially in their next Makerbot? And then claiming they created them? It looks like they have the legal right to do so, what a drawback given this new light..." The TOS gives them the right to serve the files that we upload, and to create thumbnails and transformations. The language they used is not only unchanged from a year ago, it's common on any site with user generated content.
I think you need to make a fundamental decision about how you want your designs to be used, and how you want to gain credit for the same.  Even if there were a Wiki 3D, you'd still have to make the same decision.

I decided that I will not freely post anything I want to turn into a commercial product, other than on a site where I can control the distribution of the same.

My blog:  williamaadams.wordpress.com

You won't find anything but my ramblings and explorations, but soon enough you'll see what I've chosen to do with my 3D designs.
A quick Thingiverse Blog post can still fix all of this!!!!

A blog post with some simple statements like: 1. We love our fans! 2. Of course you own your own I.P.! 3. Sorry for the confusing legal lingo! 4. Download the blue prints for the Open Source Replicator 2 Here! ---> Link  

Boom, fixed!  Everyone loves MakerBot again ;)
I feel like we're going about this the wrong way. Didn't it start as a "Let's do some awesome stuff and change the world by being awesome!" thing? It was almost magical.

 Though I realize there will be certain limits put on MBI as it grows, the moment we devolve into a legal firefight is the moment it all self destructs. 

Let's use the magic to create some seriously awesome stuff, instead of using it to fling fireballs at each other.
We're going the wrong route here. If the purpose is to undermine Makerbot, then why are we printing off crappy blocks? Why don't we post the best calibration cube we can... the smoothest sides, the tightest tolerances, etc.  
Do you have a larger build volume? Show it off.
Can you get 100 micron layers? Post a picture.
Is pronterface better than the new MBI software? point out its advantages.
What does RAMPS do that MBI's board can't?

I'm rather proud of the way I've tuned my printers (Cupcake and Mendel derivative.) Too proud, probably, to post a crappy print I purposefully made to clutter up one of my favorite sites.

We don't win this by tearing shit up. We win by being better.
I've seen claims of trolling here, and I've seen the issue described as a Tempest in a teapot?  I think those folks are missing the point.

The fact that the legal ramifications of MakerBot's TOS weren't discovered until today doesn't magically give them a free pass.

The fact that they don't intend (today) to exercise the rights they've granted themselves also doesn't magically give them a free pass.  Companies change - take a look at their stance on Open Source Hardware.

Honestly, I expect that the changes to their TOS were made by a very junior partner at their law firm, who really needs to go back to law school, as the phrase in question isn't even enforceable in most of Europe.

If they felt that they needed a separate license to cover thingiverse's distribution of designs, they needed to write that license to specifically cover thingiverse's requirements, not as a broad grab at every possible usage they might think to put our property to.
What happened here is that there was a lose of trust. Used to be, people would look a the ToS and say "I dont know what this means, but makerbot is a good company so im sure its in my best interests". Now that people are unsure of the companies future intentions, they view the same clauses with a cynical edge. 

I dont believe for a moment that the intention of the ToS is to give them the right to steal user work (read my comment below, they are actively trying not to do that). 

This occupy thingiverse movement did a good thing: it brought the issue of the ToS clarity to makerbots attention (http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/20/fixing-misinformation-with-information/), and helped make it clear to makerbot how important openess is (I imagine in the future they will go through greater lengths to explain their reasoning and point of view, which can do a lot to alleviate concerns).

However we are reaching a point where this protest is causing more harm than good. I'm tired of seeing all these occupy posts and bad will in the community, and just want things to the awesomeness that it was.
Well, according to Bre:
Question 2: Did Thingiverse terms of use change to “steal” people’s things.
Thingiverse does not steal. We created Thingiverse to be the greatest place to share things using open licenses. The terms, that we set up in February of this year, allow us to share your designs on our website and protect us from companies with lawyers. Could we make that more user friendly? Yes, but lawyers cost money and making it simple for people to understand will cost many hours of lawyer time. I’ve put it on our todo list for 2013 to make the terms easier to understand and avoid misunderstandings. If you’re concerned about this make sure to read the post that I wrote earlier this year about the terms of use on Thingiverse.

And CrazyJaw, you nailed it on the head - the trust is gone.  Because, let's face it, if the VC paymasters wanted to get rid of Bre they probably could in a heartbeat.  And I don't trust them at all.  They would coldly look at the 'assets' (e.g. your designs) and do what they want with them.  After all, the ToS gives them that right.

This is a PR disaster for MBI/Thingiverse.  Getting this fixed should be priority #1.  Quell this disturbance, apologize for the oversight and move forward.  But 2013?  Really?  It's going to be a long, cold winter.
I see a difference between Makerbot Services (shop) and Thingiverse Services (could at any time be expanded).
Everyhing in TOS 3.2 except the last sentence is limited to the operation of Thingiverse Services.
So what exactly dose the second sentence in 3.2 mean?  No one has answered this satisfactorily.  If you can point me to an explanation of that sentence I'd sure appreciate it.
I see no difference and I wouldn't put it past them to sell something they printed that one of us created and not give us a dime. Who is to know? I mean Bre Pettis isn't even Bre it is Nathaniel Brehaspati Pettis. If a person doesn't even use their real and legal name (or at least put Bre in quotes) then I can't trust them period. Anything he says will be a lie just like a politician because a large sum of money is within eyesight.
Um... I'm sure that people have nicknames and can still be trusted... at this point people are looking for a reason to not like Makerbot.
No, at the point this thread was created people despised Bre and MBI. I have since chilled a lot towards Bre but I am still very cautious about MBI, and I do not like ANYTHING that mixes OS and CS together. Just doesn't seem right which the Replicator 2 does do. Make it all CS or all OS but not both. As I said I have nothing against Bre making money but do it like a real business and make it all Closed Source not some freakish hybrid.

Btw, I was wondering when someone would bring up this old thread and damn if it didn't happen the same day I was thinking about it.
MakerBot Winter is coming...
Prusa is just a Troll!  Nothing in the ToU changed.  Calm down people.  Everything will be fine.
The change happened in February but an important part did not gain much attention back then.
3.2 last sentence was asked back then and now again about but never answered in any detail.
Everything else is not about Thingiverse but about the closed source Replicator II hardware.
It amazes me how people who haven't contributed a single thing to thingiverse are telling those who have to "calm down."
OK, I have posted tons of things to Thingiverse, and I also think that Prusa is trolling regarding the TOS because he's upset about MBI for other things and is just trying to stir up trouble on Thingiverse out of spite. The TOS doesn't do what he says it does. The TOS gives Makerbot the right to serve the files and to create thumbnails and transforms, which it has to do for Thingiverse to operate. Several people who read the TOS have clarified this. How about if Prusa apologizes for starting this whole mess?
I was talking to sxt173.  I have not, and will not criticize those who have contributed in so much as an iota to Thingiverse.  People like you have every right to be critical - you have a vested interest and your opinion carries weight (with me at least).

The ToS wasn't an issue when MBI was an OSH company, but that has changed and has caused people to re-evaluate their relationship with MBI.  I think MBI could have just come out and told us what that second sentence meant.  Case closed - back to normal.  But they have been obtuse on this subject.  I haven't seen any reasonable explanation - I'd love to see an explanation of the second sentence.

For those interested check the shapeways ToS.  No such language.  Hell, their ToS feels like a nice warm blanket compared to MBI's ToS.
If a person filled Thingiverse with more useless SCAD files, that would somehow grant more "ownership" of Thingiverse and right to speak?
No.
I am all about free speech.  I didn't tell him to shut up, rather I pointed out his lack of vested interest.  Quite funny that you registered solely to comment on this thread.
Actually not, just forgot my password and what useless email account I used to register.
At least you're consistent here as on RepRap forums.
Thank you.  Don't get me wrong.  I *WANT* Thingiverse to continue.  I *WANT* Thinigiverse to *THRIVE*.  As a creative hub it is the premier website for 3D modeling.  But as it is now I can't in good conscience support it.  If there was no money at stake I'd take Bre at his word, but it doesn't seem like he wears the pants any more.  Maybe I don't trust VC to do the ethical/right thing.  Can't blame me, can you?

Also, as an aside, I wonder if the things I deleted recently are really gone...  The old ToS said you had to ask in writing for the object to be deleted...

But as far as I care MBI can close off whatever IP they produce. That's their right. We've all had to stand on the shoulders of giants, haven't we?
I feel a little bit sad for all this, while can understand both, I don't like Makerbot's move to closed hardware/software in the same way / measure that I don't like all those negative reactions.

My designs will still be in Thingiverse and I hope that I'll soon be able to upload more things.

I personally don't care what other people do with the things I upload here, If I wanted to be the only one to make profit from those things I guess, I would just not share them.

I must admit that I cannot understand the reason for this wild "Occupy Thingiverse". Makerbot has given me tons of frustrations (Cupcake issues) which have always end up in a lot of satisfaction (knowledge that I wasn't able to receive anywhere else).

Just my two cents.
From looking at the pics of the great looking makerbot store. I'm a little perplexed regarding selling other people's designs posted on thingiverse.

I must admit I was surprised that a printed version of 'heart hears' was for $249.99. I wonder if thingiverse member "emmett" got a share of that?

How does this continue going forward? This community helped make makerbot what it is? Is shared royalty a possible path forward?

-B
I normally wouldn't mention this, but makerbot actually contacted me and offered terms and some cash for the non-exclusive rights to sell my thingiverse design (presumably at their new physical store). 

I can imagine they would have bothered with all the legal work and cash offering if they just "owned" my design anyway. 
Emmett has stated explicitly that he has no interest in selling his designs and he licenses them under CC-BY-SY which, as I understand it, permits Makerbot, or you, or anyone else to sell printed copies with attribution. In fact, his page lists etsy vendors selling his designs.

thingiverse.com/emmett
I think if they are profiting from someone's design they should kick down some royalties (10% would be a nice gesture). I also think the designer should be able to opt out with a non-commerical license.

I really hope Thingiverse does the right thing here, otherwise it looks like this budding community is headed for a deadend road.
Thanks  mtdna; I stand corrected.
I wonder how Bre's talk at the Open Source Hardware Summit next Thurdsay will go - how long it will take for him to be booed off the stage?  Should have bought a ticket, dammit!

makerbot.com/blog/2012/09/20/bre-pettis-at-the-open-hardware-summit/
At $75 per ticket, the OSHS is kind of a parady of itself. Not that open. When your price exceeds the cost of a ticket to Disneyworld (through a travel agent), it seems very exclusive.
Why?  Tix were freely available, and you get a hell of a lot more for your money than that mouse gives you at the same price point.

All tickets include: breakfast, snacks, post-conference drinks, and a gift bag.

Probably a $25 sparkfun gift certificate in the bag... :(

But it is kinda expensive...I could almost get 5lb of ABS for that (I think of everything in terms of filament costs anymore).
With MakerBot (or at least it's image) temporarily weakened, I would love to hear Adrian Bowyer's (RepRap All Father) perspective.

It is rumored he disapproves of MakerBot nowadays.
(1) The terms of service HAVE NOT changed
(2) prusajr has a personal vendetta against Makerbot Industries. 
(3) Please don't delete all your models. Calm down, think it over. Nothing has changed here, prusajr is being a manipulative troll.

Thingiverse is a great community. Come on people, we're better than this.
How would you feel if they were printing your design and selling it for $249 in their new retail store without giving you a penny? That is just not right.
I thought it was $24.99 when I went there.
Actually, it is right. The guy who designed the $249 heart (Emmett) licenses his designs under CC-BY-SY, which says you are free to use his work commercially.
Well then I guess this Occupy thing is just trolling.
It's probably because this has developed it's own dynamic and is discussed all over the place, without including everyone in a open discussion.
I'm glad that's settled.
 Are those gears licensed "non commercial"?
(just to know)
Don't panic! ;) Anyway it's been lingering in my mind to make a better thingiverse alternative for sharing gcode, stl's and scad files. Maybe this is the time to start on that idea. I'll try and cook something up this weekend together with improving the web interface on raspberry pi for reprap's.

Seriously, if the TOS is such a big problem, you might want to read though the TOS on other content hosting site. YouTube, Blip.tv, Blogger, BlogSpot, WordPress, Photobucket, BlogTV and Yahoo all have nearly the same statement in their TOSs. If you don't want the content host claiming something like that on your content, don't use 3rd party host.
Hey guys,

My name is Justin Day, I'm running the web team at MakerBot these days.

The terms have not changed.  The last commit to that file was over 7 months ago, and included only minor changes to links.  Look at the bottom of the file, it still reads "Copyright 2010, 2011".

I started a company called blip.tv some time back and while I'm not a lawyer I can tell you that you have to grant us a license to your work so that we can host it.  It was the same deal with blip.

We're not changing anything about the relationship we have to you or your things on Thingiverse.  In fact we have a bunch of great new features coming your way!

If you have questions or concerns feel free to contact me at justin.day_at_makerbot.com.

Thanks,

Justin
Can you comment then on Makerbot's policy of printing freely contributed designs and profiting without giving the designer anything?

For example, the heart gears you are selling for $249. That can't cost you more than a few dollars. It just doesn't seem fair to not give the designer a penny when you are profiting so much from their design.
That is allowed under virtually every OS license. If it were not legal, everyone who ever sold a RepRap part set would be breaking the law. 

There are exceptions, but I assume that Makerbot honors that clause on things licensed that way.
The guy who designed the $249 heart (Emmett)
licenses his designs under CC-BY-SY, which says you are free to use his work commercially. So Makerbot (or you) are free to build and sell it.

Take a look at Emmett's page here: thingiverse.com/emmett
I stand corrected; thanks!
Thanks for the clarification. Just as I thought. This is old news and is just troll bait by one person and really could just be a misunderstanding. Please don't feed the trolls and this will just go away. Thanks.
You do need an agreement/license to host works, but you do not need to claim that you do not have to provide any attribution to the author(s) of said works.

3.2: ... "You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and
assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User
Content."
What purpose can that possibly serve?
I think that it is probably to protect thingiverse if a member derives a work without attribution or derives a work which has a license preventing attribution... I'm sure there is a more elegent solution in this scenario though
Thank 4ndy, you made the point imo: I also strongly disagree with this specific point 3.2. Selling is another story imho.

Thingiverse/MKI wants the right to put their name in place of that of the inventor of the object. This is fundamentally wrong. Just like violating the very inventors that power thingiverse in the first place.

With such (very common) ToS claims, I am uncomfortable posting new things. Because of this, I will have to go and look at (possibly) better and more open repositories for my designs.

Promoting other repositories because of your own ToS is bad news for me, for other inventors, for thingiverse visitors and users, for kids learning things, for MKI and even for their own investors.
What is the purpose of such a claim? It even cannot be enforced in France and most of Europe where I *am* and I will stay the very inventor of my own things, whatever you claim. The law in my country makes it clear.

But now, I hate the idea "others" try to get the right on my FREE designs. The special feeling, or call it "the fame" of the inventor is something, but I hate being stolen in the first place, especially by a lawyer that makes the world worse each day. Period.

Recognition/satisfaction of novelty is the only pay we may get from Thingiverse. In exchange, the MKI commercial company gets free advertising or sales in one way or another (promoting cool 3D objects obviously benefits to the consumer 3D printer companies). So, yes, many thanks for the free hosting, but do not deny my links/claims on my own design please!

Come on, Thingiverse exists and strives because of good will, and such claim defeats the very purpose of the website.

Please, show us honesty by removing or changing point 3.2. Eg. state that once an object is posted on thingiverse, it is recognized as an original work of its owner, and that it will always stay to be the invention of its owner. Even if he does not ask for naming, just do not ask for any name to be put in place of him! This would even protect *you* against copyright violation when it will become the next big thing after mp3.

It doesn't matter much whether it is new or old in the ToS, I just hate such claims of propery by people not involved in the invention in anyway. Period.

I do not care much about the new makerbot being closed or not as long as it did not steal any opensource designs (which I guess is quite hard to do in 3D home printers nowdays...). I probably will not buy a "closed source" printer in the short term anyway, but this is something else.

I do care about the objects that people add freely to thingiverse. Just keep your businesses explicitely separate please.

Sorry for the long post guys, I tried to make my point clear and constructive.
All this could go away by deleting a single sentence in the ToS.
 I took my stuff off of here because Makerbot is going closed source, and this is Makerbot's website.
I am sure this was in place for quite some time and you decided to bring it up now. It is not even a bad thing but something required to make this service work. So what is your ulterior motive? You don't like the fact that they are going to closed hardware? If so keep focused on that.
debat as old as "Open Source" worthy cause though.
The whole point of open source is making things available for everyone else to use and all the licensing really grants is attribution. If someone wants to use some crap I designed in a commercial product, go for it, just make sure I get the credit for said crap.

My issue is trusting that MBI is upholding the ideals of open source design. They have a right to self preservation by selling products or services, but they don't have the right to wave the open source banner and become evil, greedy bastards like the majority of commercial ventures located in the Manhattan retail district (check the location of their new retail outlet - h-online.com/open/news/item/MakerBot-announces-new-Replicator-3D-printer-1713119.html).

This rankles my sphincter sufficiently to not want to support them in any way...
Did this really change or have you just read it?
While the "secondary" licence, which you can choose to be open souce, exists they can't take the right to copy or print away from you or anyone. You aren't giving them full ownership, and they can't claim it.
They have always had the right to sell printed items off this site, so does anyone. Ask anyone who has sold a set of RepRap parts on ebay.

It would be a sad website if uploading a design meant that makerbot could use it and noone else could. Who would upload anything at all?

Thingiverse have allowed many people to advertise their sites, including businesses, here for free. Including Mr Prusa on this very page. I doubt they will stop, unless it is abused.

I'm not knocking the protest. I fully support open source. But I suspect this is all a storm in a teacup.
If MakerBot makes contracts with schools, or workshops they can sell things you designed as part of a "service" they provide.
I personally don't have issues with sharing the models I make.
I am glad to share them.
If they are used for making a product, that is not the intent of the attribution.
I look forward to there being some clarity on the issue.
Up to this point I feel thingirverse (and makerbot) have provided a valuable service for the 3d community.
The advancement of 3d printing is accelerated by the sharing
of models and the making of derivatives. I would hope that can continue.
As an example of use, the video promoting the new replicator2 shows
models that were made with it. I don't see any problem of a model of mine being used for that , or for that matter a printer of a different manufacturer. If the model which once put up on the site as free to use was declared exclusive property of makerbot I would cry foul, but that does not seem to be the case. (I actually was flattered to see my model in the company of other fine models.)

re the closed source of the replicator2, This is a separate issue but i don't see how it relates to the sharing of models.

-perry engel (aka cerberus333)
There are a number of problems with this license.
First, it conflicts with the licenses people use to upload stuff.

You upload something with CC-by-NC-ND, which does not allow commercial copies or even derivatives. But the new license of thingiverse does allow Makerbot do do commercial stuff with it, and make derivatives. Effectively making your license selection useless.

Secondly, this suddenly applies to everything already uploaded, without any warning. At least Microsoft sends an email when they change the terms. Giving you the option to agree with them or not.
This is a false interpretation of the issue. The license has ZERO effect on whatever license you choose, EXCEPT as it relates to Makerbot. It does not effect anyone else, and MBI cannot relicense your things to anyone else under a different license.. 
Moreover, the license really does not conflict with any other license at all. If you actually READ the license, you will see this important clause: "solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services" Put another way, you are promising not to sue them for publishing the work you uploaded onto the site. That is really the only rights you are giving away.

Finally... THIS CLAUSE WAS IN THEIR ToS BACK IN 2011! http://web.archive.org/web/20110707143620/http://www.thingiverse.com/legal

I'm all for a little healthy MBI bashing, but c'mon, people, at least get your facts straight!
 The problem is with "Makerbot, partners and affiliates". Makerbot could sell rights to all designs on Thingiverse (regardless of license) to a third party, who then set up a subscription site selling your designs.

Saying the clause was always there is irrelevant. It is like saying "we stole your property two years ago, and we got away with it, so it's too late to complain". If it is wrong now, that is the only relevant issue.
If what you say is correct, then they would be breaking the license by selling derivatives in their store - which apparently they are.
It was actually in there from the beginning of time: (Oct 23, 2008)
 http://web.archive.org/web/20081023191906/http://www.thingiverse.com/legal
And at that time it seems a little more broad than in the new TOS.
I wonder how you'd feel if MBI produces a MendelMax1.5 and sells it in their store with a nice shiny Makerbot logo on it. 

blog.makezine.com/2012/09/19/makerbot-new-store-in-nyc/

And some snarky store employee telling a customer "Yeah, we've just released the next generation MakerBot last week.  We call it the MAX."

You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content.

The new ToS allows MBI to appropriate whatever they want to and use it how they see fit.  What you thought was yours is now theirs.
If that are their intentions, then the words are badly chosen and way to broad. The attribution and derivative clauses are unneeded in that case. And "services" is very broad. What if thingiverse adds a "print this & mail it to me" option, that's a service that they provide then. Which would break a non-commercial license on a model.

Maybe this was there before, maybe someone noticed this now because of the Replicator2. But it still feels wrong.
It doesn't matter what the purpose is. If I adapt your BY-SA model, I cannot sub licence it to Thingiverse under any other terms.
Regardless of intention or actual meaning (closed open whatever), it does show that there is a need for a more simplistic TOS. Even Microsoft has been able to pull that off, so why not Thingiverse? Fire that shitty lawyer of yours and write up your own TOS, no longer than one paragraph.
So, it has come to this...
Fight for freedom!!!!
Any Legal speaking folk around here that could shed light on this? I believe I understand the purpose of the TOS but would really like to have an idea what the end ramifications are.
 I can sort some of it out.

If you read the TOS here: thingiverse.com/legal you will note section 3.2:

3.2 License. You hereby grant, and you represent and
warrant that you have the right to grant, to Company and its affiliates
and partners, an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free and fully paid,
worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and
perform, prepare derivative works of, incorporate into other works, and
otherwise use your User Content, and to grant sublicenses of the
foregoing, solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the
Site and Services. You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be
waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with
respect to your User Content.

This means, that you give Thingiverse (and likely Makerbot in general tho it's not clear, think if they put a "buy makerbot service" on thingiverse.com) rights to use your design, however they want to promote "the site and services", from now till doomsday. Which is about the same as other things of the same nature. But it is important to note, it does say "Solely for the purposes of including your user content in the site and services", they did not have to stop there. They could have easily said "In any way Makerbot sees fit to profit" but they did not.

The only thing you cannot do with a design after posting it here, is to grant someone else an exclusive license, or stop Thingiverse from using it.

In my opinion this is not a bad contract to accomplish what Thingiverse accomplishes.

My main complaint with Thingiverse is it's use by Makerbot to promote Makerbot things and designs over others.
I read it this way:

3.2 License. 

1.) You hereby grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Company and its affiliates and partners, an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free and fully paid, worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and perform, prepare derivative works of, incorporate into other works, and otherwise use your User Content, and to grant sublicenses of the foregoing, solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services. 

2.) You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content.

These are separate sentences and have no connection whatsoever, except that they both relate to how thingiverse handles the content.

My translation:

1.)  We can freely use your designs to promote Thingiverse.

2.) Your designs are now ours, and we can appropriate them and incorporate them into any of our products as we see fit.  No attribution is necessary.

 Actually, the new Thingiverse license conflicts with many licences of objects found in Thingiverse.

It even conflicts with the CC-by-SA license, which is almost the most open license in the list. Because of the "You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and
assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User
Content." in the new thingiverse license.
SvenS - in reply to Daid
 As I understand it, the license you choose when uploading is a secondary license that only applies to other users, not thingiverse itself. So you can choose all rights reserved there and thingiverse can still design a derivative, print it and put it on display on a fair without having to put up a sign that says "copyright by Daid".
So I don't see a conflict there, you just can't give anyone else the same rights you give to thingiverse by uploading.
 Then you are not allowed to upload an object that has this license and that is not entirely designed by you.
Section 3.2 of the new TOS.The last sentence.You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content.
Hmm... I see. 

What does it mean exactly. It does look kind of bad. Are we agreeing to waive any claims to our user content? Or are we waiving any claims and assertions of moral rights? What is meant by "moral rights"? Is that the same as ownership rights? 

And the last part, does that mean they don't have to post your name if they use your stuff in some way?

Forgive me, I am not a lawyer and I suck at reading legalese(as I suspect many people do, because it is supposed to be vague and confusing and able to be interpreted several ways). 

I really need a good explanation of this or I am removing my stuff very soon. I will also be spreading the word and urging anyone I associate with who also uses this site to take their stuff down too.

 Perhaps a comment from Thingiverse or Makerbot?
Moral rights are not the same as ownership rights or copyright.

"Moral rights" are the rights to be acknowledged as the creator of a creative work.

Moral rights don't exist in the laws of all countries (the US mostly does not recognize them); and in many countries where they do exist they cannot be waived.

IANAL, but my guess is that Thingiverse asks you to waive moral rights because a lawyer told them they could be liable if there's a page somewhere which doesn't have the creator's name on it. It seems like a fairly meaningless provision to me, given that in the US there are no moral rights to 3D objects, and in those countries where the rights exist the term waiving them would have no legal force.
From what I understand, it means that they're dealing themselves the right to use anything you post, however they like - including selling it, regardless of what license you chose to publish it under.

In particular, if you were to post something under "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/", thingiverse (and therefore makerbot) would be able to sell it, to modify it, and would not be required to give you any attribution.
Thanks.

Ya, I never intended to give ANYONE the right to do that when I uploaded my designs.

If this is how it is, I am definitely taking my designs down. Thingiverse has 1 day to comment.
I don't think you're understanding the T&C correctly, I don't see anything that would prevent you from being 'owner of my own designs', and indeed they have an entire section set out for 'User content'. 
IANAL, but it appears to be pretty standard wording for a site like thingiverse, aimed to make people agree that they won't be upset if others download it. 

I'm curious to see if the Replicator2 is closed source as you're suspecting, but I won't really lose sleep if so. 

Cheers,
Gav
(Owner of Makerbot #00003, and a half dozen other printers)
keep open source open!


"You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content."
Seems they are granting themselves a license to build, sell and distribute anything on thingiverse, even if the user chose a non-commercial license. I'm guessing they do this so that they can cell these objects in their new store.  Kind of silly since they could easily get around the problem by selling printer time instead of objects.

Personally I don't mind if people make money off of my designs, but I still think it's a shady move. 
... or maybe not since it says for the sole purpose of putting it on the site..
Josef - Your  contributions to the community I think are well known and valued by everyone with a reprap and your concerns are well stated - but I really hope you have misunderstood the lawyer BS license agreement.

It states in section 2.5 "Ownership. Excluding your User Content (defined below), you acknowledge that all the intellectual property right... in the Site and Services are owned by Company or Company's licensors", which sounds like garbage until you read the next section 3.1 and see that they define User Content as anything that you upload.

3.2 on the license sounds like garbage too - but then they qualify it with "solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services.", which I take away as meaning- they can not take open ideas and close them down - and  seems necessary for them to not worry about hosting the site and thus ok.

Or did I miss read it myself?

I also don't see the issue.
You give Thingiverse the right to publish, modify, and if they wish, charge for access to the website. Though they know will lose most of their user base by doing this.
It doesn't say they own your content. The open source, or whatever other secondary licence still stands. It is all just legal nonsense to make sure they can't be held responsible for loss of content caused by changes to the website.
Though I would like to see a reply to this thread by the management.
Very very messed up if Replicator 2 is closed source. It seems Makerbot is only here to keep their "board" happy, if they do release closed source. It would be a real shame... because Makerbot was obviously doing fine with all their hardware Opensource. Why do they need to change? It is clear that their investors don't believe Opensource is a viable business model, which is pretty stupid, because Makerbot consistently pulls a large profit right now. As far as I can tell anyway.

As for the Thingiverse license, I just read through it again and I don't see a place where it says the users don't own their content. If you are talking about the big block letters at the beginning, that is in regards to the site itself, not the user content.
I just finished reading the terms of use and I'm not sure what part of it you are in disagreement with.  I'm not sure what part has revoked your right of ownership of your content.  See below:

2.5 Ownership. Excluding your User Content (defined below), ...

3.1 User Content. "User Content" means any and all information and content that a user submits to, or uses with, the Site or Services (e.g., content in the user's profile or postings). You are solely responsible for your User Content. ...

Okay, para. 2.5 states that any intellectual property that the owners of this site has produced and trademarked belongs to them except for the content its users create (that is yours).  Para 3.1 defines what is considered user content.

3.2 License. You hereby grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Company and its affiliates and partners, an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free and fully paid, worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and perform, prepare derivative works of, incorporate into other works, and otherwise use your User Content, and to grant sublicenses of the foregoing, solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services. You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content. 

Para. 3.2 is saying that if you choose to post your content to this website then, the company can use your content for any promotional or monetary gain it sees fit without fear of being sued for copyright infringement.

3.3 Secondary License. When you upload User Content to the Site or Services, you will be asked to select a secondary copyright license, which is additional to the license you grant to Company and its affiliates and partners in Section 3.2. This license will govern how other Site or Services users may use your User Content. You can designate this license to be one of the Creative Commons Licenses (see creativecommons.org) listed in the pull-down menu on the Site. You agree that Company may make your User Content available to other Site or Services users, subject to such other Site or Services users abiding by the terms of this secondary license; however, if you select the "All Rights Reserved" secondary copyright license, you agree that it means Company may display your User Content for public viewing on the Site and other Site or Services users must contact you to obtain additional rights, as necessary. 

Para. 3.3 is saying that you can invoke a license to any other user outside of the owners of this site to limit how they use and/or modify your content.  In essence, they are providing a service to you free of charge and thus, they reserve the right to get a little something back in return.

I'm not sure how any of this is revoking your rights of ownership.  I'm almost sure Thingiverse will not attempt to claim your creations as their own (maybe).

Now, I agree with your issues of the Replicator 2 being a closed design but, the writing was on the wall for that one especially since some are making an exact duplicate of the Replicator and selling it in direct competition.  I know Makerbot owes a great deal to the RepRap community/creators but, in that light, so do every single automotive company that duplicated/derived from Ford.
You may take our lives, but you'll never take our freedom
Where does it say you don't own your design?  Granting a license for them to make it available for display and download is not the same as claiming ownership.  If they were claiming ownership that would be concerning, but I don't see it.
Where does it say exactly that you don't own your designs after uploading? I can't find where it says it. If it does say that, I will remove my stuff too.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, it is merely what it looks like to me, after a bit of reading and a wiki search. Your view may differ.

Section 3.2 in essence gives them rights equal to or greater than the author of the design.

Equal to in terms of copyright: they have pretty much an unlimited license and the ability to grant licenses to others.

Greater that in terms of moral right. The last line of section 3.2:
"You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and
assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User
Content."
Basicly steals your right to say 'I made/designed this, this is mine.'

I can almost understand the copyright bit as a cover-your-self for distributing user content, but the moral right part? I can see no good reason for this.

Perhaps Thingiverse is just being a little overenthusiastic with covering themselves, but what they have done erodes our rights a bit too much. I think it is about time we had a common 'user generated content host' license for such situations which makes it clear in plain language exactly what is allowed by the author.
laird - in reply to AlanM
But it's all limited by "solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services." So  (IANAL) you're not giving them any rights at all other than allowing them to serve your content on Thingiverse.
Top