Me wearing printed glasses

Occupy Thingiverse Test cube

by prusajr, published

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


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/

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


You must be logged in to post a comment.

BuckRogers1965 on Nov 21, 2012 said:

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.

tshephard on Oct 15, 2012 said:

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.

DarkAlchemist on Oct 15, 2012 said:

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.

prusajr on Oct 12, 2012 said:

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. 

czechczech on Oct 14, 2012 said:

So when you said "I'm leaving Thingiverse" what you really meant is "I'm not leaving Thingiverse"?

DarkAlchemist on Oct 12, 2012 said:

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.

tshephard on Oct 12, 2012 said:

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.

DarkAlchemist on Oct 12, 2012 said:

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.

ajayre on Oct 10, 2012 said:

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?

DarkAlchemist on Oct 11, 2012 said:

Maybe he meant he left as in not posting any of his work but still checks the site to see what others are doing?

MacGyver on Oct 10, 2012 said:

Sept 19th 2036.

tshephard on Oct 4, 2012 said:

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.

thekendall on Oct 8, 2012 said:

They got rid of Hoeken...

Inquisitor on Oct 5, 2012 said:

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.

DarkAlchemist on Oct 4, 2012 said:

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.

futurejames on Oct 4, 2012 said:

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!!

mtdna on Oct 7, 2012 said:

 Shut up you loser!!! Oh, wait...

TheCase on Oct 2, 2012 said:

I wish there was a way I could not-like this to help vote it down from the front page.  zzzzzz

raldrich on Oct 4, 2012 said:

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.

MacGyver on Oct 3, 2012 said:

I like that you do not like this.  I also do not like this.

thekendall on Sep 30, 2012 said:

Let's watch this from CES vs Cube. What would this Bre say to current Bre? 

czechczech on Sep 30, 2012 said:

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?



MichaelAtOz on Oct 1, 2012 said:

 I looked at my profile, I couldn't see a Delete button, otherwise I would have explained how to use it.

Inquisitor on Oct 1, 2012 said:

He's not very good with deadlines, as his book shows.

MichaelAtOz on Sep 30, 2012 said:

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.


madscifi on Sep 30, 2012 said:

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.

TheMakerGuy on Sep 28, 2012 said:

Jus so you know, Prusa started his own for profit company; Prusa Research. He is also publishing a book.

akhlut on Sep 30, 2012 said:

He's been writing the book for a while now.  And he started a company doing reprap workshops.

Both old news.

kojote on Sep 28, 2012 said:

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”


edit: Bre reacted on the Blogpost and said they were misquoted:

DarkAlchemist on Sep 28, 2012 said:

I expect Thingiverse to eventually go for pay.

andrei_socivoi on Sep 27, 2012 said:

This guys have a very good idea : http://www.indiegogo.com/terms...
They have a forum were we all can post things that we find in the " terms and conditions"

And is OPEN to everyone ...

zerocool5878 on Oct 5, 2012 said:

Thanks for that. I really think those guys are onto something there. 

tbuser on Sep 26, 2012 said:

MakerBot's lawyer explains the terms of service in plain language: http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2...

Inquisitor on Sep 26, 2012 said:

So this whole thing was just a storm in a teacup.

akhlut on Sep 26, 2012 said:

It only took a week!  That must be some sort of land speed record in the lawyerverse.

zheng3 on Sep 25, 2012 said:

I'm selling these cubes on Etsy, yo. 99 cents each, plus shipping.

mtdna on Sep 26, 2012 said:


MichaelAtOz on Sep 25, 2012 said:


The profit is in the shipping...

brooklyn on Sep 25, 2012 said:

Looks like MBI is going to sit this one out.

MichaelAtOz on Sep 25, 2012 said:

oops wrong spot.

Ikagara on Sep 25, 2012 said:

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.

akhlut on Sep 25, 2012 said:

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.


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.

MichaelAtOz on Sep 24, 2012 said:

So lawyers explain:
 'solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services'
'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!

akhlut on Sep 25, 2012 said:

Please read the entirety of section 3.2 - both sentences please.  

proman on Sep 24, 2012 said:

was an error. sorry

proman on Sep 24, 2012 said:

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

MoonCactus on Sep 24, 2012 said:

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"

whats-the-fuss on Sep 24, 2012 said:

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.

DarkAlchemist on Sep 24, 2012 said:

Yeah, so? I talked with him last night and I trust him more than I ever would Nathaniel Brehaspati Pettis.

maxy on Sep 23, 2012 said:

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!

MoonCactus on Sep 24, 2012 said:

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.

iquizzle on Sep 23, 2012 said:

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.

Daid on Sep 24, 2012 said:

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.

Asger on Sep 23, 2012 said:

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?

meirm on Sep 23, 2012 said:

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?

akhlut on Sep 23, 2012 said:

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...

TheMakerGuy on Sep 22, 2012 said:

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.

idolcrasher on Sep 22, 2012 said:


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.

on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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).  ( http://www.thingiverse.com/thi... ).  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.

TheMakerGuy on Sep 22, 2012 said:

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.

DarkAlchemist on Sep 22, 2012 said:

 I know when I smell a plant, 5 leaf kind, and you are a plant or just ignorant.

Tertzoid on Sep 21, 2012 said:

I think nothing prevents copy all thingiverse things to elsewhere, 
all stuff has link like
and downloadable
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.

meirm on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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.

Nanomid on Sep 22, 2012 said:

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?

Chris_the_Carpenter on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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? 

bobc on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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.

jpearce on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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: http://www.thingiverse.com/thi...

Please add

beekeeper on Sep 21, 2012 said:

Zach "Hoeken"'s words:

He created Thingiverse. He WAS the old Makerbot we loved. He was a founding member of RepRap. He IS truly "Awesome".

meirm on Sep 21, 2012 said:

I just created www.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 www.wikicadmodels.org will follow under
"Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported"

JAP on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?f... ), 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 on Sep 21, 2012 said:

Another thing after reading about Tangibot (http://solidsmack.com/cad-desi..., 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

WilliamAAdams on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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!!

brucethehoon on Sep 21, 2012 said:

 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.  

MoonCactus on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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.

idolcrasher on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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 ;)

ZaphodBeeblebrox on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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.

edmo on Sep 21, 2012 said:

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.

raldrich on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

CrazyJaw on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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/2..., 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.

sxt173 on Sep 20, 2012 said:

Prusa is just a Troll!  Nothing in the ToU changed.  Calm down people.  Everything will be fine.

MarcusWolschon on Sep 23, 2012 said:

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.

akhlut on Sep 20, 2012 said:

It amazes me how people who haven't contributed a single thing to thingiverse are telling those who have to "calm down."

aubenc on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

makerswamp on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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?


CrazyJaw on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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. 

mtdna on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.


3DTOPO on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

akhlut on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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!


beekeeper on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

idolcrasher on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

naroom on Sep 20, 2012 said:

(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.

3DTOPO on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

wALLe on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

EhisforAdam on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

potatono on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.



3DTOPO on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

TheMakerGuy on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

4ndy on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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
What purpose can that possibly serve?

akhlut on Sep 20, 2012 said:

All this could go away by deleting a single sentence in the ToS.

PropellerScience on Sep 20, 2012 said:

 I took my stuff off of here because Makerbot is going closed source, and this is Makerbot's website.

TheMakerGuy on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

AnthongRedbeard on Sep 20, 2012 said:

debat as old as "Open Source" worthy cause though.

chowderhead on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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 - http://www.h-online.com/open/n....

This rankles my sphincter sufficiently to not want to support them in any way...

TheMakerGuy on Sep 20, 2012 said:

Did this really change or have you just read it?

Inquisitor on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

idolcrasher on Sep 20, 2012 said:

If MakerBot makes contracts with schools, or workshops they can sell things you designed as part of a "service" they provide.

cerberus333 on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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)

Daid on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

BeelzebubTheDemon on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

MrJohn on Sep 20, 2012 said:

So, it has come to this...

karandex on Sep 20, 2012 said:

Fight for freedom!!!!

LukeChilson on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

lasivian on Sep 20, 2012 said:

 I can sort some of it out.

If you read the TOS here: http://www.thingiverse.com/leg... 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.

raldrich on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

Renosis on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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?

Gav on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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. 

(Owner of Makerbot #00003, and a half dozen other printers)

spymongoose on Sep 20, 2012 said:

keep open source open!

prusajr on Sep 20, 2012 said:

"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."

profezzorn on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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. 

profezzorn on Sep 20, 2012 said:

... or maybe not since it says for the sole purpose of putting it on the site..

jpearce on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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?

Inquisitor on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

Renosis on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

brooksware2000 on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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 http://www.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.

delusr on Sep 20, 2012 said:

You may take our lives, but you'll never take our freedom

cahorton on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

Renosis on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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.

AlanM on Sep 20, 2012 said:

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
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.