Whose design even is this? (MPCNC conclusion)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2019
- My MPCNC build is coming to an end over a copyright dispute.
Twitter thread: / 1170306400716804099
💙 Enjoying the videos? Support my work on Patreon! / toms3dp
Product links are affiliate links - I may earn a commission on qualifying purchases (at no extra cost to you)
🎥 All my video gear toms3d.org/my-gear
I use Epidemic Sound, sign up for a 30-day free trial here share.epidemicsound.com/MadeWi...
🎧 Check out the Meltzone Podcast (with CNC Kitchen)! / @themeltzone
👐 Enjoying the videos? Support my work on Patreon! / toms3dp - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
One note on the video: While I was editing this one, I noticed that I had originally misread one of Ryan's tweets. The video is edited to reflect that, but its tone is still a bit harsher than I'd like.
All things considered, the MPCNC is not the right project for me, but I still wish Ryan all the best with it.
Why make it then disassemble it I thought you were gonna use it
@@davidwhitt3299 Spite. (Still love you Tom :) )
@@davidwhitt3299 Did you watch the video?
@@davidwhitt3299 He probably doesn't want to support the project anymore, I was going to build it, but I'm certainly not now
@@davidwhitt3299 because you do not want to check for licenses when sharing a new part. he stated clearly he wanted to make the machine more flexible and accessible. imagine the nightmare of licenses. clearly this is not the machine that fits his needs
So it’s time to design a metric based 3D printed CNC machine
Yes, it is. Let's go for it
Just dont use NEMA motors or belts, or wires, Vicious1 could sue u
And don't call it Metric Printed CNC, that might cause trouble later.
that has holes and press fits that actually work
Andrea Guarnaccia I found out that normal square aluminum profile 40x40, for example, is very cheap, widely available and easy to design parts around! I designed a profile roller already!
Yet again an aspect of the 3D Printing Community eats itself... >_>
I really do not understand, what is the problem here? Is that some kind of "I AM THE MIGHTY CREATOR" issue? Or is he afraid of better models appearing in the market and someone else selling them and "stealing" MPCNC's market share?
@@ChannelJanis yes to all
This is called Childish Behavior :) I always stop supporting those type of guys / projects. And this is also giving me a reason to do my own projects.
MPCNC is officially off my list, it's too precious for me as I would always want to amend and share!
@@ianjackson5653 I guess Ryan has never heard of "China" :shrug:
There's so very little that's unique about this 'design'. Machines like this have been made for decades and trying to claim it's unique in any way is absurd.
Exactly! After all isn't the MPCNC just a scaled up Ultimaker-style gantry system?
@@mvelentzas This design existed long before Ultimaker. Using commonly available tubing for a motion system has been around long before 3d printers were common.
Ryan really pulled a Gollum on this one.
Its like apple winning a copyright court case for a reactangular phone with rounded edges. That cost samsung a BILLION dollars. Its funny that this is literally a gantry with a tool head... prusa should sue him for stealing their idea.
@@someguy2741 I don't know why prusa tolerates people making prusa clones. I mean because of all those clones made in China prusa probably has to beg for change on the sidewalk just to make ends meet.
I totally respect the "walk away" decision: Neither support nor attack; just state your case, agree to disagree, then move on.
Especially after all the frustration with the thing wobbling around while trying to cut wood.
It's sad. The essentially free publicity for ryan's design is gone all because he wants the fame of "this is my design". He could have used that publicity and the community and group creativity that comes with it to help improve his design and create something truly great. Instead his design will remain as another mediocre 3d printed machine, but at least it's his and he gets credit!
Yeah, I'm sure Ryan invented U bracket in the first place. He thinks that he owns the design for every part that wraps around a tube? He's so daft that it's actually cute.
You got that right.
Agree. Actual originality in structural parts is a very difficult thing to claim.
Sort of like in music.
Everything is built by people standing upon the shoulders of everyone who ever made anything.
Sure....you can tweak it up....but is it really "new"?
Actually, it's not just a "u bracket". There's probably a thousand ways to design a u bracket that doesn't look like the one that Ryan designed, and the one Thomas made isn't one of them. LOL
@@kknopp01 Hahah, yeah, I absolutely agree. he should have made it a slightly shorter ... or wider ... or longer actually or ... . Makes all the difference :)
Has he sued homedepot or walmart yet for having u clamps and other EMT clamps that fit onto the conduit
Nope; not only is the physical part not copyrightable, the functional fit is specifically excluded. Derivative or not, the part you designed is yours to share as you like.
redesign everything to look like a phallus, see if he claims it as a derivative
Absolutely right.
Just look into the LEGO case.
After LEGO run out of the patent rights of a brick they tried to have a copyright on the general design and failed.
Everybody has the right to make their own bricks with exactly the same sizes and fit of an original LEGO brick and can sell it as much as they want. They are just not allowed to sell it as LEGO.
Exactly. Lego only has a copyright on the design of the figures, as the design of the heads, arms, torsos, etc. is non-functional and therefore can be protected. That's why other brands like Cobi, CaDA, Xingbao, etc. have different figures or don't include figures at all.
But the actual Lego bricks are purely functional parts, so Lego has no protection on those pieces since the patent ran out . Other manufacturers are allowed to produce the same type of bricks, with same design and same dimensions. (And often with the same quality, but at half the price)
Lego also have (or at least, had) patents on many specific methods of joining blocks together, even though they only used one. By patenting the other methods, they could block other manufacturers from using them.
But that's a functional aspect, and totally different to copyright
It's similar to the way you can copyright code, but you have to patent the actual programmatic mechanism that it acheives
It seems Ryan might even consider any CNC based on half inch pipe derivative ;) This video helped me walk away from a low rider project that I'd delayed because the tone of V1 Engineering had just bugged me and I couldn't put my finger on it. Ryan's attitude confirmed my concerns. Thanks Thomas.
Like the vocal majority on this issue, you completely miss the point.
@@ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt No, you miss the point. There's a right way and a wrong way to pursue an open source hardware project. For the right way, see Josef Prusa. For the wrong way, Ryan's your guy.
@@austntexan Ryan's mpcnc is not Open Source, but that doesn't mean that releasing a part that fits on the machine/replaces one of the current parts is infringing any laws or rules.
And I think a lot of people who build/want to build this mpcnc care about this part to a certain extent since it is simply better depending on your scenario.
@@chyrt He released under creative commons, so it sort of is open, and he fostered that attitude. But it doesn't matter because Thomas' design isn't derivative it is compatible and designed from a fresh start.
I have all the parts printed for the MPCNC, and if I would have seen this video before, I wouldnt have printed it. I always find ryan response on his forum a bit ish, and like you, coucldnt get my finger on why.
Just... wow... I was going to build one, but I guess not anymore.
Why would you want to build one? It a massive fail, it can't cut
@@matutolaYT there are thousands working much better than Toms.
@@jeffeberl12 there can be millions and they are all bad! There are just too many design mistakes
same here.. guess we have to look for a better and more open source friendly alternative
@@matutolaYT do you have one? What makes you the expert? I have one and a LR2 and I've seen a ton of people get them going. Tom's experience us unusual, to say the least. Most machines work great, despite nay sayers working in thought experiments.
There are plenty of CNC projects that would love your coverage input and exposure. Totally agree with you Thomas.
Knowing this makes me decide against building a mpcnc. I didn’t think Ryan would be so narrow minded. It’s quite sad.
Same
Same here
For years I've had the feeling that 3D printing became big because of the open source mindset of all the awesome developers. And 3D milling has been stuck in the past with a mindset of doing it on their own. Also visible in the available documentation, software's and firmware.
that's a large part of it, 3d printing really started to boom after patents owned by Stratasys and to a lesser extent 3D Systems expiring.
It's because CNC is reductive, and Printing is additive, these people want to reduce making, not increase it!
Very true. Different mindsets.
I see this mostly with models. Thingiverse is so big while there are no such sites for milling machines. Probably the cost plays a role as well, we all got 300€ printers, but any decent mill/router is so much more expensive. And if you don't want to diy the whole thing, prices start around 1000€. So really, I think just the machine costs, plus the noise, dust etc that make them bad for home use, reduce the number of people working with them.
And that mainly leaves professionals in the space and they have to make money, so free stuff is hard to find.
Yet grbl etc are awesome projects and work amazingly well.
Copyright protects a frozen image of a work. It doesn't protect 'designs'. Ryan doesn't understand copyright law. Your part is not a derivative.
Most industry does not understand patent law, and all this does is feed patent lawyers, a tax on industry,
This is not derivative as I understand it, maybe there even exist cast iron part that can do the same thing. Sometimes in my designs I mark my part as derivative even I've designed everything from scratch, keeping original 3D model more as inspiration and measuring everything manually, rather than modifying others poorly designed and impossible to edit 3D models.
In the US, copyright protects designs.
@@bernardtarver Only non-functional designs
@@JoshuaJohnsonHou That's incorrect, as a copyright can protect a unique look, aesthetic, and design language of a design-functional or otherwise.
Tom, Feel free to build a White Knight and make all the modifications you like.. I know my design can be improved on.. ;)
people like you are the reason I love this community :)
@@SchwachsinnProduzent Yes, as a whole the maker community would fit well in a Tomorrowland environment..
Yes, please do! I would love to see you build one. 👍
Your license on thingiverse is non-commercial, same as the MPCNC. Ryan's request was for Tom to use the same license as Ryan initially did, which is the same as what your license requires. I'm curious, would it be okay if I drew up parts from scratch that improve your design, then release it as open source and start selling parts?
@@paradisearcade8386 If you look closely you'll see that none of the files for the White Knight are on Thingiverse, they are all published on Github under the GNU general Public License V3.0. The licence chosen on Thingiverse was due to trust issues with the site. You are feel to use the files as you see fit as long as you pass on the same freedoms provided by the GNU license.. I would also hope that you would share any improvements thru the Github so the community can all benefit..
I think Ryan just killed his own project. RIP MPCNC
I doubt he has killed it. MPCNC has been popular for a long time now. all he has done is made choices that will lead to less improvements to a design that could do with some.
Bobby K yeah killed. starved of innovation , it’s done. It will go the way of the Neanderthal
@@sogethgrimley it has been closed source since day one. it has lived fine till this point. gone through major upgrades till this point. the MPCNC community does not need any of the people who just learned about it 2 weeks ago from these videos. not everything has to be open source.
What rot. MPCNC has been around for a long time now, doing just fine, and will continue to do so. Someone like you that showed up 20 minutes ago with nothing but an opinion is delusional if you think this is going to actually impact the MPCNC community. Bwahahaah!
@@sogethgrimley how is asking that a part be released under the original license "starved of innovation"? No one was asked to remove the part, Tom just "took his ball and went home" instead of simply updating the license.
You realize that the correct, best solution for both yourself and the community is for you to design one yourself, then publish the design.
Yes!!!
Or even start a "Marble Machine Project" for CNC that people collaborate with @Thomas Sanladerer coordination and make decisions in designs.
I agree. Please do this.
The right thing would be to first find a repository site for his project, upload his license of choice, add a statement of work or a description and then start thinking about what he wants to design in detail.
I hope that you will design one yourself
Except there are already other perhaps better machines that are created by normal people. I would avoid round tubes anyway because they flex too much.
I won't be building one. I was already hesitating the past 2 years or so because it wasn't technically open source to begin with - but knowing that I can't make and share custom bits completely ruins it for me.
Tweaking and sharing improvements is literally half the reason I build things! I like to build tools (mostly software) and share them.
Looks like the logical progression is either the Root CNC (which I was leaning towards - but it seems less popular and is NC licensed) or Irvan Miranda's design.
@@isaackvasager9957 yeah, i was thinking the same thing. I have several aftermarket parts on my mpcnc. Seems like there is more to this story on both sides it seems.
@@isaackvasager9957 Ryan had no problem with Tom releasing the design. The rub is that Tom wanted to release it with no license restrictions. All Ryan asked is that Tom re-release the part with a properly restrictive license so that people wouldn't try to sell it. This design was never open source and Tom knew that before he printed and built it. For Tom to release this part with no restrictions, then balk when Ryan nicely asked him to change the license is totally not Ryan's fault.
@@isaackvasager9957 From what I gather it was more to do with the actual license that Tom wanted to release it under.
MPCNC is released with a non-commercial license meaning it can only be sold by Ryan.
From Ryans POV - Remixes/Improvements should be considered derivative and published under the same license.
Tom made a new design and released it under a license that would allow for someone else to commercialize it.
In other words, if Tom were to have made changes to the all of the MPCNC parts by changing each dimension by .00001mm and released them with this license then anyone would be able to Print Tom's files and sell them. Effectively undercutting Ryan's livelihood by allowing anyone to clone the MPCNC and sell it online.
As far as I can tell Ryan has no issue with remixes/redesigns so long as they are under the same non-commercial license.
Seems to me that Tom could've chose to make the changes he wanted and simply released under the original MPCNC license. Instead he chose to try to strongarm Ryan into making this completely open source.
I appreciate Open Source projects but IMO respect to the creator comes first. In this case I see no reason why Tom couldn't have just respected Ryan's wishes and made his redesigned parts the same non-commercial license.
@@reneromo8814 that is not at all what for instance Prusa does for living. Hunting down people with other licenses.
But as Thomas CLEARLY say. Obviously MPCNC is not suited for him, or me and many with me. So we are respecting Rays wishes and going in another direction.
Happy hacking with the MPCNC, I will not. Pity though, as the design looked nice. But that is how it is.
@@isaackvasager9957 MPCNC isn't open, even though many, including Thomas and me, thought it was.
Well, there are other CNC designs...
Man, I was seriously considering that design too.
That's off the table.
One has to wonder if any parts of his "design" infringe on any active patents.
I got hyped a lot because of your videos building it, but now I will look for another solution on a cnc. Thanks for sharing!
Guess what I am not going to do, now.
Bang a girl, like, ever.
@@dq3666 your mums a girl obviously so you got that wrong.
Unsubscribe, right?
For that reason I/We (team1989) have started work on a CNC that will be open source and is based on Tsloted aluminum stock
Have a think about square galvanised tubing turned 45 deg from the horizontal
Is there any more information on this? Where can someone follow the process or even help/ take part in this?
Where can i find the details?? Ik would love to make a cnc
Excellent. Don't let whining stop you.
@@doogssmee9742 Root CNC already uses this design. He wants to create something new.
Well that was a total waste. Just when you got me hyped to build a MPCNC, this fiasco happens. Guess this won't ever make it to my channel now either.
Take a look at the Workbee by Ooznest and openbuilds. It is based on extruded aluminum v slots and its pretty simple to put together and tons more rigid. Plus its either totally open source or just attribution-share alike.
@@adama1294 Part of the attraction of MPCNC *is* that it is 3d printed, very low cost, uses extremely common parts and scaleable. V-slot alu extrusion? In my country there is exactly *zero* sellers for that, closest i found was in Germany but so super expensive it's cheaper to even air freight from US.
Aluextrusions are not like pipes and available on every corner hardware store.
@@skaltura well perfect time to design your own!
Shane, don't give up. I bet you could find a better CNC build. I would love to see that on your channel.
@@skaltura That is a fair point.
If you want to build something to cut anything accurately without chattering you are need something more rigid. Plastic just has too much give. All you really have to have is the motors, brainbox, and some kind of linear guide that is precise. You can find square stock pretty much anywhere and build the frame the hard way by measuring and drilling. If you can't find lead screws and nut blocks, you can get timing chain and sprockets to do the driving.
It would take a lot of work but you could build something even better than the vslot system.
I was going to build this machine, now I'm having second thoughts with Ryan's attitude... He's wrong. You're right.
I have a clothes rack that extends both vertically and horizontally. It’s made of light gauge steel tubes sliding inside one another. It uses very similar fittings to clamp off the tubes, locking them in place. I feel bad for you Tom.
Yes that's a good usage case for lightweight round section tube, a CNC machine definitely isn't. Round is useful for torsional loads only, not bending as you get from cutting forces, for that you want rectangular or square. This thing has the worst possible combination of design choices. Poor deflection resistance tubes that are nowhere near solidly anchored enough at the ends in torsion so as to be able to resist twisting, just a mess. It's one step removed from hot glue and drinking straws.
Considering making your own design or finding something similar that isn't as locked down?
I'm now wondering if Rene Descartes' lawyers are going to show up on the CNC scene and sue everyone for using 'cartesian' technology.
I guess you didn't watch the video?
@@KriLL325783 I watched it too. There's nothing preventing anyone from tweaking the design. The only ask was that it be released with the same license requirements as the original, to prevent unauthorized 3rd parties from selling printed parts on eBay, then directing them to the v1engineering forums for support.
@@c4tohagen we did, and doesn't understand how you can come up to the conclusion that you do. IF one have seen the video.
And Ryan doesn't agree with what Thomas did, so he told why he unbuild the machine and will not continue support the project.
In theory I support that but as Tom pointed out his part was just compatible with the other parts, it wasn't based on them, trying to control such a "functional" design that tightly doesn't make sense to me, especially since the chinese will ignore any license anyway if they decide to make a clone.
"I want to design a CNC machine that users have to 3D print parts for, but I don't want said users making and sharing 3D printed improvements for it." That's kinda backwards Ryan.
Man, I was really enjoying this build and want one for myself. I think I'll wait a bit longer.
That’s not true. There is a huge list of mods made for the MPCNC. He just wants them to use the same license that he uses.
Just design one yourself that uses 608 bearings as linear rails, it would be a fun project.
Edited
@@williammiller3277 that is not the Ryan who runs V1....
@@timwolf6885 thanks for letting me know. Shoulda known by context alone.
The gantry design of the MPCNC seems very derivative of the Ultimaker 3d Printer's design. Perhaps Ultimaker should be suing him?
SPANKED!
@@c4tohagen V1 engineering did not invent 3D printing, did not invent the half cylinder, did not invent even the gantry mechanism, did not invent a pipe holder made of two halves. He's entitled to the copyright of his STL files but he is not entitled to a patent as far as the invention of this machine or any other intellectual function of that machine. . If he tried to get a patent for this machine he would get a smack down from a Company that has already patented the mechanisms that he's trying to claim.
So true, and so do the 608 guide on tubing. This is so ridiculous...
@@intelligenceservices And that is true in ANY country law! What (design) goes on the internet stays on the internet and is therefore doomed to be opensource. Good luck trying to stop that for the rest of owners life!
Actually nothing on that printer other than his logo is copyrighted material. As an useful object it is not protected by copyright.The only way to protect the design would be with a patent.
Too bad he didn't invent cncs.
so can software not be copyrighted? serious question copy right law is hard lol
@@slickm7 I'm sure it can, dunno the rules tho.
@@slickm7 yes software can be copyrighted but not necessarily patentable
Crossed that one off my list too, I still want a CNC though. Maybe just making one from 4040 extrusions would be a better idea. It would be more rigid.
A while back when I first saw the MPCNC I looked into it more. This was in the early days of the project and I chatted with other people on line who built them. The impression I got back then was that the creators were not good people to deal with and it would be better to pass for the time. I thought they maybe have gown and were better to deal with now. This is proof that they are doing the same stuff and this machine will be a hard pass for me from now on. Tom was changing my mind about this project up until this video. Then all the bad crap I learned about came flooding back.
Thomas, thank you for your efforts. I was too busy with work while the update notices were posted to my phone. When I finally had an opportunity to look at your hard work the party was deemed over (by Ryan). If it is any consolation at all there are many of us that truly appreciate your work. If you gave your stamp of approval it would mean far more than anything V1 engineering could post. Please continue your efforts to make a similar device as I'm sure there are thousands of us that would benefit from your contribution.
As another user of, and general fan of MPCNC, this is tremendously disappointing. Thanks for trying, Thomas.
Phew.. Was gonna embark on the project.. Changed my mind now..
Wow, some people still don't get that part of open source is not just the technicalities, but also the community and the attitude towards it. So many maker based projects flourish under open source and a lot that fail end up blaming the clones as undermining their business model. At the end of the day "who do I want to give my money to" is as much a part of the calculation as actual cost.
Wow. Thats tough. Really enjoyed this series. Thanks Tom for the hard work and honesty
You are the kind of person the world needs more of. Thank you for contributing to the open source community.
Good stuff Tom, well handled..
It is a shame - you are not the one who made a big mistake going against a community and common sense. Thank you for your hard work Tom!
Common sense is complying with the request to release his part as non-commercial. Tom is being a baby bowing to the gods of open source.
It is just another CNC machine with the same X,Y,Z movements. What is there to copyright about!! The best part of the video is the dismantling of the MPCNC. Thanks TOM for your kindness of sharing to the community.
This is why I design my own parts. Thomas time to design your own CNC. You can do it if you need any help man just put the word out and we're here.
Licenses are a mess. Props to you for pointing that out
Licenses are fine, but illiterate, greedy and envious people applying them to whatever are the mess.
CC-NC series of licenses are meant for common "freeware" and "shareware" where you can have your demo version for free but can't do anything with it and have to pay for some different license in case you want to actually have it.
But modern hipsters just throw in NC clause out of greed or envy, without thinking for a second about issues and consequences it will result in.
CC, sadly, is but a malignant tumour on the opensource community which is a malignant tumour itself on the free software movement.
Best we can do is to just cut it away before it's too late.
If you dig into the issue the creative common license structure is actually fantastic. Of course there's a lot to it, but it fits the maker space needs very well.
@@goury really? "modern hipsers" and it's "greed" to try and protect your livelihood? The ONLY thing Tom was asked to do was release the part NC just like the original, THAT'S ALL.
@@GeoffreyPitman523 yes, greed and envy.
And also lies about being open when it isn't.
@@goury uhh no one ever claimed it was open source. So either you are misinformed or deliberately misleading others.
Someone just killed MPCNC! And guess what: It is not Thomas! Don‘t forget to step aside. A big backlash is coming.
Thanks for "everything" you have done over the last few years. You were a major inspiration and help to me getting into 3d printing and now I no longer work in construction and have a shop with 10 printers and a CNC. Don't let this hassle discourage you (which I know it wont). Im contestant accused of theft of designs when I create everything I sell from scratch and always add major innovations to make it my own.
Tom, thank you so much for posting this video and your transparency. Our local maker community was seriously considering building this ourselves, but hearing what transpired here, we feel this isn't really in alignment with basic maker movement values, and while I'm sure you're disappointed in the lost time, we're tremendously grateful to have been spared that same time. I'm sure our community would be enchanted by a CNC build still, so if you either come across a suggestion or make your own, please let us know!
When I first came across this project, my first impression was on the lack of adjustment for belt tension - so I reworked the belt anchor in Fusion to have an adjustable bolt attached to to the top cap (similar to what Tom did). Once convinced this would work, I sat through (almost) all of Tom's videos and became excited that I could build this for a laser cutter/engraver. I would have liked to use the router but I always felt it would be too flexible for what I would need. A sad end to what could have been a really great project.
Belt tension is adjusted by the zip loop at one end
Way to give up, loser.
This is one of those things that just spiralled out of context and control. I can appreciate both sides of this story. On the one side, Ryan is trying to maintain some level of commercial control over his design, on the other, Tom giving great input and design, and wants to make it something anyone can build on, and in the process will override Ryans licencing approach. In the end, neither of them are wrong, but it ended in a public argument, and no one gains. People naturally need to take sides. I respect Tom's perogative, and would still support Ryan in his ventures. I think we need both of them in this hobby of ours!!!
From a legal standpoint Ryan is clearly wrong. Copyright only protects against copying, not against designing something that works the same way. That's what patents are there for. If Ryan had a patent on that part, then he would be right, but he does not. General rule of thumb: Trademark protects logos and names, patents protect ideas, copyright protects against exact copies (and modified copies). Copyright does not protect against similar things (but patents do) and Trademarks don't protect products that don't show the trademark.
@@dak1st I fully agree. My comment, however, is toward intent, not legality. If both of them were to take a step back, before arguing over the interpretation, they could probably have found common ground and a positive outcome. In practice, life (online or otherwise) has many similar previous examples. As such, the way this played out is expected, but still unfortunate.
@@tiaanv I see what you mean, and you are right with that. In the end, Ryan lost a lot more with his clumsy move, but also Thomas lost out as well.
I'm really impressed that you consider your ideals as more important than the access to a cnc machine. I don't know if I had the heart to dissassemble a machine which took so many hours to make and costs so much money. I'm really looking forward for an open design which complys with the spirit of the maker scene.
Maybe you could be the one to initiate such a design progress as a communal project where every design choice is discussed with the community and everybody, regardless of their skill level or experience could submit ideas.
Youre doing a great job! Keep that up!
Thanks for sharing Thomas, I was considering purchasing parts for this, but after hearing about the restrictions on creating parts for it, well, I guess I will start looking in another direction. Thanks again, love your channel, continue creating!
Drama in the 3D printing community? Finally!
Ño, shhh put it back in the box.
Technically, both in 3D printing and amateur CNC communities. Also, some 3D printing and CNC in the Drama community ?
3D printing Drama Channel Will pop up soon
LOL!
Wow, just wow.
Yes I WAS going to build one too - but ... nah.
However your passion is similar to mine, Im a teacher, I'm a STEM ambassador, Im a techie... and I want others to enjoy it.
I have 3d printers.. i'd love a resin one, but too expensive at the moment for what I want. I would also LOVE a CNC machine - again too expensive, until I saw this 3d printed one. But it is too restrictive for what i do.
BUT after your trials and tribulations, I would dearly love to watch you go through the (re)design process of coming up with a scratch build CNC build. As you say the one you have worked on was heavilyt influenced with what is available in the US. Being in the UK I am finding it hard to source the correct sized items too, so whatching how you adapt and over come your design to use what is available commonly would be of very great interest.
Anyway - thanks to you and your team, keep up the good work.
Thanks Tom! You just saved me some money. I was going to build one because I liked your videos, but now because of the designer, I'm not going to bother! Thx again for all you do!
I guess that's what happens when you put 3d Printing(additive) and CNC(subrtactive) machines together. Net is zero. No one wins.
Funny
Best comment here
Imagine the metal tube manufacturer claiming that all other 20mm metal tube are a copy and therefore violates their copyright. What a world. I've come to the conclusion that I won't build a MPCNC
Thats a sad a end for an interesting machine. We really should only support open source with open licences as this the only reason why we got with 3DP as far in first place.
3d Printing was locked down under copyright for 20 years before it became open source lol
@@LukePettit3dArtist and you had to pay 100,000 per machine, minimum...it wasn't until the copyrights expired and RepRap was possible that 3d printing became important.
@@LukePettit3dArtist thats exactly what I've meant.
As long as it was propriatary it really just sucked, the moment the patents run out a big community formed and made something fantastic out of it.
Why is it a sad end? You can modify it whichever way you want. There's pages of remixes on Thingiverse. They all share the same license, as is required by Creative Commons.
@@paradisearcade8386 But you cannot sell them under that license, so full upgraded kits/progression for non 3DP owners completly depends on the creator, the moment the creator stops supporting this project, the project dies. The only version of the kit/upgrades you will be able to buy are from the creator.
Also you are not allowed to use that commercially as this is the main reason why thomas stoped this project as he makes money with that.
And he also has to name the creator, even though his creation isn't even a derivate.
What I don't know is if you are even allowed to sell the stuff you've mase with the machine as this is also commercial use.
So really that thing is dead to me. There are other design out there.
I watched the first couple of episodes and was thinking about building this, but not wasting any more time. Thanks for the update
I was looking forward to the rest of this. Sorry to see it end this way.
What other 3D printed CNC designs should we consider for similar use? I have collected most of the parts for this one.
well this was my next project after my 3D printers/laser cutters . i was even going to throw money towards ryan for the parts to ease the build and give back to the creator even though i could of sourced it all cheaper, well not anymore. Im flushing this project down the dunny
Not sure why everyone supports this license when someone starts selling thingiverse parts on eBay but now Ryan is protecting a design he spent YEARS working on and this arsehole basically says he's going to modify it slightly, change the license and let anyone sell it commercially (because that's the only difference really). Getting salty about being challenged on it and making a sulky video doesn't change his intent but I'm honestly surprised at how this comment section is full of people lapping it up. Ryan isn't some corporate goliath trying to keep 3d printing or CNCing from the masses, quite the opposite! You can literally print all his parts and he won't make a dime. He just doesn't want OTHER PEOPLE making money from his hard work. Not very complicated at all.
Hey Darrell! I was going to give you $15million dollars yesterday, but today I'm not going to. What have you lost?
I feel like Ryan killed his own project for a matter of licence. Who want to get involved in this if they can't modify it? Are we allow to CNC what we want with it or the GCode that it takes is also licenced therefore we can only use it with a finite collection of pre-generated GCode? Is any GCode that "fit" the machine also subject to the CNC licence? I know, that would be ridiculous, but the licence argument over the "derivative" part is as ridiculous in my opinion.
His license gave all possibilities to make changes, just not to change the license to Creative Commons
@@bollie9752 Thanks for the clarification. That actually makes sense now. All Ryan was asking was to respect the licence, he had no objection in providing improvements. Maybe Tom just got a bit fired up with where we need to draw the line for a "derivative". There was nothing to get angry about.
@@bollie9752 I have double checked the licence. The parts are on Thingiverse, licenced with CC Attribution - Non-Commercial. I think the issue is, if Ryan allows Tom to share a copyleft parts, that would open the way for greedy people to sell the part for profit. The licence of the project is Non-commercial, and Ryan wants to keep it that way. That seems like another case of miss-understanding and stubbornness...
@@gaellafond6367 This ordeal is unfortunate, and as someone else said, it was bad decision on both their parts to discuss/argue about it over twitter. If they were both in a room discussing it or even talking over the phone, the out come would likely be very different.
Just for reference, MPCNC seems to think they invented putting the rails on each other as well. I made a rail on rail design in the late 90's, simply from buying the K&V drawer rails from Lowe's, laying 2 out, then laying two more out on top of them at 90 degrees. It was old hat even then.
So sorry you went through this Tom, this must have been completely deflating and frustrating.
I suppose that is the only decision that makes sense.
A bit of a shame after this amount of work though.
I built the machine 1-1/2 years ago after a complete redesign of all parts in Solidworks. The US pipe diameters are fairly useless in Europe, and the 25mm one is just too expensive to experiment with on a larger machine. Mine is based on plain galvanised German plumbing pipe, metric fasteners and a Kress router.
I spent a lot of hours on the design. 3D printed chains for the cables in all directions, cable feeds through the carriages, a new Z-axis for the Kress that positions it closer to the x-y crossing.
Of course I tackled the belt tension issue with real adjustable tensioners, also because when both axis have different tension, the x and y scaling differs a lot on a larger machine.
Nevertheless, the result is still a rather flexible machine, like yours.
To my humble opinion, it’s no good for anything but cutting styrofoam. At least on a larger scale than the original.
Maybe as a 3D printer frame, but then you would have an issue getting a heated bed that size.
Or promote it as a cake glazing machine perhaps? I’ll bring the beers 😀
Oh! Right in time. I wanted to build one this winter now i will consider some other cnc project.
I was interested in building one of these until I saw this video. Thanks for the information. I will find another model to pursue.
Oh well, Thomas you always do things with the best of intentions, if everyone was so petty as to not allow home-brew upgrades or mods that can be freely shared for the good of a project (within open license boundaries), there would be about 100 items on thingiv, and no maker universe. Have a beer, take a time out and onto your next great work... Thank you for all your great content.
J Z maker bot did the same thing going closed source and killed their company... the right buisness model is prusa.... all open source but do it better than china can and make it convenient to buy from them instead
I witnessed the original twitter exchanges. This type of thing gets sticky real fast. I don't really like NC licences when used in this context: they are better used in other contexts like as part of a marketing push or a end-use-only tool for personal use cases... and are what i like to call a 'dead-end' licence. I consider them only quasi-open, and it shoots the originator in the foot otherwise. The NC clause feels rather like just a glorified instruction manual and collaborative beta-test. For example: the RADDS printing board is CC BY-NC, which precludes monetized discussion, and as a result, there is very little discussion on the widest-used platforms -- i.e. monetized platforms -- and they have gernered onli niche attention. Same goes for Gen7. but the discussion brought up two interesting grey areas: work-alikes and monetization via education by fair use. Personally, I take Thomas' position here: work-alikes are not covered by the original licence, and monetization via education/discourse is fair game, within reason. monetization via education is covered by fair use 99% of the time, unless a specific clause is included to preclude it, BUT technically NC would preclude that except under fair-use... which is where the licence comes into conflict with precedent and accepted-convention. A work-alike is perfectly fine and accepted unless it violates some other clause or licence, like an aesthetic trademark/patent, etc. The same goes for 'aftermarket' parts: see the auto industry for legal examples. If aftermarket bolt-on work-alikes are fine for even restrictive patent law, I believe that is a good enough precedent for application here. Otherwise many many projects tied to things like Linux would also be illegal (even the 'sticky' applications in that realm: MAME, WINE, etc, which are generally accepted as legal within reason). The original author obviously embraces the former but rejects the latter. But I think Thomas also made the correct decision in that while he may be in the right, chose the high-ground and conceded to the author's wishes, be they reasonable or not.
What a shame. I thought Ryan was cooler than that. He just lost a customer. I literally have everything printed and was going to begin assembly, but I think I will just design my own rather than get into the whole solving problems with "HIS" design. thing. Thanks Thomas, always great information!
You've really displayed strong character here. It's impressive that you chose not to allow disappointment to evolve into anger, or to bad mouth or belittle Ryan. It's easy for egos to flair up, it's not uncommon or a creator to get overly sensitive about their product or project and lose sight of what brought them to make it in the first place. I was going to be buying this kit, in fact, I finally took the plunge and ordered a CR10 (for 260$ shipped, so it was kind of a steal) because my first 3d printer was too small to print some of the parts. Now I'm not certain that my money would contribute to a community I'd be proud to support. It's unfortunate as I've finally got all of the parts printed, but thankfully it only cost me 30 bucks worth of filament, and not $400.
Thank you for the videos anyways even if this didn't end well. It let us understand how CNCs work and even if this project didn't work out, it will help us on any of the diy CNCs.
I had a lot of high hopes for a project like this. A cheap and affordable CNC that could actually manage decent cuts, and might even be scalable to larger sizes was really intrigu aaaaaaaaaaaaand it's gone.
If you build this machine correctly, it will work just fine. Tom didn't build it correctly.
Well thats a quick way to not only getting bad press, but completely shutting down two people's projects. I do believe his design was a copy of a copy anyway.
So I am totally with you with this one. Lots of closed mined people in the FB group. But it will not be seen in my feed anymore. I will use the parts for a more rigid build.
Glad you are walking away from the project. I would love to see you highlight some of the alternatives that are out there. Keep up the great work!
Thanks Tom, I was about to order the hardware. I don't want to make a thing that can't be improved by a community.
You should still consider buying it. It can and has been improved by the community. It is just you can't sell any designs. You are free to improve away (I did) look on thingiverse
It can be, and has been improved by the community. The only ask here was that the part be released as non-commercial, so 3rd parties can't print and sell.
@@GeoffreyPitman523 I dont see how this can be handled, if you have to share improvements with the nc license this means ryan will never be able to use the improved parts himself without explicit agreement.
@@benjaminjung6169 Yeah, that happens when you want to have your cake, eat it, and eat everyone else's as well because "your idea was first". The licensing scheme doesn't survive a mirror.
I am confused now, the parts are on thingiverse licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial license. That say`s "You are free to:
Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material "
Yes, Ryan only requested that the remix and transformation be released under that same license. Tom threw a hissy fit.
I built one of these 2 or 3 years ago. Not for CNC milling, but as a platform for a laser cutter. It worked OK, but had issues then as well. I haven't considered redesigning this system, but do have ideas for an entirely different design. As CNC for a laser head, the flex associated with the tubes does not present a significant problem, but I would hesitate to put a dremel on it, much less a better spindle.
My take on the whole thing is that Ryan sees the CC-0 license as incompatible with the license he chose, and Thomas sees the CC-A-NC license as incompatible with his lifestyle. Rather than have viewers pestering him for the next 10 years asking what happened to the MPCNC he built in a series, he put the video together to explain his case. It sounds to me like he is not raging about the situation, just disappointed in the situation.
Like many others here, I'd love to see an open source project like this. I don't have space for a machine like that currently, but I was considering getting the MPCNC in the future due to its simplicity. But now, I definitely won't be doing that.
Great video series, sorry to see it went the way it did. Keep up the good work Thomas and I'm looking forward to your next project.
When I looked at your previous video and consider building one. I checked the design and think about your stability problem. My conclusion is that the design itself is flawed. So I will design one myself and make it freely available for everyone :) Have a nice day and thanks for your really good work.
Ask Thomas about collaboration? ;-)
You are right, it is flawed and not just by a little either. But that doesn't mean it is not a good educational tool.
@@xConundrumx as educational tool, as long as you are not commercial.
So the machine can arguable be a good educational tool, but with that licens, it isn't good for education and schools though. As schools can be commercial.
@@AndersJackson I meant for self-education. As in to get started in the world of CNC machines and to get to grips with the basics. Not educational as in schools.
Was going to buy a kit and build this project, but not now. Open Source is the reason why the 3d printing world blew up, holding these designs outside of that and not allowing people to make them better does no good for anyone. I'm sure Ryan spent alot of time money and effort, but in the end he just shot himself in the foot on this one.
The MPCNC is community tweaked all the time, look around Thingiverse. The only ask was that the part be released non-commercial, and instead Tom took his ball and went home.
@@GeoffreyPitman523 You can't convince these fanboys that their frail leader threw a hissy fit and framed it as some sort of license dispute. It's a straight up smear job, but they won't admit it, and just keep regurgitating the same mindless mantra of "it's not open-source, that's why we don't support it." If they actually understood the language and intent of the license, and the ask thereof (that requires some thinking, not just blind following), they wouldn't have any problem with it. Instead, Tom speaks, and they listen, without any thought of their own. Sheeple.
@@dq3666 I couldn't have said it any better. I just feel compelled to defend a good guy, and a good project.
@@GeoffreyPitman523 But it's not Ryan's place to ask Tom to change his license. I can design my own iPad case and give the design away or sell the plans. The magnets will be in the same place as the official Apple case, and the size will be the same, but nothing about the design of the case dimensions/magnets is patented. The same is true with Tom's belt tensioner. It's a part designed from scratch to fit standard sized conduit, screws and belts. Tom's part even looks different, aesthetically.
@@calebland6246 this is years old get over it.
Wow, this is actually sad. I´m fairly new to 3d printing and was happy about the strong support within the community and mostly everything being open source. Seeing the mpcnc and other solutions basically everybody with a 3d printer at home could do made me really happy as well, especially being an engineering student myself. A couple weeks back I want to a seminar at VDE here in Germany where two guys from Open Source Ecology were talking about their projects and also explained the types of creative common licenses and all that. Found that quite interesting. But now seeing Lego threatening to sue people who create similar designs to them and this mpcnc story really gives everything a bitter taste ... I hope this trend doesn´t proceed or else this creative community won´t last long.
I agree with you Tom, I think you should spend your time with a project which does allow modifications without hassle. The CNC with belts in this size will hardly work as there is to much play in this design. Maybe threaded rods are working better..
man sad to see this kind of conflict, maybe there is the need of a hard fork
build a Metric-Open-MPCNCN (MOM-PCNC) ;D
Damn, that’s a shame. I planned to build the mpcnc before the videos launched but I will think about it twice now.
Any recommendations for a true open source mostly printed cnc?
Thank you for your honesty.
Mach weiter so!
Gohliat1337 Same for me. Will look for another printed cnc
Don't bother.
A CNC needs rigidity because of the lever arm forces + rotational forces induced by the cutting head/motor.
Making one (excepting time and material costs)with 3D printed parts is like walking one step forwards, 10 steps back.
Trust me. It's a waste of time elevated to nightmare shituation.
That being said, you can get away with making various components out of wood/MDF/HDF and various pipe clamping options. Using printed parts isn't worth the effort because they can't assure you of the tolerances required of a CNC. At the lowest end, is wood, above it, aluminium, above that steel, and the top, cast iron (there are inbetweens like, pouring concrete inside the components to add weight (mass is important) and rigidity).
As for design ethos, look up the Inventables CNC. That's the most barebones CNC design you can get, and that's a good thing because you can adapt a lot of the elements found in there to pipe and clamp design without spending too much time figuring out what should be what.
One other hint, get a dial indicator. The cheapest of greater division (inches or mm, your mileage may vary) you can find on fleaBay/Aliexpress etc. You need one. From measuring the parallels, to the travel, to the table plane being level. You cannot build a CNC without such a tool. You'll also need an arm and a magnetic stand for it (also, found on the cheap on those websites).
@@aserta shituation had me good XD
. Look on thingiverse
Don't waste your time, is very clear that they don't work, watch the videos, this machine was 99% fail
Please don’t let this set you back. I have been following this project and RIGHT when it was about to get finalized it stopped. Ugh this is something I would like to build too but do not have to patience to figure out many of the other project flaws.
Really hope you build your own for your community.
It's a shame that it has come down to this. Thom, your idea is brilliant, and I was looking forward to finally now being able to customize parts as required - we don't all live in the USA. IF you decide to make your own designed CNC, with printed parts, I am sure there will be a lot of support! Good luck! :)
I think it's pretty obvious he just didn't want to attribute any work to anyone else. Simply put.
Tom that is right? Because all Tom did here was recreate Ryan's part, make a small change to the belt connection mechanism and try to re-release it with no commercial restrictions. Tom's design is clearly derivative of the original but Tom didn't want to attribute Ryan for his original design and clearly Tom didn't want to maintain the original license.
@@hodgeac He didn't recreate Ryan's part, he created a part that was parametric and put in parameters that would make it fit with the MPCNC. It would be different if he copied Ryan's part, then modified it.
*Thomas was clearly not happy at the end of part 6.
*Thomas will sort it out... he's the perfect man for that task.
*Hang on, it's been a few days now, and... nothing. Surely he would not walk away and leave it there?
*Now I know the answer, and it is tragic. All that work, time, and expense wasted by someone else's narrow minded thinking.
As is invariably the outcome in these situations, nobody wins. Thank you so much for trying.
Narrow minded thinking?? He simply asked that the part be released under the same terms as the rest of the machine.
I was wondering what was going on as well.
What seems to be going on is a desire to effectively retain control of a machine, presumably for the purpose of making money, avoiding the entire machine eventually being replaced by (better) OS parts.
@@kiwiron no, it's an attempt to protect his livelihood. He only wants to retain the rights to exclusively sell the printed parts. He allows for anyone to print them for free, and get free support, the only leg he has to stand on to get eBay and such to remove unauthorized listings is his non commercial license. Anyone can tinker, mod, improve to their heart's content. Ryan only asks that his business protection remains in place. MPCNC is his full time job.
Thought that's what I said. He wants to retain control to make money.
I built the MPCNC a few years ago. It was also difficult to find the right tubes here in Australia and I started using Aluminium tubes as I could get them in the right size, but in the end they weren't strong enough and ended up being distorted by the pressure of the bearings. I found some chrome tube that worked, but the issue I then had was the Y-Axis wasn't moving straight and a square ended up being a parallelogram. I tried to find the issue for weeks but in the end couldn't solve it so I pulled it apart and put it away. I did speak with Ryan a few times on the forums and he was helpful, but yeah kind of glad I didn't continue with the project.
I ran into the same kind of thing for designing a quick release adapter for a metal detector and was told I was using someone’s design and redesigning it but was completely redesigned.
Then I will not get this machine myself, thanks for the heads-up!!!
Well MPCNC just shot themselves in the foot.
Thanks for sharing.
Thought about making this cnc but not any longer. My opinion is that the whole idea of these kind of projects is to be able to improve and have fun with the design.
I'll make my own from scratch to be sure I can do what I want with it.
No one is stopping anyone from doing what they want with the design, only asking that any changes be released under the non-commercial clause. Tweak and modify away, that's highly encouraged, just release under the license.
@@GeoffreyPitman523 Oh I didn't understand that that was the problem. Watched the video again and now I understand. Thank you for explaining.
Thanks for pointing this out, now I know what to look for in the legalese when I choose a project.
You should dessing your own MPCNC but with a rectangular tubbing frame
or just design a from ground up version with toms logo and different spacing for the hardware inter-connects. like tom said the idea of how the parts function cant be held to copyright otherwise mpcnc would take claim to literally everything designed to attach to a tube.
This video should have been titled "Dismantling of the MPCNC" :)
Hi Thomas,
Did you also take a look at the root 3 ? I'm building it right now and I am pretty impressed so far!
Wow, I was looking at making one of these but that really makes think I'm better off going with the Dremel CNC.
Hello Tom, I just want to share some thoughts/comments on the MPCNC and your experience with it. I'll make a bullet list to (try to) keep it short.
- I build myself an MPCNC back in October 2016 and I was happy to get your notification on the live build videos. You are a mentor for a lot of people and I was sure that your video would contribute to growing up the MPCNC community.
- I've built the MPCNC with almost the same dimensions as you have and I found the same issues that you have encountered like the nut traps not grabbing the nuts properly (metric hardware). I found that welding together the "lock corner" and the "bottom corner" parts improve the rigidity of the assembly a lot.
- I've designed myself a derivative of a part compatible with the MPCNC and posted on Thingiverse (part 1933416) and like me, tons of makers have done the same (with various licenses). Some of them are a must, like the "Universal Mount".
- Thus I was very surprised about your dispute on Twitter and very sad about the end. You spent a lot of time and for sure with your experience and expertise, everybody could have benefited.
I have been using the MPCNC for over two years and sadly I like Ryan on some things but he lacks vision for the modern makerspace. First time I realized this was when he tried to force people to use his website over the Facebook group. It pains me that he has run you off and I believe this series and your expert help would have done the MPCNC community a lot of good. I can only state I am moving on some to the Gatton CNC community mainly because it is a family and does not have these problems and it is a better machine.
I've heard good things about the Gatton CNC as well. I have a Millright CNC Power Route... and it's a great machine but the cutting area is bit small (24" x 24") and I wanted something for bigger cuts... was seriously thinking about building a Gatton to go along with my Millright.
I’ve had my eye on this for a while, just not had a chance to start it. I’ll be passing on this now and either look for a different project or roll my own. There are so many different options out there for CNC with sturdier frames, gantry and spindle. The one thing this had was it’s cost to get up and running and project ethos. Guess I was wrong? Maybe best to move out of the grey...
I had plans to build one as well. Now I will look into other options.