Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 2.5.2016 at 10:45 PM, Academic Planner said:

The initial email went 3+ years ago, the waiting list was established over 1 year ago, we hit over 50 preorders (list not completely updated) and there hasn't been any sort of official word on an update. I'd think it's pretty safe to say this isn't happening. Compound this with the recent Volca FM release and this is making even less sense. Prove me wrong? (again)

Sorry to say, but if you think Volca FM is equal to OPL3, you are greatly mistaken. Volca is very limited compared to the possibilities of what one can do with an OPL3.

I still after all these years have no idea how to gain access to the wiki, but please add my handle and one (1) sammichFM to the order list! Thank you so much :)

During the first batch i built one, but that unfortunately was destroyed when I loaned it for a while.

:)

Posted

Is there any way we can just get the board files released to the MIDIbox community? Or even just sent to Tim at the MIDIbox Shop for occasional small runs, a la the MB-6582? It feels insane to have this many people waiting for years on the next run of kits.

I don't want to diminish the hard work that @nILS and @Wilba put into these designs; quite the opposite, actually. I admire the designs greatly and don't think I would be capable of creating something on the same level. I totally understand why they would have wanted to keep the board designs to themselves while sammich kits were in production—demand was enormous when these kits were originally announced and keeping the board designs private ensured that nobody shady would take advantage of the situation and begin selling kits themselves. But circumstances have changed, and it seems like we're back to the normal state of MIDIbox affairs: just a few DIYers who want a fun project for themselves.

Now that the kits are long out of production, what purpose does keeping the design files private serve?

Also—and I mean this as a sincere, curious question, with no intention of being accusatory or inflammatory—the TAPR license that all MIDIbox designs fall under seems to imply that any derivative designs are to be "open" as well, at least with regard to sharing documentation. So I'm left feeling confused as to why certain MB designs end up as proprietary. Obviously, the sammiches were produced with @TK.'s explicit approval (aka word of God), so there's no suspicion on my part of wrongdoing—rather, I am just hoping for a clarification on the rules of the TAPR.

  • Like 1
Posted

Exactly my words, it happened too often already (e.g. also with the MB-LRE boards now being unavailable), i think that everyone selling MBHP based boards, in the forums or elsewhere, should be required to store a copy of the gerbers in TK.'s email inbox. So, that in case of new demand and the absence of the original creator, TK. could order some at any fab - he does not even need to do the shipping, he could order them to be delivered to any trusted MIDIbox user, who would do the logistics work.

Many greets,
Peter

Posted

We're getting quite philosophical here :).

From the deep history of MIDIbox, there was a time when designs were much more open and it caused untold problems. Most of the old guys are no longer around, so it could be a chance to start something different. Nowadays, MCU projects are all over the place, with many different options of build complexity and price. A hardcore MIDI controller is less attractive to DIY when equivalents or "better" can be purchased for cheaper than parts cost. The advent of all-in-one PCBs has killed off a lot of creativity, e.g. MIDIbox of the week.

Having organised a small but costly Bulk Order, I can understand why people choose not to open source everything. It's hard to explain, but you do feel like you have ownership over the IP due to all of the blood, sweat and tears put in.

A different line of thought: by designing something, what's the obligation to keep a supply line running? Even big businesses sell "limited time only" products. I'm not advocating this approach, but as this is a volunteer community, you have to keep active and take the opportunity to buy PCBs/components when they're available, and support those who put the time in to design and organise orders. It's the responsibility of members to participate, otherwise the place turns into a ghost town. As a corollary, it's disheartening when something's promised and not delivered, more so when money has already been paid in. 

At the very least, anyone selling PCBs or projects should seriously consider a succession plan when they might no longer be around. Even if they don't send a cache of gerbers to TK., something like having the files somewhere accessible and backed up, ready to send on or be quickly uploaded to the wiki. 

Another concept I just noticed from a post on MW is "donation ware." The source files are open, which means anyone can simply upload to their favourite fab. They take responsibility of shipping, customs and quality, and can on-sell the remainder they don't need. It's essentially open source, but with a gentle reminder that it is somebody's work you're benefiting from. If you appreciate it and want more from the designer, you can send them a bit of cash to say so. While the price breaks get worse, and it's more energy and money for lots of small packets, this chops up the task into many small parts and relieves pressure from the designer. It also emphasises that this is a hobby community, not an evil profit-making business. 

  • Like 2
Posted

I agree on many points, sweat/tears wasted, the ownership idea, hell yes! I don't even want to know how many hours you spent designing the BLM PCB, for example.
But, the problem is with annouced bulks/community runs, that then never happen. A lot of people get disappointed that way, and many projects end up in an unfinished last bulk, the sammiches, also the MBLREs...
This kind of disappointment could be quite easily avoided, if there was a "forced failover plan". In the end, it does all depend on TK's designs, so I think he should have the right to enforce that rule of storing gerbers. We know he would not go and clone them for his benefit. Nobody would be off worse that way... as long as the creators are motivated to do runs, they should do it, if not and if there is serious interest (like for the sammiches), then there is an easy solution.
Freeing it up as donationware is nice, too, but there is the inherent risk of some far-eastern-copyhouse cloning everything and flooding the market with cheap and low-quality-compoment sammiches with bad soldering... we would then have to support all of these users in the forums...

Many greets!
Peter

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I agree that the real problem lies in announcing something that apparently is not going to happen. That said, I fully understand that life can get in the way of projects (speaking from my own experiences as one "of the old guys").

However, this aside, I see no obligation at all to keep up the supply of "old" boards or kits. There is a window of opportunity for everything, and it's quite natural that these windows open and close again. No further regulation is needed.

Posted

Yes, of course, i agree on the "window of opportunity" argument, we are all hobbyists and we don't know what will happen tomorrow (life plans, work, relocation, family)...
It is just frustrating, when you are waiting on a promised project and it does not happen, or when you have developed a big-ass project based on someone elses boards and you just cannot get the boards anymore...
I'd therefore say it would just be nice, on a voluntary basis, to send user-developed MIDIbox-based gerber files to TK., that's all.

Many greets!
Peter

Posted

Hawkeye nailed it. Announcing a project to the community doesn't obligate someone to follow through; if that were the case, half the MB community would be deep in unfinished project debt! ;) Rather, it would just be nice if documentation were more freely shared, as the TAPR license indicates, instead of hoarded.

Posted
36 minutes ago, jaytee said:

Announcing a project to the community doesn't obligate someone to follow through; if that were the case, half the MB community would be deep in unfinished project debt!

You mean because only half the MB community is actually contributing?

I'd say don't waste your time insisting on the TAPR license, instead go create a new version PCB yourself if you need one, even if it is not likely to be at the same level.

Posted

I mean that half the community has started projects that never got off the ground in any meaningful way.

I don't expect that pointing out the terms of the TAPR will result in any previous projects getting a public release. Rather, I just think that going forward, it's important that folks understand what license all this IP falls under, and that it does indicate that documentation should be shared.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ilmenator said:

There is a difference between not insisting and ignoring.

(after FZ: There is a difference between kneeling down and bending over.)

Forgive me if I'm dense but I don't see where the difference is, unless you are suggesting that licensing terms are "à la carte": you get to pick what matters?

For the sake of clarity I hold no particular opinion on the many arguments I've read in the previous comments: while I'm disappointed this run won't happen, the arguments exposed here all have some merits and in the end it's no big deal (that it's not happening).

But your comment about "not insisting on licensing terms" I find very disturbing, both as a licensor (of my own work) and a licensee (of others') myself.

 

Posted

It would be great if you just took the time to read and quote properly: to be a bit more clear for you, the "not insisting on licensing terms" actually was "not wasting your time insisting on licensing terms". See the difference? To be extra clear what that means: Stop whining (and do some creative work yourself).

Posted

Yeah well. I'm not a native speaker and your wording was kind of elusive, if you don't mind me saying.

"Don't waste your time insisting on the TAPR license" could be understood as "don't waste your time insisting on the TAPR license [because we don't care about it (the license)]". Hence my surprise. Seems what you were saying is "it is your right to try to enforce the TAPR but it wouldn't be the most productive use of your time", and I guess we can all agree on that :)

Posted
On 28.11.2016 at 4:41 PM, ilmenator said:

I'd say don't waste your time insisting on the TAPR license, instead go create a new version PCB yourself if you need one, even if it is not likely to be at the same level.

If you look at the complete sentence I wrote (quoted above for convenience), I don't see how this could be understood as "we don't care about the license".

5 minutes ago, BulletZ said:

Seems what you were saying is "it is your right to try to enforce the TAPR but it wouldn't be the most productive use of your time", and I guess we can all agree on that :)

Absolutely :)

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ilmenator said:

If you look at the complete sentence I wrote (quoted above for convenience), I don't see how this could be understood as "we don't care about the license".

It's probably my paranoid bias of seeing too many people on the internet using other people's work and completely ignoring the license this work was published under. Apologies for over-reacting ;)

Edited by BulletZ

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...