Why do we need this now?
Why do we need to have open source model files?
These checkmarks are before you select your licensing… and it allows you to still select the SDFL license.
2 Likes
HEY ZUES Christophe!
thats how you could block OpenSCAD source code downlaod, but I wonder why do we see this with STLs???
I came on here to ask what on earth this checkbox is for. Is it a mistake? Is it actually marking it “Open Source” or is it a mistranslation? 
1 Like
They updated the language. I hate fine print.
It allows people to download model files. But you can always export from the 3mf, so what difference does it make.
Fine print indeed. I missed it the first time.
MakerWorld fine print:
Check off the open source, users will not be able to download raw models.
Why…why would you upload it if they can’t download it??
Also, “open source” implies “hey, remix this! sell it! share it!” - none of which I would like users to do. I would like them to be able to get the stripped-down 3mf that I prep for Studio instead of a print profile that might be optimized for a specific scenario.
Either way, whatever MakerWorld’s purpose for this checkbox, this is really really poorly worded.
I’m checking the box for now because I’d rather the users get the file I made for them but it doesn’t mean I like it 
1 Like
Is there more on the fine print about the “Open Source” checkbox? I searched around, but this is the only post I could find regarding it.
It just bad wording.
Unchecking the “open source” box stops users from downloading the model files from a model.
You can only open it in Bambu Studio or print from handy. Though this still defeats the purpose when you can output the model files from the 3mf.
1 Like
Is opening from the Bambu Studio link and then saving the model locally possible? This feels like a the first step towards a DRM feature for models so users can’t actually save the model to a local file.
In software, open source includes source, and the right to modify and re-publish. If you only get to look at the code (e.g. for debugging or optimising your app that calls their code), you have a source code access license.
my definition of source for 3d print includes “source cad files” and not just STEP. Getting a complex parametric step without source cad is like getting compiled binary computer code without source code.
If we ever had to share the source files, I am going to start sharing in Catia V4.
We have lots of tools to obfuscate computer source code, but I have yet to see such technology for CAD files. Does it exist?
What is the use case for this? Well, say that I wish to give someone a parametric model with inputs they can change to reconfigure it - for example a machine part where they can type in particular dimensions to fit their local hardware - but I don’t want to give them the full source files.
Right now I would have setup a website where they can type in a dimension, and my system would generate and send the cad file.
Has any of the expensive professional softwares solved this problem?
(I use the maker license of solidworks, haven’t ever seen the full version)
edit Also I don’t want to obfuscate my CAD files at all, I am more asking in general about how this issue is resolved in the industry, mostly out of curiosity.
Not that I know of. The closest thing is encryption and keys through license numbers. For example, If I shared a SW file from my work computer to my personal computer, I would not be able to open it because the security block comes through.
But that is why I mention Catia V4. It is an obscure software at this point. The only way to open the file is to have that version.
Maker version is the same thing as the SW Pro edition. You are not missing much.
I differ in this opinion. I want to obfuscate my CAD files.
You have to be careful with your personal information. And if you are going to share something, make sure you understand what you are sharing. For example, when the licensing verification goes through in SW, it will log your IP address in the metadata.
Yes I assumed your mention of catia was a refernce to obfuscation.
I don’t know real numbers but programs like catia probably have more users one might think but they are all stuck in niche industries that don’t talk much.
in software i learned this. Tech company programmers talk a LOT about their projects, what they are working on, post their code online, give talks etc. You would be forgiven for thinking that they are the majority of programmers. Only they aren’t. You add up all the small shops making “boring” software for dentists etc etc and there is the real (silent) majority. Simialr with programming languages. C++ javscript Python have lots of talk and traffic, but there is so much old COBOL code still running all the power stations, only no-one talks about it. Though by now I think the numbers for lines of code may be more evenly balanced.