🆘 Protect our code

[Oxooxo]

I would like to address an issue that has already been mentioned several times here in the forum, but for which there is still no solution.

I am currently observing three trends on Makerworld:

1. exclusive models
2. parametric models
3. theft of models

Makerworld would like to offer high-quality models that are as unique and exclusive as possible to attract more interested parties to Makerworld and thus to Bambulab. Very understandable.

Model designers can create parametric models with OpenScad, which can then be used by the Makerworld users can then use to create their own variations. This is a benefit for the user.

However, the model designer has to put a lot of work into a parametric model
and runs the risk that others will copy the OpenScad code and use it for their own ideas to make money with it. There is no protection for the model designer’s intellectual property at this point.

The solution is relatively simple:
Model designers must be given the opportunity to store OpenScad files in their own profile.

If a model designer then uploads a parametric model, the model then has access to the known libraries (Bosl2, …) available at Makerworld and additionally to the OpenScad files stored in the profile.
Access to other profiles data is of course not possible.

The parametric model can then load all modules and functions worthy of protection from its own libraries. This protects the intellectual property of the code and many designers will then also offer more
sophisticated modules modules.

For Makerworld, it also has the added benefit that the models are truly exclusive
(if the model designer does not publish them elsewhere), as only a small part (e.g. the parameterisation) is publicly visible.
This should make it really difficult for thieves to copy the model.

What do you think?

• Yes, thats what we need
• No, please not
• I don’t care
• I don’t even know what this is about

[benjaminkott]

Your code is already protected by the license attached to it - the only difference here is that people can see how it´s done. It no difference to sharing Fusion or other source files.

[Oddity3D]

You’re going to get very predictable poll results split between people that know what you’re on about and people that don’t

I voted yes in principle, but it’s protected by whatever the attached licence is… what we need is better policing and enforcing of licencing - which is up to Bambu

[Uhl]

The difference is that providing Fusion or other source files is optional, while providing the OpenSCAD file is mandatory. If I understand the OP correctly, they are advocating for a mechanism that allows creators to decide whether or not to publish the source code, without compromising the functionality.

[benjaminkott]

Well, it´s a choice here. If you use the parametric modelmaker or provide fusion files for customizing. Everyone still has the option to export the step/stl files and only upload them.

If you decide to use the parametric modelmaker we should also see how it´s being done, the same way we need to provide this option with other programs as we ship their sources.

I also want to be able to review the code and report license violations of the included code. If we allow to hide the code, we are not able to evaluate anymore if its original work, or just a copy of someone else’s work, just rebranded - without mentioning the original author.

[benjaminkott]

@Oddity3D

I voted yes in principle, but it’s protected by whatever the attached licence is… what we need is better policing and enforcing of licencing - which is up to Bambu

I agree that we need to protect the authors - but we can only do this if we can read the code and pass reports to @MakerWorld to handle violations.

[Uhl]

@benjaminkott

If you decide to use the parametric modelmaker we should also see how it´s being done, the same way we need to provide this option with other programs as we ship their sources.

I also want to be able to review the code and report license violations of the included code. If we allow to hide the code, we are not able to evaluate anymore if its original work, or just a copy of someone else’s work, just rebranded - without mentioning the original author.

It sounds a bit like a chicken-and-egg problem. In my opinion, if the source code isn’t made publicly available, creating a copy in the first place becomes significantly harder. As a result, there wouldn’t even be a need to review the code. However, I can understand why this approach might not be ideal for proponents of open source. In the end, there probably isn’t a single “best” approach.

[Neiljt]

Does bambulab collect file and printer info that will reinforce any copyright claims
after you upload and print ? aswel as license ?

[MalcTheOracle]

The actual solution required is the option of private code.

When uploading, the ability to choose if the OpenSCAD file is visible to the user and consequently not downloadable at any point.

I have asked many times and the Exclusive program essentially demands it.

Yes, the code is protected under a licence, but, nothing stops someone taking the code tweaking it and calling it their own.

It happens all the time and there is zero protection.

Placing it into the 3MF will not help, that is a ZIP file with a 3mf extension, rename it to zip and take a look inside.

We MUST have the option to upload private code.

I will not put a big OpenSCAD model up anymore because of this missing feature.

I am a veteran professional coder for 35 years. I know about protecting your IP, sharing it and hoping for the best isn’t protecting it.

It can take weeks to create something good, months for something better, giving someone the opportunity to make it their own for free is dangerous.

I will only upload companion code now, something that adds personalisation features, but, nit the base model. This makes it harder for the user as they must combine the work together afterwards rather than a single file.

If o make the perfect solution to something and let code is open, someone else will take it and use it in their desktop to churn out variants with no ability for me to know they are using my work so I can’t get the apparent protection my work should be afforded.

Private OpenSCAD file option is a necessity

@Uhl

However, I can understand why this approach might not be ideal for proponents of open source.

The Standard Digital License isn’t open source, all Exclusive models must be under that license, yet @MakerWorld will not fix the problem they say they need to protect the work people put in.

If a designer includes the source fusion files, that is their choice. If we use the Parametric tool we MUST provide the equivalent of the source files.

[MalcTheOracle]

@Neiljt

Does bambulab collect file and printer info

Almost certainly.

@Neiljt

that will reinforce any copyright claims

Almost certainly not.

Air fryers have mics in them feeding information back to China, at least some shipped to the U.K. do.

Collecting information is guaranteed, for our benefit is almost certainly a different answer.

[benjaminkott]

@MalcTheOracle

If a designer includes the source fusion files, that is their choice. If we use the Parametric tool we MUST provide the equivalent of the source files.

As mentioned, it´s your choice. You don´t have to upload the openscad version.
Thats the same choice the user has that does not upload the fusion sources.

It´s just an interface, the same fusion provides.

[MalcTheOracle]

@benjaminkott

As mentioned, it´s your choice. You don´t have to upload the openscad version

Firstly, that is a strange response, yes you do have to upload an OpenSCAD version to use the parametric tool.

Are you suggesting the parametric tool can be used without any code to instruct it what to do?

I do not know if you are as often happens, purposely confronting.

It is possible you meant…

It is your choice to use the parametric tool.

That also would be a weird statement given the entire conversation is about improving the security of a feature for the authors.

In any case you also seemingly on purpose ignored this part.

@MalcTheOracle

I will not put a big OpenSCAD model up anymore because of this missing feature.

Why you insist on attacking people when they want things to improve is nonsensical, rather than add to the discussion you take away from it.

Why not add to it with a solution that isn’t essentially “Don’t use something, don’t hope for better, don’t suggest improvements, I am right you are all wrong.”

It doesn’t come over politely and there is no need for it.

Do you have any solutions to offer?

@benjaminkott

It´s just an interface, the same fusion provides.

Not even close.

@benjaminkott

I also want to be able to review the code and report license violations of the included code. If we allow to hide the code, we are not able to evaluate anymore if its original work, or just a copy of someone else’s work, just rebranded - without mentioning the original author.

Why do you assume everyone is a criminal?

Should we all be required to submit to showing our papers and searches at your request?

I assume you give away all the design files, source, notes, prototype models and all workings with all your model uploads as well then?

[benjaminkott]

@Uhl

As a result, there wouldn’t even be a need to review the code.

I disagree, we need to also review the code of all publishers, not only the ones that copy the ones already on the platform. If you are using closed source libs, that you are not allowed to distribute - it´s also a violation.

[MalcTheOracle]

@benjaminkott

I disagree, we need to also review the code of all publishers, not only the ones that copy the ones already on the platform. If you are using closed source libs, that you are not allowed to distribute - it´s also a violation.

Why?

Who made you the police and who decided everyone else is guilty of a crime?

Where does it say it can’t be distributed?

Again, consider adding to the conversation rather than taking away from it.

[benjaminkott]

Yes @MalcTheOracle, i again do not share your opinion - and you get ridiculous again.

Best Benji,
OpenSource Developer and Advocate.

[MalcTheOracle]

We can disagree, except you don’t disagree, you demand everyone follows your rules.

We are talking about a feature that exist and could be better.

You say “don’t use it”. Not constructive, yet you say it anyway.

You take away from the conversation rather than add to it.

@benjaminkott

and you get ridiculous again.

You don’t like people calling you on it and so you try to belittle people and ignore their views because they don’t align with yours.

If you can’t see a situation from the other person’s perspective, you shouldn’t engage as that is the indicator of conversation and polite discourse.

@benjaminkott

OpenSource Developer and Advocate.

Good for you. But, your comments here actually denote something different.

OpenSource Developer and Enforcer

Advocate aim to have their views adopted by others, in this thread you are demanding everyone adopt your world view.

I have contributed to OpenSource and created my own OpenSource projects. I have shared some of my code here as well.

But, I am not so closed-minded to believe the entire system can run with open source code.

The world wouldn’t be where it is right now without innovation brought by controlled source solutions.

Nothing you said added to the conversation, unless being rude is something we should count.

You don’t even frame your points as someone actively engaging in the conversation, it is about being rude for you.

You could have said something like.

I come from an OpenSource mindset where keeping things open for people to build on is the preferred way, doing this means benefit 1, benefit 2 & benefit 3. I understand people may disagree.

Instead you chose this approach…

Don’t use if you are nit giving everything away for free, you do not own your code, it is the people’s code, I assume you stole it anyway so you must prove you are innocent as I am the law here and you are guilty.

In truth, the conversation from the OP had nothing to do with the merits of Open vs closed source code, it was about improving things and protecting the efforts of designers.

You came in with you agenda and was disrespectful and dismissive in the process.

Add to the conversations don’t take away from them.

If you reply to this I hope it is a mea culpa rather than another baseless attack, it would be nice to see you adding to the conversation.

[Uhl]

@benjaminkott

I disagree, we need to also review the code of all publishers

What is the key factor driving the need for us [we] to review the code? Who does “we” refer to in this context? Are we, as a community, collectively responsible for ensuring that everyone complies with the law?

I don’t have a personal stake in OpenSCAD projects, but I genuinely want to understand your perspective.

[benjaminkott]

@Uhl

I don’t have a personal stake in OpenSCAD projects, but I genuinely want to understand your perspective.

For me it´s the same as reporting Models that are stolen form MakerWorld and uploaded different platform. It also happens the other way around. You will not find an automatic solution to this - it’s really hard. I think tangs was working on it and this is their base ip.

That means, we also need to treat the IP from others the same way we want ours to be protected. This hard for closed source, only because something is OpenSource - does not mean it is free, it still depends on the license.

Having the Source Available, it is possible to find the original author - if necessary.

Example: If one author claims ownership over the other. It is possible to check who is the legit owner. Is it a copy, was it inspired, was it stolen in the first place?

With code licenses not all licenses are compatible to each other as you know. And if we talk about exclusive rights, this can be counted as commercial interest - that can be forbitten.

If would have found it funny, if one of the QR-Code generators would have claimed copyright over the others, because all of them use the same QR lib, it´s MIT and it allows such usage. They just slapped an interface on it, so the relevant part to judge is not the QR functionality, but the glue code.

[benjaminkott]

@MalcTheOracle STRG + F “Must”

@MalcTheOracle

You say “don’t use it”. Not constructive, yet you say it anyway.

Thats incorrect, i stated that having the code public is good for the following reasons… - and the best way to protect the original Authors.

It´s just not what you wanted to hear.
I am also not the person attacking others here.

[Johnny_Bit]

@benjaminkott

It no difference to sharing Fusion or other source files.

No it’s not. Parametric model maker allows customization within bounds set by the person who wrote the code to generate the model, without the need for any external software. A person wanting to customize such design doesn’t have to learn OpenSCAD nor any other software outside of the tools provided by MakerWorld.

@benjaminkott

If you use the parametric modelmaker or provide fusion files for customizing.

This is incorrect assumption about equivalence of those tools. Fusion is totally different software with a learning curve to it, requires separate account and afaik it’s not available on linux.

@benjaminkott

If you decide to use the parametric modelmaker we should also see how it´s being done, the same way we need to provide this option with other programs as we ship their sources.

You know that apps like the Fusion you mentioned do not ship sources and if you get them somehow, Autodesk lawyers will make you wish you didn’t

@benjaminkott

I also want to be able to review the code and report license violations of the included code.

In terms of parametric model maker using openscad - if the source is hidden and not available for others to read, there’s no chance for others to copy it verbatim. Reverse-engineering openscad script code based on params and generated model is more time consuming than writting something similar from scratch.

@MalcTheOracle

Private OpenSCAD file option is a necessity

@benjaminkott

It´s just an interface, the same fusion provides.

Totally different and as I’ve mentioned Fusion is totally different product with learning curve and a lot of additional hoops one has to go through.

@benjaminkott

For me it´s the same as reporting Models that are stolen form MakerWorld and uploaded different platform.

Closed-source openscad script, if properly hidden by makerworld’s customizer, would make copying it impossible. Sure, one could write similar thing from scratch, but then it’s original creation.

Quite honestly your argument falls apart: if the code is properly hidden, there’s nothing to copy.