![]() One big stumbling block I see with this whole entry-level CNC is that a lot of the CAM software (in my opinion) is old, crusty, very expensive, and requires dongles and such. This would just make it perfectly legal for someone to, say, make a plugin for something like Blender to produce Shopbot SBP files. ![]() And mostly it's just a gesture, I guess, for it's already all documented and free to use. I'm just thinking it would be the SBP file format. It almost seems that there would have to be a trusted group of programmers in place whose job would be to review and test all additions or modifications who then would send their recommendations on to Shopbot for final approval - after all, in a legal sense, it would seem that Shopbot would still have their head on the chopping block if a liability issue ever arose. To say the least, it would be an interesting job to validate and approve code changes.Īlthough I write all my code under the OpenSource license, which means that anyone who receives a program from me also receives the source code, I'm having a problem seeing how OSI would be managed when it comes to Shopbot code. A large CNC router that suddenly goes 'wacky' could cause a lot of damage, including personal injury. The problem that I see, is that someone would have to manage new additions to the code. Other than letting interested parties see how an instruction translates a command into an axis movement, what do you see as the advantage of opening the code? Would it be to extend the instruction set? Would it be to fix internal bugs? I'm thinking it would be like the PDF file format it's actually open for anyone to use, but Adobe holds the copyright, and makes money by providing really good tools for creating and managing PDFs. The controller software and hardware controller themselves would remain Shopbot's. Now, I'm just saying that the FILE FORMAT for jobs is what could become Open Source. It would make the complaints about 'propitiatory' code go away (or at least become moot) and would encourage folks to make more stuff that works with our wonderful machines.Īlso it could be a big marketing thing, for it would go along with the 'open' spirit of Shopbot and it's encouragement for us to 'hack' our own machines, and get a lot of good press. What releasing the Shopbot Code format under an Open Source license would do is let anyone add to their software the ability to generate Shopbot-ready code. This is why, for example, Microsoft Windows XP and prior site in the Copyright information that they use some code from the University of Berkeley, for some of the networking code came from BSD, a form of Unix made by that University and released under such an Open Source license. ![]() Some licenses are totally Open, in that one can do whatever they want with the code, and others are more limited, requiring anyone to makes additions to give those additions back to the creator of the original thing, or requiring those who use the code to site that they are doing so publicly. Open Source is where you release the specifications and usage of a bit of software or format under a license that allows others to freely use it under certain terms. But still, for some folks, this seems to be some kind of an issue.Īlso pair this with along with (what I feel is) Shopbot's mission to make entry-level accessible but robust CNC tools for the masses (and hence why they decided to use their own code that's less confusion and easier to use than G-code) then why not make that code Open Source? I know, I know, one can use G-code instead, and the code itself is full specified in the binder and plain text so it's not like it's closed off in any way. other CNC machines is that Shopbot uses 'propitiatory' job code. One factor I see that comes up in discussions about Shopbots vs. ![]() Hey all, been thinking a lot about this lately. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |