I respect that.
When it was brought to my attention that, at least a few people, read something into my OP that was not intended by me, I clarified.
Please, enlighten me as to where in this thread I have threatened GF in any way, or have not clarified my request as being not what some have perceived it to be?
Edit For Clarification: That ^^bold text^^ was directed at the general audience, and not at @rand directly.
I perceive that anytime there is a post that some may consider as even slightly negative towards GF, they derail the post by attacking the poster.
I believe that. Now, convince me otherwise?
Id love for them to do this as well. I also dont think its unreasonable in any way to request this. They agreed they would do this by and when they made use of open source software. I dont understand why anyone is getting in a tizzy about it. You might not understand it, but that doesnt in any way mean its a bad or wrong thing to requestâŚ
Apparently many people here have never actually seen what a formal request for source code looks like.
This is mundane. Done everyday.
Thatâd be my read on it. No biggie in the Open Source world.
Iâm going to guess that part of it is that it was done in a public forum abd not directly to the powers-that-be who actually control the business, the source code, the thing which you are seeking. Making the request in front of hundreds and hundreds of people to share in (99% who have nothing to do with GF other than being a customer)and be a part of therefore was not a typical business request. I am going to hazard a guess that folks might tend to think that it was done on a very public stage in a very public way for reasons other than a simple business request for business information.
The source has to be shared with every customer, so why not ask for it in a forum where we are all customers?
I can see that view.
However, this is not in any way âbusiness informationâ in the normal view of things.
Open Source is very much a âcommunityâ effort. Businesses are certainly a large part of that effort, but it is still a community effort.
Glowforge is a part of that community, as a result of their choice to utilize Open Source software in their products.
View my request as a public outing, if you wish. View it as threat, if you wish.
Yes, it is a public request. But it is also the nature of the path they chose.
I am NOT threatening them. I am NOT trying to make them look bad.
I just want the source code.
there are lots of things to get up in arms over around here. this doesnât seem like one of them. i can see how someone might take scottâs post wrong at first, but given a chance to clarify he did.
/thread (until GF decides to respond). everything else is stereotypical âarguing on the internet.â
Dammit, Jim! Donât quash my ability to argue on the Internet!
Sounds ominous, but as it doesnât contain any threats, name-calling, accusations of nefarious intention, nor snark, Iâd say itâs a well-phrased request in a proper contact channel to Glowforge asking for some movement on releasing information that ought to be released according to open source licensing.
I was thinking along these lines with my request for a peek at how vectors are defaulted to scores or cuts in the GFUI. In my case, I donât know that I have a legal claim to that information, but I do think that Iâm within the boundaries of a customer/business relationship to state my needs in relation to the Glowforge.
I can image that many folks might consider the question of Glowforgeâs long-term viability a matter of âwhenâ and not âifâ. Best get cracking on a home brew version of control software and use all the tools you can to make it easier and quicker.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable request. I see no nefarious elements in this request, itâs a common thing in open source software. And if I recall correctly, something Glowforce promised to the early adopters.
I have to respectfully disagree here.
I think what they offer in terms of âhardwareâ for people that value such things is an incredible fantastic bargain that cannot be found elsewhere.
What they offer in âsoftwareâ for people that value ease of use, and have little need for highly adjustable features, is an incredible fantastic bargain that cannot be found elsewhere.
Those two things can combine (Wonder Twin Powers Activate!) to form a huge community of customers that take advantage of both.
Imagine if the people that are here have an outlet to make the things happen that they are clamoring for. Now, put that into perspective of what Glowforge can use from their Open Source musings.
Glowforge can use them all day long in their CLOUD software (my understanding, not a lawyers) and never have to release it.
They win. Customers win. Advanced users win.
WE ALL WIN.
Company doesnât die. They grow. They bring new products to market.
Dogs, cats, living togetherâŚ
Oh man, i NEVER get a chance to post this⌠thank you, thank you so much!
Do you mean that it isnât accurate to think that people want this information because they think the company will go under,
or do you mean to say that you are not one of the people who are thinking that Glowforge will go under and you would like to add some perspective to your personal request in the lines of, open source information is one of the key value adding aspects of a technology community. The sooner that Glowforge shares what is obligated in terms of open source, the sooner the community can contribute and extend the value of the laser for everyone involved, included and especially added sales of units because there are more features easily used.
Or is there something else I canât decipher at work here?
No, I think that there are some who wish for the demise of GF. For the record, I am not one of them.
YES.
YES
Glad we got that out into the open.
I think that depends on the licence. The GNU Affero license covers cloud software I think.
Concur. Iâm not a lawyer.
But, they will certainly benefit from a large community of active (and activist) developers.
Thatâs a very good perspective! Sometimes the FUD around here makes asking the hard questions hard. What seems like an ominous post is really a move to helping this project succeed.
This helps shape my own understanding of the request for firmware information and other bits and pieces. It does seem that most of these requests are phrased in terms of the demise of Glowforge. In fact, there is an alternate and equally compelling reason to get the information out. In the hands of the community as it works now, any information can increase loyalty and buy in with sharing and putting it to use. My big post about sharing information was thinking through the conditions in decision making to figure out what gives the highest potential for value adding. Donât know what kind of decision modeling is going into this, but it could be that analyzing the cards played versus the cards still in the deck, keeping it close is better strategy. Unless it really is, we arenât devoting the resources to this at the moment because we have more urgent things to take care of.
This is very valid, and completely understood by any OS project Iâve personally known.
As long as it isnât a long-term situation.