Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts

jeremie

Member
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About jeremie

  • Birthday 01/01/2015

Personal Information

  1. OK, I leave it to Ghostkeeper who seems to be involved -- at least it looks like I did not posted a redundant entry on github.
  2. OK thanks (you are as reactive as usual!!) I was unable to spot it in github so I had filed https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/5251 You may want to close it as well then
  3. Found it! It seems to have no effect in Cura Application "Monitor", but it works in Cura Connect (below)
  4. The corresponding global setting is posted as a feature request here https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/5250
  5. Cura 4.0.0-BETA / ubuntu18.04.1 LTS / UM3 third party filament (Protopasta CFPLA) print over network Previously, it complained also about the filament not being recognized (no NFC), but I just had to go and confirm on the Printer itself before it allowed printing. Now, Cura 4 "monitor" tells about it explicitly "Requires configuration changes", which is a very welcomed addition. So I thought I could tell it to proceed without having to go and click on the printer. However, clicking on the "Override" button of the popup in the MONITOR panel seems to have no effect at all (no change to the interface nor the printer) worse, I cannot find the option anymore on my printer (IIRC with Cura 0.3.5 the printer only displayed a warning and I just had to confirm to start printing) So What I am doing wrong? How shall I proceed to bypass this (zealous) test, in Cura or on the UM3 ? I really wish there was a "global setting" somewhere to avoid warnings about "unknown" materials completely (if it does not know it should not be that annoying imho). I will post a FR in github for the latter. Now I am back at finding what I need to tell Cura and my printer so it eventually is willing to print 😕
  6. jeremie

    Ultimaker files its first patent

    As with Trump before the election, I think I will shut up from now. Things are done and assumed (including on my side). My intent was only to bring under the sun what I really consider a problem. I do not care much if I received mixed answers (including insults!), even though I really only wanted to be constructive. I am unsure if/how it will evolve for now, but at least I feel less lonely when people like Rich, @Pearce, @ultiarjan or even Olson says the move is not as obviously positive for the Open-Source, as stated officially... or that there is at least bullshit in the press release. Sorry @nallath, you are free to feel and defend the official, published point of view, but today is not yet the day when I consider patents "good for the community" Cheers all
  7. jeremie

    Ultimaker files its first patent

    Thanks Sander, I would have better heard it this way in the first place. I am not condemning Ultimaker and I did not, but I felt it was incorrectly justified: the "press release" was probably specifically thought for and aimed at your community since professional/business customers have less issues with patents. Of course it does mean you care about the community (you would be foolish not to!). But then, talking to the community could have been more direct instead of this corporate bs where the company strategical choice is presented as fundamentally positive for everyone. Every move is a trade-off, and may be more as a company. It is both Ultimaker's own right and choice to do so, but it has to assume its business/strategical choice. E.g. it was, may be, the "best choice" you could come with with the perspecting of growing bigger and targeting the prosumer/professional market. The trade off is that the company will be less friendly to hackers, one way or another. Talking about "IP" is already significant. Note that I am NOT an Open-Source zealot, and that I regularly help clients apply for patents... Sure, I dislike them (as probably all of us here), and I often recommend against them, but I agree there are some cases where they make sense. E.g. some start-ups would not even get funding without a patent. Still, I would have better hear it the way you present it here, say, at least with one "but" in the sentence Thanks again.
  8. jeremie

    Ultimaker files its first patent

    BTW: I just discovered that my own use of "slippery slope" is itself a fallacy, oops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ or, for an even longer read than my posts, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
  9. jeremie

    Ultimaker files its first patent

    And to answer to nallath answer here: And please do tell, how would the +-7 full time engineers on Cura be paid if there is no business? I sure as hell won't spend 40 hours a week developing open source software (as much as I would love to, but i also have a morgage to pay). Sorry to be blunt but your reply is a raw fallacy: you want me to sound like I do not want Ultimaker to do business (and in turn, you sound like patents are the only way to pay people!?). But Ultimaker did and does a great job at finding money to pay its employees and even hire more! Personal mortgages are quite irrelevant to justify patents And it is all due to its attitude. Well deserved, but risky when it starts filing patents, that's mostly all I wanted to say. So you're telling me that because it does not provide a 100% protection, it provides no protection? Thats a bit of a strange claim to make. If you look at companies that hold the most 3D printing patents, you will find that those are practicing entities. You are right that having a patent does not protect against patent trolls. But right now at least Ultimaker (and by extension, the things we do for / with you) is more protected than before. You are right on this point, I was over-simplistic (it was not written as such in my blog, btw). To be more precise, some or many patent wars are ignited by patent trolls (since this is their very business). Against them, there is just no chance to defend with another patent since they cannot infringe it (they produce nothing). This is the worst counter-example, I admit it. But super large old companies like Stratasys or 3D systems are themselves close to be patent trolls on some aspect of their business (see the Afina lawsuit at the time, eg.), so I am quite skeptical it would really give some ground against them (since they mostly have all the other patents anyway!). You are aware that we've been "slapping" people around with intelectual property for some time right? The only reason why we can enforce people to be AGPL, is because we have IP on the code. Now we have IP on a technological feature and have stated that as long as you use it open source we will not sue you. Could you explain to me why you feel that this is different? I'd like to invite you to read my posts about this subject again. I've been involved with this process a long time and fully side with the decision to apply patents (even though I believe that patents are evil!). Your blog post is simplification of how patents work and are used. I am not sure I get the argument here. BTW, makers are completely out of scope since they mostly have no care/use/threat from patents at all (so saying you would not sue them or me is misleading: you most probably cannot!). What is problematic is if I want to start selling printers with innovative designs, I will have to check Ultimaker's own patents just like those of 3D systems from now on, this doe not sound pretty to me. The original patents really were the cause of such huge delay! If someone like Prusa Research re-use and/or improves your patent, will he be safe? And Zortax, and 3D systems (this is not my arguments, I read it somewhere)... May be I would better stop spending time on this. I just wanted to add a voice that says this may not be as obviously good for everyone as it is officially told. I would have preferred "let us try to patent some stuff, and we try to stay friendly and open: here is a trust we give the patent to, which legal binding is that anyone can apply, but it has to offer its own set of patents". This would be so much nicer imho. I remember people talking a lot about it when makerbot started to patent stuff years ago. Sure, it costs money, but the members would also benefit from a much better protection umbrella, by sharing their patents.
  10. jeremie

    Ultimaker files its first patent

    Huh. Sorry but I certainly did remove no comment, I have never done so (but for occasional spam: neither Nallath nor Jaimie were ever spammers). For a few hours, the G+ comments were "disconnected" from blogger (and I consequently added a link to them, until they returned -- don't ask why..). Check e.g. Jaimie's useful answer, it is still there. But we would better grow up altogether and avoid personal attacks, right? I mostly say that "trust" or "faith" have no legal binding... contrary to patents which are basically weapons, and dubious at the ethics. And I wrote it: I trust Ultimaker and its founders right now. But I do not trust the risky game they play, that is it. I also understand why they play it. And I bet there are people at Ultimaker who disagree... and a real lot of people that prefer to keep their mouth shut, because of a weird "taboo" around all this. If you do not like my blog, write your own, or check, e.g. Rich's own opinion ( ). I think HE is way more a pillar in the community than the vast majority of us here and he very well knows about open source and open innovation.Also, once again I like Ultimaker. I like what they did and I really like they grew to a big company. But my opinion is that there are so many wrong ways to patent and use patents that this is a slippery slope. And PLEASE correct me where I am wrong or "naive", am I willing to fix my own mistakes. But I have my own cold mind & analysis. We talk of facts, not smoke :/ Again if ever any of Nallath comments was removed from my blog, DO please send it to me again (if still somewhere). My post, or rant as you call it, is only a reminder and an opinion. I took time to think and to write about it (sorry then if I do long posts), and you should not read my post as insulting to anyone. BTW: I quite often write official R&D documents for startups, regarding their own IP, or for helping them raise funds and grants. Yes, this is part of my job. I may be idealistic, but I am not naive... Dare I say it? ... contrary to people who revert to terms like "believe" or "past attitude" imho. We are talking of business practices and economy, not faith. And who knows what's next?
  11. jeremie

    Ultimaker files its first patent

    "Ultimaker won't change?" What I really dislike is the bullshit that goes with the news. E.g. what the heck are you talking about when you write "[applying for patents] also keeps our community engaged and excited. We want to keep innovating, so our users can keep innovating too! That’s what an open source community is all about.". And there are other great news: you will not sue me as a contributor: "If you’re an individual user or contributor, you don’t need to worry, as these patents will not affect you.". When a company files patents, it is trying to protect its own intellectual property and its own economic viability. It is certainly not doing so to protect the community nor the makers at all. Tell the truth, please. I can understand a lot, but I do not understand PR bullshit :/ BTW there is simply no such thing as a "defensive patent". It does not protect at all against "non-practicing entitites" since they produce nothing. It was becoming too long to post here so I wrote in length on my blog: http://www.tridimake.com/2017/03/ultimaker-patents-and-PR-bullshit.html Le me state I like that UM became a prosperous company in the end, espcially compared to Makerbot. But this move is more than slippery, given how it is justified in my opinion :/
  12. jeremie

    Ultimaker Wiki - Cura plugins

    Hi guys, old timer here. Any news on official support for plugins? I have written a new one for color-mixing with a diamond hot end, but I still find no place to publish it :/ See https://ultimaker.com/en/resources/16589-plugins AFAIK years ago the wiki was shot down but still no replacement is in place. Google still points to nowhere or to the main useless page.
  13. Well it is not the same at all... I had no question, I just had a new plugin to make available to the "average joe" for him to download. Sure I could post it somehow in the forum (well, if I can upload python code or if I put it on my own servers -- no good in both cases). Using github is smart... for developers. It is not user friendly unless the list gets automatically propagated to some other place. I mean, when you search for "cura plugin" on google, we should end on the appropriate place, and if it settles on github, 90% of the users that only expected an easy download will flee away screaming instead of cloning the repository
  14. Thanks! I did not want to make such an guess... I'm probably living too much on G+ and not enough here Ideally, it could redirect to a warning or something instead of a white page... at least so you don't have to reply to questions like this one
  15. Whenever I try to edit something, including a new or an existing page, I get a blank page. I wanted to document a new little plugin I wrote for Cura, and improve a little bit the howto page, no way! Eg. http://wiki.ultimaker.com/index.php?title=CuraPlugin:tmp&action=edit I am running Chrome Version 47.0.2526.80 (64-bit) on Linux Kubuntu 14.04.3 LTS
×

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!