http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/tech/2F5C3C5D68A380EDCC257423006E71CD
A 3D duplicator called RepRap, released under GPL, aiming to make a version that can replicate itself.
This will be the point at which hardware patents become as damaging to innovation as software patents are.
We really need to get the hard thinking about our rights in regard to such devices now rather than later. Has RMS had anything to say on the subject?
(cc'd to Mr Stallman for his attention)
- d.
On Thursday 10 April 2008, David Gerard wrote:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/tech/2F5C3C5D68A380EDCC257423006E71CD
A 3D duplicator called RepRap, released under GPL, aiming to make a version that can replicate itself.
...
Thanks for the link.
Well... time for a Free Hardware Foundation? ;)
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:33:55AM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/tech/2F5C3C5D68A380EDCC257423006E71CD
A 3D duplicator called RepRap, released under GPL, aiming to make a version that can replicate itself.
This will be the point at which hardware patents become as damaging to innovation as software patents are.
Not necessarily. Self replication is an important feature, but the economics of matter and information are still very much different.
A 3D printer consumes resources and generates waste in a way different from a program. You can modify a program because there is no cost in making a modified copy or erasing the old version (other than a little energy and human effort). You can't change the 3D objects you already printed (I think). You don't have an infinite supply of printing matter or an infinite capacity for producing waste. But you do have an infinite supply of bits you can freely modify and discard. That and more physical constraints affect the way 3D printers can scale compared with software.
If the inherent properties are different, the philosophical consequences may be different. In particular the usefulness of patents. I don't see why you would have less research and development costs in hardware because of 3d printers (but maybe you would). On the other hand you could come to the conclusion that the whole patent system is disfunctional in an information society, because the cost of keeping it working well outset the benefits once the information society reduces the costs of learning, collaboration, sharing, etc., also for technical knowledge, and if that would be true it wouldn't probably depend on self replicating 3d printers.
It may be more interesting to think about free hardware designs than free hardware itself, even with a self replicating 3d printe5Br.
But of course there's food for thought with such a development. Starting by understanding the development itself.