Item — HN Reader

Yes, it's open only to the customers, as GPL requires:

Selling Free Software <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html>

> Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.

> Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

You can buy only the firmware package as well, without the device. I'll send you the instruction on how to configure everything and which hardware modifications are required.

1 comments

Selling non-free software under a GNU license != open source. The title will be misleading to most people. Nothing wrong with charging for your software, but you shouldn't call it open source.

Edit: Apparently I misread the title.

If you're implying something, then please get your thoughts across more clearly. The title says "profit goes to open-source", meaning CUPS, SANE, AirSane projects, which are FOSS (free and open-source), if the publicly available code and collaborative development is what you're referring to.

Additional software (web interface, scripts, utilities) is free, the source code is included in the source package.

The customer is provided with the source code of the firmware components, and with the build system based on mkosi[1] to build the complete firmware: starting from bootstrapping Debian 12 builder image which cross-compiles the packages with additional patches and builds additional software, to ARM Debian 12 image with everything compiled in the previous stage, to the final squashfs OS file and MicroSD image.

[1]: https://github.com/systemd/mkosi

Yeah sorry, I misread the title. I used Debian with CUPS on an SBC for something similar, but yours looks way more elegant. This concept is not just for old printers, BTW; a lot of new ones have buggy implementations or can't be trusted on WAN (looking at you HP). Thanks for the reply, wishing you success!

No prob! Hope we'll all get great 2D printer some day, from Framework or other user-facing company!

It's not that impossible than you may think: several Chinese companies have their own domestic laser printers, claiming of in-house components and development (Cumtenn, ZoneWin), and one company does inkjet printers in addition to lasers (Deli Printer).

Will Framework make a printer? No.

https://youtu.be/os_fHy1mB_M?si=0U1ywoRLGXZB0j1T

Is there any method possibility to purchase the software install on my own hardware and/or other payment methods? It is impossibility for self to send money to Russia without «consequences» and crypto is unpleasant KYC to access, much less importation of shipment from RU.

Yep, you'll need an OrangePi Zero 3 board, MicroSD, a button, and some soldering skills. Several options for non-KYC cryptocurrency exchanges exist[1], I also accept PayPal (non-RU account). Mail me!

[1]: https://kycnot.me/?t=exchange&q=&fiat=on

I think the nuance is that OP is charging for hardware , software, and service (firmware customization and support).

With regards to the software, it is open source but OP is only providing the code to customers who receive the end product. In part, OP is acting as a distributor of the software and is charging a fee for that distribution.

If anyone else gets their hands on that software, they can choose to become a distributor and make it publicly available. It’s their freedom to do so.

A overly simple way to look at is is that OP is choosing (as a small part of their business) to charge for the distribution of the source code but not the source itself.

In reality, it’s unlikely that OP will have a customer who only wants the source code and is willing to pay a fee for the distribution of it. Their customers are coming to them for the service and support.

Not OP but I think you're confused: GPL doesn't require source to be made publicly available to all.

You are only required to provide source to the users of your software.

The GPL is an open source license. It does not require that the source be public, just that people who receive the software also are granted the source with the GPL license.