YouMagine

Information Comments Technical Files

Comments

You need to be signed in before commenting.

MakeThings3D

about 8 years

And for the Ultimaker 2 plus?

Tanner Wilcox

over 8 years

Has anyone actually built this? And if so how much did it cost you?

wyojustin

almost 9 years

WyoLum is a company of Open Hardware boosters. We love and believe in the power of Open Hardware. We have purchased 3 Ultimaker 2's believing that they were Open and now we feel betrayed by Ultimaker. After all, Ultimaker would not exist if their predisessors were as short sighted and offer Open Licencing with commercial privileges. Now Lutzbot is the clear choice for Open Hardware supporters. We would like a refund on 3 Ultimakers 2s!

renegrande

over 9 years

Since no license is ever signed you are free to reverse engineer any product for commercial (for profit) purposes. At least in North America. Unless Ultimaker has a patent protection. Really they benefited from open source initially but now they have put a lot of effort into it and dont want to share - makes perfect sense. Maybe I will do the cad drawings for a ultiopen 2 and post them lol.

renegrande

over 9 years

Since no license is ever signed you are free to reverse engineer any product for commercial (for profit) purposes. At least in North America. Unless Ultimaker has a patent protection. Really they benefited from open source initially but now they have put a lot of effort into it and dont want to share - makes perfect sense. Maybe I will do the cad drawings for a ultiopen 2 and post them lol.

mutrax

over 9 years

Dani, defenition of source is "origin" ( you can look it up in a dictionairy). Open, to open, means making accesible. So make the originals available. However, ultimakers desicion to have neutral exports available is absolutely , undeniable pure awsomeness; they are however, per defenition NOT<b><u></u></b> open source!<div><br></div><div>I don't know how familiar you are with open source, but it very clearly defined what is or isn't in various licences (gpl being the most known, but there are tons more).</div><div><br></div><div>Ultimaker would benefit releasing these files under a descent os licence, because most licenses state that deravatives should be released under the same conditions. This way they would protect themselves from not being able to benefit from improvements, made by third parties.</div><div><br></div><div>Because open sourcing doesn't mean per definition, "having others run off with your ideas and enable them to make cheap knock-offs". Open sourcing means, I have a great product, and I want you consumer / Prosumer / machinebuilder to be able to take my designs and do your improvements. Agreed, you wil l lose some customers to cheap knock offs (chinese companies will copy you ,open or not). But you will also gain customers for incorporating all those great ideas that have been omitted to the source, and thus , staying ahead and above the curve, and always being able to sell the next gen machine REALLY worth buying!</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers!</div>

Dani Epstein

over 9 years

I think that the complainers are barking up the wrong tree, or are incredibly naive. "Open Source" can mean just about whatever anyone decides it means. Just because opensource.org describes it one way does not make that description canonical. They are not the pope. Secondly, creative commons licences are commonly regarded as opensource. So, by those standards, Ultimaker have done really well. Opensource does not mean having to share your Solidworks file, your chair or your sandwiches. It simply means that the component data - what makes up the machine - is publicly available. Ultimaker have done that. The purpose of opensource is not for one company to pay for all the research and then hundreds of competitors spring up to take advantage of that and make cheaper machines. That's a ridiculous idea that will instantly stifle any kind of commercially funded research, and it's that kind of research that makes Ultimaker instead of RepRaps. Nothing wrong with RepRaps, but Ultimaker plays Ferrari to RepRap's Ford. Even if we were to agree that Ultimaker did not really go open source (and I dispute that thoroughly), you do have to realise that the opensource movement in the hardware department is still rather wet behind the ears. What you are accomplishing by whining is simply scaring off anyone to go opensource. So, don't whine. If anything, make a funny comment that gets the message home and leave it at that. I will try to think of one for you. Tried, but sadly failed.

Jelle_just_me

over 9 years

Patola, I share your opinion here. Even more damning is that UM refuses to release the Solidworks files to all these files are derived off. So calling this source files is a again a distortion of the truth. The problem is that most people don't care, if they know the term open source they think it means 'free to download'. Ultimaker Employees get downright hostile, start to lie or hurl abuse when you point this out.

Patola

over 9 years

I am also complaining due to the incorrect description of the license. "NC" means non-commercial and that is far away from the open-source philosophy and motto. Open source does not necessarily means free of charge, but it does necessarily means free TO charge, that is, commercial use should be allowed. This is not nitpicking. This is completely frustrating all the open-source philosophy. While I think it's still nice that they make the design available for one to build at home, at least they should use a honest description. The current one is not.

mutrax

almost 10 years

Awesome... I'm just getting my pinkytoe wet on the 3d printing (have experience in cnc milling though). Super content with the purchase! Are you guys concidering on open sourcing the solidworks source CAD data?

Blah

almost 10 years

I can't believe some of you are nitpicking the description. Good for you Ultimaker for for even releasing this amount of information.

LiuheZhiwai

almost 10 years

I see.Thangks!

bobc

about 10 years

CC BY-NC is not an Open Source license, so it is incorrect to describe the files as open source.

LiuheZhiwai

about 10 years

i like! but i cant find CAD lasercut files or that said 3D Files here.

bld

about 10 years

I appreciate your sharing of the design files. Note that "non-commercial" licenses are not open source according to the historical definition of the term: http://opensource.org/osd Open source specifically grants all uses (commercial or otherwise) to encourage widespread adoption & investment people other than the creators, because they can benefit - financially or otherwise - in their efforts to improve the design. I understand that you are running a business and reluctant to grant full open source rights. Please consider a description other than "open source", because that term means something very specific to many of us.

yzorg

almost 10 years

"Ultimaker 2 open source design files"<br>But... without the actual Lasercutting SVG files its not quite possible to build a "UM2"<br><br>github is complex.. im unable to locate and download it from there.

JBainesy

about 10 years

There's no doubt that Ultimaker have smoked the 'closed source competition', again :-) It's either proof that open source develops much faster or that the people at Ultimaking have god-like engineering abilities (or both! :-P)

mpatoulachik

about 10 years

Dear Ultimaker, You rock! All of you at Ultimaking. Thank you for showing the world (and the other company) that Open Source / Open Hardware works as a business model and gives fantastic products!

IronGland

over 10 years

Truly men (and woman?) of their word. Thanks for sticking to your guns ultimaker team! You guys are freaking awesome.

JBainesy

over 10 years

Awesome! Source files! Thanks Ultimaker! :-)

Bert-Jan Walker

over 10 years

Thanks for sharing this!! I am the lucky owner of an Ultimaker-2 and am wondering if there's an exploded view available as well.