> Open Printer will use the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license for all of its files, including electronics and mechanical design files, firmware code, and the bill of materials. We hope that people will be able to repair, upgrade, and contribute improvements to their printers.
It's a nice hope, but they've conveniently banned being able to pay someone else to make parts for you, which will make it harder. Also, not Open Source. (Shared Source is still better than proprietary, but it's not F/OSS.)
>NC licenses do not qualify as “open licenses” under the Open Definition, and works licensed under an NC license are not considered Free Cultural Works
Seems like a reasonable license for someone who wants to sell their printer, but also publish the designs to allow for repair and for modifications to be shared by the community.
It's totally a reasonable license. It just isn't an Open Source license. There's nothing wrong with that. Not everything needs to be Open Source. But it's a little bit misleading to label something as such and then use a license that very explicitly isn't.
It would be annoying for me to use paper with such strange dimensions. 8.5 x 11, 11 x 17, etc are much easier measurements for me to remember. The root 2 thing with European paper is pleasing though.
As a European, I have no clue what's the dimensions of A4, A5, etc. We just say A4. I don't think that laymen, like me, know anything about their real size, and I never had a problem not knowing it.
Its mathematically derived. A0 is exactly 1m2 in area. The side lengths are at a ratio of sqrt(2), that means you can cut any A paper size in half and get the size below it. B series are the same ratio, but B0 has a width of 1m instead.
Agree, I had to look it up as well. I can memorize A4 and A3 easily, but A5 is already counter-intuitive. It's an aspect ratio that's kept, so that's why the numbers don't add up easily.
With the paper in front of me it's easier, fold, double, you can navigate across all levels of A(n) quickly. All it takes is seeing this single graphic for a split second and you know all the DIN A-sizes, but the US sizes not. I enjoy the US Letter format though as a size, it feels somehow better than A5 as it's more square.
If you fold A4 in half you get A5, and if you double up A4 you get A3. They are all the same exact proportions.
US sizes don't work like that; the closest thing to A3 here doesn't have the same proportions as the closest thing to A4. Which absolutely sucks if you are designing a poster and need to make it bigger or smaller.
With international A sizes you can reuse the same design for any size. That's why I like them.
While I think NC is a terrible license, hasn't it been settled in court that you can hire someone to produce CC-BY-NC material? You can't run a business selling the material, but you can be hired to produce it.
So what workarounds could be had? Contractor business where you hire someone for a few hours to make it for you? Business that sells something else at an elevated price but gives a CC-BY-NC material gift with every purchase?
That's fine, it's also not recognized by the FSF, DFSG, any BSD, or anyone else credible. Mostly because those "beneficial and spiritually open licenses" are in fact not beneficial or spiritually open, existing specifically to limit what users can do and cripple the community's ability to do anything the original vendor doesn't like or that might undercut their ability to make money.
It still would mean a company cannot really offer to do repairs for you, wouldn’t it? They’d have to be able to prove that none of their employees looked at the design documents, ever.
CC licenses aren't viral in that way. I can write a CC BY-NC instruction and repair manual for a Ford Prefect, and a professional mechanic can use the information contained within to help them fix Ford Prefects. The NC aspect of the license just means they can't sell the repair manual, charge for entrance to a dramatic reading of the repair manual, etc: it doesn't apply constraints beyond an All Rights Reserved design doc from any other manufacturer.
So if Ford were to publish full schematics for the Perfect under a CC-NC license would it be permissible for a third party to use that in order to offer (commercial, for profit) manufacturing and assembly? Honest question, because I'm not clear where the line for these printers sits.
Off the top of my head (keeping in mind it's years since I last researched this), patent and trademark law are what prevents people cloning someone else's machine from the spec. So unless there are patents, I don't think you'd have a problem.
I was thinking "where do I order?" but then realized it's not actual OSH (Open Source Hardware) but just a publicity stunt.
This is a textbook case where the headline should be editorialized as it contains misinformation, and many are only ever gonna read the headline.
Once, a long time ago. Richard Stallman was pissed off at an hostile printer. We got Free Software just because. Yet the printer problem remains unsolved.
I still hope somebody, somewhere, will eventually get it done and commoditize printing forever, riding us of the mafia which is printer makers.
Inkjet printer makers sell printers way below cost of production, making the money on the ink.
There will always be enough people who would buy a $129 printer and postpone the reckoning in ink, instead of buying a $329 printer that can print reams using cheap bulk ink.
(Laser printers are superior anyway, unless you print photos.)
A new inkjet-- especially if you're not getting a photo-optimized one-- isn't doing that much technically different from a 20-year-old one. You don't need 4800DPI and rich six-ink photo finishes if all you're asking for is one four-colour pie chart in a 20-page report, so you don't need to be at the edge of premium technology here.
So why can't they just keep manufacturing a 20-year-old DeskJet, using long-amortized tooling and fully-worked-out mechanicals, but with a new controller board to replace parallel with USB/Ethernet/Wi-fi?
In the mid 2000s, there was a model of inkjet printer that came with full size ink cartridges. It was usually priced "on sale" for less than the price of a new set of ink cartridges. Meaning if you did a normal amount of printing, it was more economically viable to buy a new printer every every few months and throw the old one away than it was to buy replacement cartridges.
It revealed a lot about the incentive structure of the inkjet printer market.
In my understanding it should be fine to make parts to order and charge for that, but I may be wrong. What definitely isn’t covered is making parts in advance (anonymously) and sell them later with a profit.
Selling any parts or upgrades by third parties will be heavily limited by the BY-NC-SA 4.0. You could not build the printer and use it in a small company office.
The non-commercial clause is not only unnecessary (who is going to mass market it?), but license also means firmware is proprietary software, it absolutely is not Open Source. Sad to see even seemingly user approached projects building on foundations they misuse the terms of.
It's horrible and useless. An "open source" printer should allow someone to open a factory and mass produce them. I shouldn't have a dependency on the designer on something marketed as open source. That's no different than normal. You could never reasonably prevent people from making one-offs anyway, not that it's cost-efficient, or would ever be worth doing.
Attribution license it. Name it TheOpenPrinter@Patreon.com and force manufacturers to engrave it on each one. Don't pull nonsense. Crowdfunding imo sounds like they're planning to be unsuccessful at actually making them, and just to make a living off failing to make them for a year or two.
How about just getting the design tight, modular, and small-shop ready, and not even attempting to mass produce them? Leave that to the experts.
An "open source" printer should allow someone to open a factory and mass produce them.
No?
That's only according to your definition of open source. There are others, some restricting competition, some restricting certain usage like military, some restricting certain countries...
We can argue about those restrictions, but such a bold claim as "it's useless" sounds impulsive (my first though was harsher).
A definition the people who wrote the licence agree with
> NC licenses do not qualify as “open licenses” under the Open Definition, and works licensed under an NC license are not considered Free Cultural Works.
> That's only according to your definition of open source
No, words mean things. Open Source precludes restrictions on field of use or commercialization, and no credible organization (OSI, DFSG, FSF, Creative Commons, any of the BSDs) claims otherwise.
OK I see where you stand. Like you, I do not like to see some product being touted as "open" just because you can see some lines of code that are made unusable by not providing some important missing pieces, or obscured, or for whatever other mechanism.
Words have indeed a meaning, but that meaning is not purely decided by some organisation, steering cometee or authority, but by what idea they evoque to those who use them. Refer to the old debate about "free software" vs "open source" [0]: almost the same technical definition, but quite different meaning.
Most "fake" open source products are produced by companies who are fundamentaly unwilling to cooperate because they want to keep the possibility to milk customers once they have succesfully attracted investors.
I might be wrong, but I have the feeling that this is a very different scenario, if only because the potential for becoming filthy rich by selling printer parts seems slim. I believe they genuinely want to empower users, without working for free for some industrial company that could just exploit the design without contributing anything back. Empowering the user meets the definition of open source for me.
I wish we would not be so harsh against good-spirited creators because they miss to check all the boxes of the official definition of open source (tm). Maybe I'm too idealistic, wouldn't be the first time.
> I might be wrong, but I have the feeling that this is a very different scenario, if only because the potential for becoming filthy rich by selling printer parts seems slim. I believe they genuinely want to empower users, without working for free for some industrial company that could just exploit the design without contributing anything back.
And yet, the one thing they've done is ensured that nobody can ever compete with them commercially. Even if we were to accept that making and selling the thing isn't contributing (I disagree), they could just use a share-alike license so that any improvements are also released back to the community. Heck, in that situation the original folks could take 3rd party improvements and sell them. But they didn't. I lack your optimism; I think if someone was trying to just make money and milk customers this is exactly how it would look.
> Empowering the user meets the definition of open source for me.
> I wish we would not be so harsh against good-spirited creators because they miss to check all the boxes of the official definition of open source (tm).
Yeah, the problem is exactly that this hurts users. Sure, individual DIY-savvy folks can replace parts or even make improvements, but it can never scale up. It's like saying that Windows is an open system because users can install programs that modify how it works a bit... so long as they never sell those improvements. It intentionally cripples the ecosystem. (I probably argued this better at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45470111 )
It's the neverending debate between pragmatists and maximalists. Used to be a maximalist, but also used to see my favored causes tank and sink all the time. I do not believe there is clear winner for every situation.
What we should be convinced of though is that there are better ways to push for more openness than to shame the authors. Not sure that's what you intended to do but that's how the negative reception sounded to me.
There are advantages - just look at the 3d printer landscape. Having companies making these and selling them breeds a huge ecosystem around upgrades, drives down prices, and makes it easy for anyone to use the device because it lowers the barrier to entry to about as low as they can get it because that's what sells.
There are certainly advantages to the users but I guess there can also be risks for the creators (thus also ultimately for users).
I don't know this field well enough (or at all) to have an opinion really; I was actually surprised that one could consider building, or even using, a printer in 2025.
Isn't the rPI a counter-example, as a design that is not 100% legally copyable yet still open enough to inspire a lot of similar projects in this area?
If there is a sure way to reach a world of open design and user freedom, I sure don't know what it is.
> There are certainly advantages to the users but I guess there can also be risks for the creators (thus also ultimately for users).
No, I think the downsides are all to the creators. Consider the case if the creators release under an actual open source share-alike license: They ship, they release the source, 3rd parties clone it. The original creators lose money because now they have actual competition. Users, though? They get more options, lower prices, and reliability in the form of replacements if the original creators stop selling.
> Isn't the rPI a counter-example, as a design that is not 100% legally copyable yet still open enough to inspire a lot of similar projects in this area?
How so? The pi would have clones no matter how open it was. Actually I think it's the other way: The way the pi remains so proprietary is actively unhelpful to users, because the lack of specs makes it hard to port new operating systems to the hardware.
> If there is a sure way to reach a world of open design and user freedom, I sure don't know what it is.
> The original creators lose money because now they have actual competition. Users, though? They get more options, lower prices, and reliability in the form of replacements if the original creators stop selling.
Yes unless the next projects of the now bankrupt creators is proprietary because it's too hard to make a living out of open designs?
> > If there is a sure way to reach a world of open design and user freedom, I sure don't know what it is.
> Use an actual open source license
Many have been doing this for the last 30 years, during which user freedoms have shrinked: 20 years ago I had a working open source daily phone, an open design mips-based laptop that ran only free software, and all this was technically ahead of the competition; today I'm not allowed to login to some government website unless I use an apple or google device, community maintained distros are moribund and the free software movement became irrelevant. I believe more nuanced tactic than just "use that license" are called for.
Most likely, that's also precisely the reason why this product uses a very old HP print-head. (The one from HP DeskJet 1110, released December 2014.) Because that one has been reverse-engineered already: https://spritesmods.com/?art=magicbrush&page=3
I print so little these days that any inkjet printer is not cost effective due to the amount of ink it goes through to keep the heads unclogged, and I still have had to manually clean the clogged heads sometimes.
Now I have a cheap Brother laser printer for those few times I need to print something. It's over 5 years old, prints around a dozen or two pages a year and works fine every time I turn it on.
(Hopefully some day I won't need a printer at all, but sometimes it comes in handy, like when I needed to update my property tax records, my choices were either to go in to the office or mail them a signed paper form -- scanned or faxed forms were not permitted)
I’m on the other side. My daughters print like crazy; stickers, custom doll costumes, new experiments, artworks, and then their school related stuffs. I go through the 500-pack A4 sheets in about a month or two, besides the sticker papers, photo papers.
I bought a Inkjet Brother Printer about 8+ years ago and I have refilled the ink-tank just once after the first installation. I think a full-tank last about 5 years. I’m about to add a Brother Laser Printer too.
Oh! I also print for the neighbors pretty regularly (I live in a large gated neighborhood). Their kids needs some good colorful print for school, I do it for them. I’m the guy who keeps unexpected things that comes in handy. I’m happy with that.
Be careful. Brother is doing shaddy things this days, like lowering printing quality, or not printing, if a non-Brother toner is detected. E.g. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NzaRVEzYuz8 for a toner hack that shouln't be needed.
I can recommend Kyocera - my current one has been going strong for 15 years now. I had problems with paper transport about two years ago - but that's expected after that many prints, and was solved with a reasonably priced field maintenance kit.
As far as I know they're still not doing any nonsense to force you to use their toner - but even if they did I probably wouldn't care as the original toner is cheap enough that I just can't be arsed to figure out good compatible ones.
"Brother DCP-T710W Inktank Refill System Printer with Wireless and Automatic Document Feeder" bought on Jul 15, 2019. My order history shows the Inks replacement bought in late 2023, so I must have likely replaced it in 2024. So, roughly 4-5 years-ish.
> I print so little these days that any inkjet printer is not cost effective due to the amount of ink it goes through to keep the heads unclogged
Few people seem to realize that ink is incredibly cheap. You just need to buy it third party. The most expensive part of an ink cartridge is the chips used to DRM them to lock you in
I feel lucky to live in SF where the library let's you print up to 20 pages per day for free. I really wonder how many people don't buy printers because of it. Then again many people can use work printers for free anyway.
Same here. I bought a brother laser printer probably 10 years ago and it's been working perfectly since then. Was able to buy a pack of 3 third party toners (is that what it's called?) from Amazon few years ago and it's still going.
I bought a Samsung color laser in 2010, and just had to replace the transfer belt and paper separation pad/roller for the first time.
That's a problem, actually, because lasting so long, the parts got scarce in the meantime. Scarce and expensive. It probably would've been more cost-effective to consider the belt a critical failure and replace it with new, but I just hate the notion of throwing this monstrous machine (it weighs like 70 lbs) in the trash for want of a 5-lb part.
That said, it should now be all set for another 10-15 years of service. It's still running the 2009-copyright firmware that was on it from the factory, and I will never let it "upgrade".
Same! I had to print something at home for the first time in 4 years before recent travel and I had mine in the shed. Plugged it in, printed no problem. Those old brother lasers were the pinnacle of printer tech. Sadly even brother has been enshittified now.
I mean I bought an Inkjet printer 10 years ago and it worked all that time. I replaced the ink cartridges once.
I have had to replace it finally because it got an issue where it kept thinking the paper was jammed or empty (it wouldn't tell me which) even when it wasn't. But that isn't anything to do with inkjet Vs laser.
I did replace it with a Brother laser printer simply because it was very cheap (and I don't need colour).
Annoyingly the Brother app uses the old temporary AP WiFi pairing method which doesn't at all work on modern Android because it constantly detects no internet access and disconnects no matter what you do.
So instead I had to tediously enter my WiFi password using up and down arrows and a 30 character display. Like 01234567890abcd next 01234567890abcdefghij next 0123... Seriously tedious but it's lucky they had the option otherwise I'd have had to return it.
I would hope that the "27mm" in the article were a typo (it would translate to 1" paper).
Edit: The project description does indeed state 27mm as one of the supported formats (A4 and A3 width are also supported). Seems an odd choice to me, but there may be a market there I don't know about.
Epson Workforce Pro WF-7820 is just $200 on Amazon right now. Brother MFC-J5340DW is currently at $280.
Tabloid printing used to be quite inexpensive... Any 11" wide dot-matrix printer could manage it.
The rise of inkjets made it relatively more expensive. I resorted to rescaling tabloid (11x14") printouts to US Legal (8.5x14") to keep old business applications working.
In recent years, as A3 format copiers (with network printing) have become very common in offices everywhere, it's becoming inexpensive to print on tabloid sized paper once again.
Finally, someone made a printer. I was always thinking about this, what with the hidden codes and the government-mandated "features" in commercial printers.
I know that many are intended to prevent counterfeiting, but I think it's about the principle and the hacker spirit to have something fully under your control and understanding.
I'd love to see open-source firmware / hardware that can slot into existing inkjet or laser printers, if only to remove the tracking dots added by all printers since the mid-to-late 2000s, but also because I'm sure the hardware is more capable than the existing firmware allows.
Why does the printer design being NC licensed mean that you won't be able to purchase one?
To me, it seems like this license makes the most sense for everyone. The designer(s) of the printer get to sell a printer that no doubt took more than a few days worth of work to go from idea to "hey look, it prints something", and everyone else gets to see how the design works, to either improve, or create a new design based on learnings from this project. Hopefully that brand new design is licensed more liberally!
But I sure as hell would love an open printer that has a less than ideal license, especially when the alternative is basically getting a new printer from one of four companies (Canon, Epson, HP... did I miss anyone?)
The world needs more open source hardware. I'm currently trying to tackle an open source washing machine and heat pump dryer in my spare time. Will it ever turn into a built project? Probably not, but I sure as hell want to make sure that every peice that I've worked on so far is released to the world if it means that the next few people can finish or fix the design.
The fact that we see __washing machines__ as something that's not worth supporting after 6 years is honestly disgusting to me. It's not a flat screen TV, I don't see the design of a washing machine improving radically in my generation.
But if it does, it should be able to be retrofitted, rather than replacing an entire machine.
> Why does the printer design being NC licensed mean that you won't be able to purchase one?
> To me, it seems like this license makes the most sense for everyone. The designer(s) of the printer get to sell a printer that no doubt took more than a few days worth of work to go from idea to "hey look, it prints something", and everyone else gets to see how the design works, to either improve, or create a new design based on learnings from this project. Hopefully that brand new design is licensed more liberally!
Let's consider a hypothetical. It might not happen, but I'd bet that it does. The project launches. They get funded. They successfully ship the hardware. Once. And then... oh, it doesn't matter. They retire. They disappear. They get hit by a bus. They want to do another run but funding falls through. They try to do another run but there are manufacturing problems and after a couple years everyone gives up. Heck, maybe they get bought by $EVIL_MAINSTREAM_PRINTER_MANUFACTURER to kill this competition. It really doesn't matter how, what matters is that if anything happens to this one group of 3 people, nobody's allowed to sell this thing ever again, which means the only way to get new parts, let alone a whole replacement machine, is to personally have enough DIY skill to make it yourself. And that's too high a bar.
They're coming at it from the software side, but the FSF articulates it pretty well:
> Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. Paid, professional support for free software fills an important need.
> Thus, to exclude commercial use, commercial development or commercial distribution would hobble the free software community and obstruct its path to success.
> But I sure as hell would love an open printer that has a less than ideal license, especially when the alternative is basically getting a new printer from one of four companies (Canon, Epson, HP... did I miss anyone?)
Yes, Source Available is better than nothing, but it's strictly worse than Open Source.
> They retire. They disappear. They get hit by a bus.
Then maybe a better NC license should be designed specifically for hardware? The Creative Commons license isn't fantastic, for all the reasons that you suggest.
Just because the hardware is licensed by default as NC, doesn't mean that there can not be other providers of parts, a dual licensed open source hardware project if you will.
You get the GPL-like CC NC license for general use, the tinkerers have the plans so they can modify the hardware.
Then the commercial suppliers of replacement parts can pay a small percentage of their sales to the group that made the original designs, so they can continue to build new designs and improve existing ones.
Someone who just carbon copies a design and makes a profit of it, without giving back anything to the community is hard to avoid in the open hardware space.
> Then maybe a better NC license should be designed specifically for hardware? The Creative Commons license isn't fantastic, for all the reasons that you suggest.
I don't think it's specific to hardware, but yes, I personally think this is a poor choice of license. There are actual Open Source licenses designed for hardware, but this isn't it.
> Just because the hardware is licensed by default as NC, doesn't mean that there can not be other providers of parts, a dual licensed open source hardware project if you will.
Dual-licensing would be nice, but still isn't Open Source and is still awkward; if the original folks are gone, there's nobody to grant those commercial licenses. If you really must, I think the best option is a BSL-style arrangement where you release it under a restrictive license up front but it automatically becomes truly Open Source, including allowing commercialization, after a year or two.
> You get the GPL-like CC NC license for general use,
Point of order : GPL is absolutely not a NC license. You are free to make money off of GPL software, you just have to give code to anyone who gets binaries (possibly only if they ask, again this is general terms not legal advice).
> Someone who just carbon copies a design and makes a profit of it, without giving back anything to the community is hard to avoid in the open hardware space.
I'm kind of okay with that. Carbon copying and selling the design is giving something to the community: availability. I'm 100% on board with share-alike licenses, of course; anyone else selling it also being forced to share the source would be great. But a lot of my point is that as someone who wants open source printers to take over, I absolutely want these things to be ubiquitous, including by them being sold for pennies on the dollar by fly-by-night manufacturers and cloned and remixed and modified by companies that stand to make a fortune by doing so.
1. That only helps if you don't care about breaking the law.
2. That's great right up until they reappear 5 years later and start suing people. Or their estate does. Or if they got bought up specifically to crush competition.
Bit wary about this. Theres no videos of it ever running, and even the specs cant list basics like print speed. This is vapourware with a terrible license, not to mention likely violates one of the thousands of patents printer manufacturers have, and taking funds for it makes it a commercial venture meaning someones probably about to be sued.
These old HP "cartridges" were more of hotends with integral extruders. Which means they can be installed onto a printer equivalent of Prusa i3 to turn it into a printer. For a truly open printer, we'd need an open inkjet head - and those are actually made in lithography process, believe it or not.
As long as the cartridges remain available and affordable, I don't see that much of an issue. None of the ICs in the control boards are "open source" either.
Currently, the cartridges are available and affordable - with multiple aftermarket suppliers. Some of which even split the "print head" and the "cartridge" into two separate parts, or leave ports for refilling them.
An open inkjet head would sure be fun to play around with, but it's not a hard requirement.
It looks like if you want to print on sheets of paper you need to feed them one at a time, which is pretty inconvenient. Having a proper paper tray is pretty much a requirement for being a practical printer these days.
Roll paper isn't really an acceptable compromise these days though. In addition to being curled, if you need to print more than a couple of pages you're left with a disorganized mess.
For the first ever open-sourced printer I think it's a great starting point. Being an open-sourced project, community-made solutions for other feeders are sure to come if this succeeds
In my research on tracking dots, we only ever saw them produced by laser printers (and some more obscure professional processes), not inkjet printers. It appears that the governments' pressure on printer manufacturers over this was focused on color laser printers and not color inkjets.
We have still not, as far as I know, learned what the governments threatened the manufacturers with or what they offered to them in order to get them to cooperate.
I find that rather surprising, given the claim that the goal is preventing counterfeiting - wouldn't only inkjet printers have a chance of producing an even remotely credible counterfeit? Laser printer printouts that I saw looked incredibly glossy.
Laser printers absolutely could have produced "close enough" counterfeit of some currencies...like 10 years ago.
Reasons why it's laser and not inkjet:
- Crisp edges on fine details
- Consistent colors
- Consistent alignment
Remeber, we're talking about "EURion constellation" that was in use at least since 1996. Also, remeber we're talking about regular consumer printers: consumer laser printers > consumer inkjet. I guess also remember that not ever banknote is a US dolar?
> Remeber, we're talking about "EURion constellation" that was in use at least since 1996.
That's a different measure! It's detected by some software in photocopiers or software used in conjunction with scanners, not produced by printers.
The other reason I had thought why inkjets were considered a lesser concern for counterfeiting is that the documents they produce will traditionally smear if they get wet, which doesn't seem like a very desirable property in counterfeit currency and documents. Maybe over time they've tended to use more permanent inks, though.
Canon also makes a line of printers with refillable ink tanks, no chip involved. I've owned one for a couple years now, and I helped my father set one up about three months ago. Rough back-of-the-envelope math suggests a cost of 1-2 cents per page if you're printing in color, less than that if you only print black & white. (The black ink bottle costs the same as the color bottles but is larger).
Epson also makes ink tank printers, but I don't recommend them because the Epson I used to own refused to work until the "maintenance cartridge" (a special sponge that absorbs the ink used to flush out clogs) was replaced, and it's not user-serviceable. (Technically you could do it but you'd void your warranty). So when my Epson died, I replaced it with a comparable Canon printer. Canon will sell you a maintenance cartridge for about $10 (plus tax and shipping) right on their website, and I'm sure some retailers would carry them too (though I haven't looked). I haven't needed it yet, but it's good to know I won't have to buy a new printer because I couldn't replace a simple sponge buried deep in its guts.
I wouldn't buy anything from Brother. Their website is Ugly, search has never works properly, printer is thin plastic flimsy, cartridges also thin flimsy plastic. Even downloading their software is horrible!
That's also the user experience on Mac OS and iOS. No drivers needed, just connect it to the WiFi once (using the buttons on the device) and it just works.
specifically since enterprises are easier to monopolize since the purchasers are not users. and they need carteling to maintain dominance over a product so simple
Printes have been around for decades. All the major innovation are patent expired. There may be useful new things under protection but nothing critical.
HP, Canon and Epson all sell printers that use bulk ink - no cartridges, just bottles that you pour into the printer's reservoir.
The handles-and-blades business model that is implicit when you buy a $40 printer is still utterly miserable, but it's no longer the only option. If you're willing to spend $200, you get a reliable piece of equipment that isn't constantly trying to nickel-and-dime you.
Yeah if you can’t justify a >$200 inkjet, you may not need an inkjet.
Order photos from a store instead of printing them.
Get a laserjet if you just want document printing at home.
If you are doing crafts, then buy a nice inkjet. The nice inkjets pay for themselves past some volume because (1) OEM ink is actually relatively cheap and (2) they are reliable.
I personally think inkjet has superior richer color printing to laser jet even for basic use like printing out websites and recipes, and it also doesn’t take up a massive amount of space and weight like a laser printer. I also don’t like the power spike that laser printers do that flickers the lights.
Plus, a lot of inkjet buyers really need the scanning and copying functionality more than the printer itself.
I have a ~$200 HP OfficeJet printer it’s small, has all the multi-functions I need, and has been reliable.
Yes, the ink isn’t cheap. But I buy it at Costco which makes it less painful and it’s not the 1990s so printing isn’t an everyday thing. I have never had an issue with ink drying up or anything like that.
I think the thing you have to understand is that customers like me are not looking for the best dollars per page, they’re just looking for something convenient so that they don’t have to print at work or go to the library. They don’t want to buy a serious appliance that can’t be lifted by a large portion of the population.
I hope this project makes it big EVEN IF the hardware is not as open as we would like it to be. I am done with the price gouging and the other practices of companies like HP.
I hope this company gets big enough and starts licensing its technology to other manufacturers.
I'm reasonably sure that it's the printer that's the problem, even when dealing with ink. There have been 3rd parties that are happy to sell you the ink for forever, but the manufacturers make the printer block unofficial refills.
Nice. That one is definitely a workhorse. Dirt cheap toner, too. I began my career in IT at a small business, and I deployed one of those for a very high volume location, waaaay above its supposed lightweight duty cycle. I recall it as being incredibly fast and low-maintenance.
At home I've had 3 HP lasers in my life, all acquired for cheap or free.
A LaserJet 2100N - owned this for 10 years after getting it for free from a closing store (it was their office printer, it only perished because I did a bad job replacing the dried-out rubber rollers. Printed multiple reams of paper with it and never even replaced the toner.
A LaserJet P2055dn - like $100 shipped on ebay? owned this for about 7 years, printed at least a dozen reams. It still worked when I gave it to Goodwill to replace it with an all-in-one when an inkjet AIO we used for scanning died.
A LaserJet M227fdn - Acquired with 200 pages on it for $30 at Goodwill. No issues as I assume this will probably last a decade.
Moral of the story: Laserjets - and especially monochrome ones if that fits into your lifestyle - basically last forever and print for far less than the paper costs.
I had a LaserJet III my dad got before I was born in the 1980s and it still worked when I got rid of it, even on Windows 10. PCL4 generic drivers worked just fine as well (they work on anything I'm pretty sure) and toner was $15 it just was gigantic and felt like it was going to blow the breaker when it printed
I remember one like that in the break room of a big retail store I worked at in the ‘00s, that everyone needed to use to print their weekly shift schedules with (and presumably had been there since 1990 or so). I’m sure it lasted another decade after I left!
This is nice and all but I live in a college town and I can get at a minimum 10 free printers per year. Printer companies don't make money on the printer, it's the ink that makes them money.
https://www.crowdsupply.com/open-tools/open-printer
> Open Source
> Open Printer will use the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license for all of its files, including electronics and mechanical design files, firmware code, and the bill of materials. We hope that people will be able to repair, upgrade, and contribute improvements to their printers.
It's a nice hope, but they've conveniently banned being able to pay someone else to make parts for you, which will make it harder. Also, not Open Source. (Shared Source is still better than proprietary, but it's not F/OSS.)
>Also, not Open Source.
Even CC highlights this
>NC licenses do not qualify as “open licenses” under the Open Definition, and works licensed under an NC license are not considered Free Cultural Works
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre...
Kind of silly to name it Open Printer then, or at least ignorant of existing customs in this space of open hardware and software.
Calling it open source got the vaporware onto the HN front page.
and even more than that they literally use “open source” in their crowdsupply description
Seems like a reasonable license for someone who wants to sell their printer, but also publish the designs to allow for repair and for modifications to be shared by the community.
It's totally a reasonable license. It just isn't an Open Source license. There's nothing wrong with that. Not everything needs to be Open Source. But it's a little bit misleading to label something as such and then use a license that very explicitly isn't.
Well, that's unfortunate. That means another company couldn't, say, make and sell a variant of this that uses US letter sized paper instead of A4.
Since the printer takes flexible roll sizes and cuts its own pages, probably it would work out of the box with letter right?
I do get your point though, it would be nice if this was not an NC license
Ah yes, looking at the actual specs, it looks like it does support 11 inch rolls as well.
It would be awesome if one could craft a FOSS license that allows all FOSS uses of the project except creating a US letter variant.
A4 is awesome, and should become the US standard.
It would be annoying for me to use paper with such strange dimensions. 8.5 x 11, 11 x 17, etc are much easier measurements for me to remember. The root 2 thing with European paper is pleasing though.
As a European, I have no clue what's the dimensions of A4, A5, etc. We just say A4. I don't think that laymen, like me, know anything about their real size, and I never had a problem not knowing it.
Its mathematically derived. A0 is exactly 1m2 in area. The side lengths are at a ratio of sqrt(2), that means you can cut any A paper size in half and get the size below it. B series are the same ratio, but B0 has a width of 1m instead.
Interstate, TIL
148x210 A5 297x210 A4 297x420 A3
Agree, I had to look it up as well. I can memorize A4 and A3 easily, but A5 is already counter-intuitive. It's an aspect ratio that's kept, so that's why the numbers don't add up easily.
With the paper in front of me it's easier, fold, double, you can navigate across all levels of A(n) quickly. All it takes is seeing this single graphic for a split second and you know all the DIN A-sizes, but the US sizes not. I enjoy the US Letter format though as a size, it feels somehow better than A5 as it's more square.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#/media/File:A_size_...
You cut an A4 to get A5, wasting 1mm ...; two sheets of A4 in an A3 ... there's only one pair of dimensions to remember.
Write the sizes in binary and bit-shift them?
Wasting one mm?
They're rounded to the nearest mm because the tolerances are about a millimetre, so there's no point specifying the paper size better than that.
If you fold A4 in half you get A5, and if you double up A4 you get A3. They are all the same exact proportions.
US sizes don't work like that; the closest thing to A3 here doesn't have the same proportions as the closest thing to A4. Which absolutely sucks if you are designing a poster and need to make it bigger or smaller.
With international A sizes you can reuse the same design for any size. That's why I like them.
Obligatory:
https://youtu.be/pUF5esTscZI?si=BVczkH72darILjBE
Binary Charles and Ray Eames would like a word.
While I think NC is a terrible license, hasn't it been settled in court that you can hire someone to produce CC-BY-NC material? You can't run a business selling the material, but you can be hired to produce it.
> You can't run a business selling the material, but you can be hired to produce it.
I'm not a lawyer, so it's not that hard to imagine that I'm missing nuance, but... what's the difference?
I cannot offer and advertise this specific service. I can produce the part if somebody orders it.
I could order a 3d print of a part from somewhere; that somewhere's core business is not printing that specific thing.
That would probably depend on the jurisdiction?
Just because there was a court ruling in one country, doesn't necessarily mean it is legal in another country.
So what workarounds could be had? Contractor business where you hire someone for a few hours to make it for you? Business that sells something else at an elevated price but gives a CC-BY-NC material gift with every purchase?
You run 3D printers and they email you the files?
Lots of beneficial and spiritually open licenses are not recognized as OSS by OSI, so I wouldn't care much about what they think at this point.
That's fine, it's also not recognized by the FSF, DFSG, any BSD, or anyone else credible. Mostly because those "beneficial and spiritually open licenses" are in fact not beneficial or spiritually open, existing specifically to limit what users can do and cripple the community's ability to do anything the original vendor doesn't like or that might undercut their ability to make money.
They say:
So for all those standard pieces this would not be an issue.It still would mean a company cannot really offer to do repairs for you, wouldn’t it? They’d have to be able to prove that none of their employees looked at the design documents, ever.
CC licenses aren't viral in that way. I can write a CC BY-NC instruction and repair manual for a Ford Prefect, and a professional mechanic can use the information contained within to help them fix Ford Prefects. The NC aspect of the license just means they can't sell the repair manual, charge for entrance to a dramatic reading of the repair manual, etc: it doesn't apply constraints beyond an All Rights Reserved design doc from any other manufacturer.
So if Ford were to publish full schematics for the Perfect under a CC-NC license would it be permissible for a third party to use that in order to offer (commercial, for profit) manufacturing and assembly? Honest question, because I'm not clear where the line for these printers sits.
Off the top of my head (keeping in mind it's years since I last researched this), patent and trademark law are what prevents people cloning someone else's machine from the spec. So unless there are patents, I don't think you'd have a problem.
I was thinking "where do I order?" but then realized it's not actual OSH (Open Source Hardware) but just a publicity stunt.
This is a textbook case where the headline should be editorialized as it contains misinformation, and many are only ever gonna read the headline.
Once, a long time ago. Richard Stallman was pissed off at an hostile printer. We got Free Software just because. Yet the printer problem remains unsolved.
I still hope somebody, somewhere, will eventually get it done and commoditize printing forever, riding us of the mafia which is printer makers.
Inkjet printer makers sell printers way below cost of production, making the money on the ink.
There will always be enough people who would buy a $129 printer and postpone the reckoning in ink, instead of buying a $329 printer that can print reams using cheap bulk ink.
(Laser printers are superior anyway, unless you print photos.)
What keeps the production cost high?
A new inkjet-- especially if you're not getting a photo-optimized one-- isn't doing that much technically different from a 20-year-old one. You don't need 4800DPI and rich six-ink photo finishes if all you're asking for is one four-colour pie chart in a 20-page report, so you don't need to be at the edge of premium technology here.
So why can't they just keep manufacturing a 20-year-old DeskJet, using long-amortized tooling and fully-worked-out mechanicals, but with a new controller board to replace parallel with USB/Ethernet/Wi-fi?
In the mid 2000s, there was a model of inkjet printer that came with full size ink cartridges. It was usually priced "on sale" for less than the price of a new set of ink cartridges. Meaning if you did a normal amount of printing, it was more economically viable to buy a new printer every every few months and throw the old one away than it was to buy replacement cartridges.
It revealed a lot about the incentive structure of the inkjet printer market.
@dang - edit the title?
In my understanding it should be fine to make parts to order and charge for that, but I may be wrong. What definitely isn’t covered is making parts in advance (anonymously) and sell them later with a profit.
Okay, but as someone who would have wanted to buy parts, that's a downside.
Absolutely
Selling any parts or upgrades by third parties will be heavily limited by the BY-NC-SA 4.0. You could not build the printer and use it in a small company office.
The non-commercial clause is not only unnecessary (who is going to mass market it?), but license also means firmware is proprietary software, it absolutely is not Open Source. Sad to see even seemingly user approached projects building on foundations they misuse the terms of.
Of course you could use the printer commercially. You mustn’t sell it. Using the printer is not sharing it’s design.
You could sell parts anyways and violate the license.
"Open source" =/= requiring breaking the law to distribute the thing in question
Otherwise, how does it differ from the regular HP/Brother printers, in that regard?
It's horrible and useless. An "open source" printer should allow someone to open a factory and mass produce them. I shouldn't have a dependency on the designer on something marketed as open source. That's no different than normal. You could never reasonably prevent people from making one-offs anyway, not that it's cost-efficient, or would ever be worth doing.
Attribution license it. Name it TheOpenPrinter@Patreon.com and force manufacturers to engrave it on each one. Don't pull nonsense. Crowdfunding imo sounds like they're planning to be unsuccessful at actually making them, and just to make a living off failing to make them for a year or two.
How about just getting the design tight, modular, and small-shop ready, and not even attempting to mass produce them? Leave that to the experts.
would using some sort of GPL allow for that?
A definition the people who wrote the licence agree with
> NC licenses do not qualify as “open licenses” under the Open Definition, and works licensed under an NC license are not considered Free Cultural Works.
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre...
> That's only according to your definition of open source
No, words mean things. Open Source precludes restrictions on field of use or commercialization, and no credible organization (OSI, DFSG, FSF, Creative Commons, any of the BSDs) claims otherwise.
OK I see where you stand. Like you, I do not like to see some product being touted as "open" just because you can see some lines of code that are made unusable by not providing some important missing pieces, or obscured, or for whatever other mechanism.
Words have indeed a meaning, but that meaning is not purely decided by some organisation, steering cometee or authority, but by what idea they evoque to those who use them. Refer to the old debate about "free software" vs "open source" [0]: almost the same technical definition, but quite different meaning.
Most "fake" open source products are produced by companies who are fundamentaly unwilling to cooperate because they want to keep the possibility to milk customers once they have succesfully attracted investors.
I might be wrong, but I have the feeling that this is a very different scenario, if only because the potential for becoming filthy rich by selling printer parts seems slim. I believe they genuinely want to empower users, without working for free for some industrial company that could just exploit the design without contributing anything back. Empowering the user meets the definition of open source for me.
I wish we would not be so harsh against good-spirited creators because they miss to check all the boxes of the official definition of open source (tm). Maybe I'm too idealistic, wouldn't be the first time.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
> I might be wrong, but I have the feeling that this is a very different scenario, if only because the potential for becoming filthy rich by selling printer parts seems slim. I believe they genuinely want to empower users, without working for free for some industrial company that could just exploit the design without contributing anything back.
And yet, the one thing they've done is ensured that nobody can ever compete with them commercially. Even if we were to accept that making and selling the thing isn't contributing (I disagree), they could just use a share-alike license so that any improvements are also released back to the community. Heck, in that situation the original folks could take 3rd party improvements and sell them. But they didn't. I lack your optimism; I think if someone was trying to just make money and milk customers this is exactly how it would look.
> Empowering the user meets the definition of open source for me.
> I wish we would not be so harsh against good-spirited creators because they miss to check all the boxes of the official definition of open source (tm).
Yeah, the problem is exactly that this hurts users. Sure, individual DIY-savvy folks can replace parts or even make improvements, but it can never scale up. It's like saying that Windows is an open system because users can install programs that modify how it works a bit... so long as they never sell those improvements. It intentionally cripples the ecosystem. (I probably argued this better at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45470111 )
It's the neverending debate between pragmatists and maximalists. Used to be a maximalist, but also used to see my favored causes tank and sink all the time. I do not believe there is clear winner for every situation.
What we should be convinced of though is that there are better ways to push for more openness than to shame the authors. Not sure that's what you intended to do but that's how the negative reception sounded to me.
There are advantages - just look at the 3d printer landscape. Having companies making these and selling them breeds a huge ecosystem around upgrades, drives down prices, and makes it easy for anyone to use the device because it lowers the barrier to entry to about as low as they can get it because that's what sells.
There are certainly advantages to the users but I guess there can also be risks for the creators (thus also ultimately for users).
I don't know this field well enough (or at all) to have an opinion really; I was actually surprised that one could consider building, or even using, a printer in 2025.
Isn't the rPI a counter-example, as a design that is not 100% legally copyable yet still open enough to inspire a lot of similar projects in this area?
If there is a sure way to reach a world of open design and user freedom, I sure don't know what it is.
> There are certainly advantages to the users but I guess there can also be risks for the creators (thus also ultimately for users).
No, I think the downsides are all to the creators. Consider the case if the creators release under an actual open source share-alike license: They ship, they release the source, 3rd parties clone it. The original creators lose money because now they have actual competition. Users, though? They get more options, lower prices, and reliability in the form of replacements if the original creators stop selling.
> Isn't the rPI a counter-example, as a design that is not 100% legally copyable yet still open enough to inspire a lot of similar projects in this area?
How so? The pi would have clones no matter how open it was. Actually I think it's the other way: The way the pi remains so proprietary is actively unhelpful to users, because the lack of specs makes it hard to port new operating systems to the hardware.
> If there is a sure way to reach a world of open design and user freedom, I sure don't know what it is.
Use an actual open source license ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware#Licenses ). This isn't complicated.
I find it VERY weird that there's no mention of https://hackaday.io/project/176931-hp-printer-cartridge-cont... which is a CUPS-based 2D inkjet printer using the exact same print head and open source software and CERN license open hardware.
Most likely, that's also precisely the reason why this product uses a very old HP print-head. (The one from HP DeskJet 1110, released December 2014.) Because that one has been reverse-engineered already: https://spritesmods.com/?art=magicbrush&page=3
Because it’s not a printer? It’s a cartridge control module you can install on your 3d printer.
I print so little these days that any inkjet printer is not cost effective due to the amount of ink it goes through to keep the heads unclogged, and I still have had to manually clean the clogged heads sometimes.
Now I have a cheap Brother laser printer for those few times I need to print something. It's over 5 years old, prints around a dozen or two pages a year and works fine every time I turn it on.
(Hopefully some day I won't need a printer at all, but sometimes it comes in handy, like when I needed to update my property tax records, my choices were either to go in to the office or mail them a signed paper form -- scanned or faxed forms were not permitted)
I’m on the other side. My daughters print like crazy; stickers, custom doll costumes, new experiments, artworks, and then their school related stuffs. I go through the 500-pack A4 sheets in about a month or two, besides the sticker papers, photo papers.
I bought a Inkjet Brother Printer about 8+ years ago and I have refilled the ink-tank just once after the first installation. I think a full-tank last about 5 years. I’m about to add a Brother Laser Printer too.
Oh! I also print for the neighbors pretty regularly (I live in a large gated neighborhood). Their kids needs some good colorful print for school, I do it for them. I’m the guy who keeps unexpected things that comes in handy. I’m happy with that.
> I’m about to add a Brother Laser Printer too.
Be careful. Brother is doing shaddy things this days, like lowering printing quality, or not printing, if a non-Brother toner is detected. E.g. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NzaRVEzYuz8 for a toner hack that shouln't be needed.
What! They were supposed to be the good ones and not join the others.
I can recommend Kyocera - my current one has been going strong for 15 years now. I had problems with paper transport about two years ago - but that's expected after that many prints, and was solved with a reasonably priced field maintenance kit.
As far as I know they're still not doing any nonsense to force you to use their toner - but even if they did I probably wouldn't care as the original toner is cheap enough that I just can't be arsed to figure out good compatible ones.
What model is that? Ink doesn’t dry and lasts for five years when you’re going through 500 pages a month. Sounds incredible.
"Brother DCP-T710W Inktank Refill System Printer with Wireless and Automatic Document Feeder" bought on Jul 15, 2019. My order history shows the Inks replacement bought in late 2023, so I must have likely replaced it in 2024. So, roughly 4-5 years-ish.
I think this is the one https://store.brother.ee/devices/laser/dcp/dcpt710w
I’m the same way. That’s a good guy to be.
> I print so little these days that any inkjet printer is not cost effective due to the amount of ink it goes through to keep the heads unclogged
Few people seem to realize that ink is incredibly cheap. You just need to buy it third party. The most expensive part of an ink cartridge is the chips used to DRM them to lock you in
I feel lucky to live in SF where the library let's you print up to 20 pages per day for free. I really wonder how many people don't buy printers because of it. Then again many people can use work printers for free anyway.
Same here. I bought a brother laser printer probably 10 years ago and it's been working perfectly since then. Was able to buy a pack of 3 third party toners (is that what it's called?) from Amazon few years ago and it's still going.
I bought a Samsung color laser in 2010, and just had to replace the transfer belt and paper separation pad/roller for the first time.
That's a problem, actually, because lasting so long, the parts got scarce in the meantime. Scarce and expensive. It probably would've been more cost-effective to consider the belt a critical failure and replace it with new, but I just hate the notion of throwing this monstrous machine (it weighs like 70 lbs) in the trash for want of a 5-lb part.
That said, it should now be all set for another 10-15 years of service. It's still running the 2009-copyright firmware that was on it from the factory, and I will never let it "upgrade".
Same! I had to print something at home for the first time in 4 years before recent travel and I had mine in the shed. Plugged it in, printed no problem. Those old brother lasers were the pinnacle of printer tech. Sadly even brother has been enshittified now.
I mean I bought an Inkjet printer 10 years ago and it worked all that time. I replaced the ink cartridges once.
I have had to replace it finally because it got an issue where it kept thinking the paper was jammed or empty (it wouldn't tell me which) even when it wasn't. But that isn't anything to do with inkjet Vs laser.
I did replace it with a Brother laser printer simply because it was very cheap (and I don't need colour).
Annoyingly the Brother app uses the old temporary AP WiFi pairing method which doesn't at all work on modern Android because it constantly detects no internet access and disconnects no matter what you do.
So instead I had to tediously enter my WiFi password using up and down arrows and a 30 character display. Like 01234567890abcd next 01234567890abcdefghij next 0123... Seriously tedious but it's lucky they had the option otherwise I'd have had to return it.
Here's the crowdfunding link: https://www.crowdsupply.com/open-tools/open-printer
It wasn't obvious from the article, but the printer also supports 11" wide paper rolls for us American users.
Honestly, beyond just the openness, the small form factor also looks really compelling.
I would hope that the "27mm" in the article were a typo (it would translate to 1" paper).
Edit: The project description does indeed state 27mm as one of the supported formats (A4 and A3 width are also supported). Seems an odd choice to me, but there may be a market there I don't know about.
I'm pretty sure they meant 27cm, or 270mm.
Or perhaps they meant 297mm - the exact height of a sheet of A4 - and mistyped the "9".
11" wide? So it'll print an 8.5x11 sideways?
11x17, or tabloid, or B size.
Nice. 11x17 capability is practically unheard of in anything marketed to consumers.
yup, and those printers have a heffy price tag also. An interesting printer/projec to be sure.
Epson Workforce Pro WF-7820 is just $200 on Amazon right now. Brother MFC-J5340DW is currently at $280.
Tabloid printing used to be quite inexpensive... Any 11" wide dot-matrix printer could manage it.
The rise of inkjets made it relatively more expensive. I resorted to rescaling tabloid (11x14") printouts to US Legal (8.5x14") to keep old business applications working.
In recent years, as A3 format copiers (with network printing) have become very common in offices everywhere, it's becoming inexpensive to print on tabloid sized paper once again.
Inkjet printers that can do 11x17" are usually marketed under a "pro" or "business" line, but not necessarily expensive. Here's a $279 model: https://www.bestbuy.com/product/epson-workforce-pro-wf-7310-...
Yes, that's the plan it looks like you can do. I'm excited to have it wall-mounted and printing into a basket.
Which sucks, that means no label printing, no envelope printing, no duplex.
90% of what I use my printer for is printing mailing labels for packages.
Finally, someone made a printer. I was always thinking about this, what with the hidden codes and the government-mandated "features" in commercial printers.
I know that many are intended to prevent counterfeiting, but I think it's about the principle and the hacker spirit to have something fully under your control and understanding.
I'd love to see open-source firmware / hardware that can slot into existing inkjet or laser printers, if only to remove the tracking dots added by all printers since the mid-to-late 2000s, but also because I'm sure the hardware is more capable than the existing firmware allows.
This printer unfortunately doesn't exist yet, and the article is an announcement of an announcement (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), so we changed the title to a more representative sentence from the text.
Do not make this NC licensed. I would like to be able to buy one of these.
Why does the printer design being NC licensed mean that you won't be able to purchase one?
To me, it seems like this license makes the most sense for everyone. The designer(s) of the printer get to sell a printer that no doubt took more than a few days worth of work to go from idea to "hey look, it prints something", and everyone else gets to see how the design works, to either improve, or create a new design based on learnings from this project. Hopefully that brand new design is licensed more liberally!
But I sure as hell would love an open printer that has a less than ideal license, especially when the alternative is basically getting a new printer from one of four companies (Canon, Epson, HP... did I miss anyone?)
The world needs more open source hardware. I'm currently trying to tackle an open source washing machine and heat pump dryer in my spare time. Will it ever turn into a built project? Probably not, but I sure as hell want to make sure that every peice that I've worked on so far is released to the world if it means that the next few people can finish or fix the design.
The fact that we see __washing machines__ as something that's not worth supporting after 6 years is honestly disgusting to me. It's not a flat screen TV, I don't see the design of a washing machine improving radically in my generation.
But if it does, it should be able to be retrofitted, rather than replacing an entire machine.
> Why does the printer design being NC licensed mean that you won't be able to purchase one?
> To me, it seems like this license makes the most sense for everyone. The designer(s) of the printer get to sell a printer that no doubt took more than a few days worth of work to go from idea to "hey look, it prints something", and everyone else gets to see how the design works, to either improve, or create a new design based on learnings from this project. Hopefully that brand new design is licensed more liberally!
Let's consider a hypothetical. It might not happen, but I'd bet that it does. The project launches. They get funded. They successfully ship the hardware. Once. And then... oh, it doesn't matter. They retire. They disappear. They get hit by a bus. They want to do another run but funding falls through. They try to do another run but there are manufacturing problems and after a couple years everyone gives up. Heck, maybe they get bought by $EVIL_MAINSTREAM_PRINTER_MANUFACTURER to kill this competition. It really doesn't matter how, what matters is that if anything happens to this one group of 3 people, nobody's allowed to sell this thing ever again, which means the only way to get new parts, let alone a whole replacement machine, is to personally have enough DIY skill to make it yourself. And that's too high a bar.
They're coming at it from the software side, but the FSF articulates it pretty well:
> Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. Paid, professional support for free software fills an important need.
> Thus, to exclude commercial use, commercial development or commercial distribution would hobble the free software community and obstruct its path to success.
- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#selling
> But I sure as hell would love an open printer that has a less than ideal license, especially when the alternative is basically getting a new printer from one of four companies (Canon, Epson, HP... did I miss anyone?)
Yes, Source Available is better than nothing, but it's strictly worse than Open Source.
I don't disagree with any of your points.
> They retire. They disappear. They get hit by a bus.
Then maybe a better NC license should be designed specifically for hardware? The Creative Commons license isn't fantastic, for all the reasons that you suggest.
Just because the hardware is licensed by default as NC, doesn't mean that there can not be other providers of parts, a dual licensed open source hardware project if you will.
You get the GPL-like CC NC license for general use, the tinkerers have the plans so they can modify the hardware.
Then the commercial suppliers of replacement parts can pay a small percentage of their sales to the group that made the original designs, so they can continue to build new designs and improve existing ones.
Someone who just carbon copies a design and makes a profit of it, without giving back anything to the community is hard to avoid in the open hardware space.
> Then maybe a better NC license should be designed specifically for hardware? The Creative Commons license isn't fantastic, for all the reasons that you suggest.
I don't think it's specific to hardware, but yes, I personally think this is a poor choice of license. There are actual Open Source licenses designed for hardware, but this isn't it.
> Just because the hardware is licensed by default as NC, doesn't mean that there can not be other providers of parts, a dual licensed open source hardware project if you will.
Dual-licensing would be nice, but still isn't Open Source and is still awkward; if the original folks are gone, there's nobody to grant those commercial licenses. If you really must, I think the best option is a BSL-style arrangement where you release it under a restrictive license up front but it automatically becomes truly Open Source, including allowing commercialization, after a year or two.
> You get the GPL-like CC NC license for general use,
Point of order : GPL is absolutely not a NC license. You are free to make money off of GPL software, you just have to give code to anyone who gets binaries (possibly only if they ask, again this is general terms not legal advice).
> Someone who just carbon copies a design and makes a profit of it, without giving back anything to the community is hard to avoid in the open hardware space.
I'm kind of okay with that. Carbon copying and selling the design is giving something to the community: availability. I'm 100% on board with share-alike licenses, of course; anyone else selling it also being forced to share the source would be great. But a lot of my point is that as someone who wants open source printers to take over, I absolutely want these things to be ubiquitous, including by them being sold for pennies on the dollar by fly-by-night manufacturers and cloned and remixed and modified by companies that stand to make a fortune by doing so.
You could have an open source license that allows commercial use after 5 years since publishing.
You can have a license that becomes open source after a set time period yes, that's why I suggested a BSL-like ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License ) license.
If they disappear forever and there's nobody to enforce the license, you can break the license.
1. That only helps if you don't care about breaking the law.
2. That's great right up until they reappear 5 years later and start suing people. Or their estate does. Or if they got bought up specifically to crush competition.
Was wondering about the cost (since they haven't announced it) and asked cgpt[1] to guess from the picture. It says around $80-$130. Not bad?
1. https://chatgpt.com/share/68e16867-9520-8010-8eec-6464481195...
Bit wary about this. Theres no videos of it ever running, and even the specs cant list basics like print speed. This is vapourware with a terrible license, not to mention likely violates one of the thousands of patents printer manufacturers have, and taking funds for it makes it a commercial venture meaning someones probably about to be sued.
Is this real or a concept / kickstarter type thing?
It does look fantastic but I fear vaporware.
Same thinking here. The renders look nice, but why not share a video of it working - unless it doesn't work yet...
> while it uses the popular HP 63 cartridges,
These old HP "cartridges" were more of hotends with integral extruders. Which means they can be installed onto a printer equivalent of Prusa i3 to turn it into a printer. For a truly open printer, we'd need an open inkjet head - and those are actually made in lithography process, believe it or not.
As long as the cartridges remain available and affordable, I don't see that much of an issue. None of the ICs in the control boards are "open source" either.
Currently, the cartridges are available and affordable - with multiple aftermarket suppliers. Some of which even split the "print head" and the "cartridge" into two separate parts, or leave ports for refilling them.
An open inkjet head would sure be fun to play around with, but it's not a hard requirement.
That sounds really useful, seems like a fun component for a DIY project if they are cheap
'lithography process' dam what is not at this point haha
It looks like if you want to print on sheets of paper you need to feed them one at a time, which is pretty inconvenient. Having a proper paper tray is pretty much a requirement for being a practical printer these days.
Seems like it has a cutter:
>There's an integrated cutter that'll cut the roll into A4 size, but if you have a longer format printing job like a banner, then that's possible too.
Roll paper isn't really an acceptable compromise these days though. In addition to being curled, if you need to print more than a couple of pages you're left with a disorganized mess.
For the first ever open-sourced printer I think it's a great starting point. Being an open-sourced project, community-made solutions for other feeders are sure to come if this succeeds
Does it print the tracking dots?
In my research on tracking dots, we only ever saw them produced by laser printers (and some more obscure professional processes), not inkjet printers. It appears that the governments' pressure on printer manufacturers over this was focused on color laser printers and not color inkjets.
We have still not, as far as I know, learned what the governments threatened the manufacturers with or what they offered to them in order to get them to cooperate.
I find that rather surprising, given the claim that the goal is preventing counterfeiting - wouldn't only inkjet printers have a chance of producing an even remotely credible counterfeit? Laser printer printouts that I saw looked incredibly glossy.
Laser printers absolutely could have produced "close enough" counterfeit of some currencies...like 10 years ago.
Reasons why it's laser and not inkjet:
- Crisp edges on fine details
- Consistent colors
- Consistent alignment
Remeber, we're talking about "EURion constellation" that was in use at least since 1996. Also, remeber we're talking about regular consumer printers: consumer laser printers > consumer inkjet. I guess also remember that not ever banknote is a US dolar?
> Remeber, we're talking about "EURion constellation" that was in use at least since 1996.
That's a different measure! It's detected by some software in photocopiers or software used in conjunction with scanners, not produced by printers.
The other reason I had thought why inkjets were considered a lesser concern for counterfeiting is that the documents they produce will traditionally smear if they get wet, which doesn't seem like a very desirable property in counterfeit currency and documents. Maybe over time they've tended to use more permanent inks, though.
"laserjets in particular are very popular as it creates the 'raised' baked text due to the fusion process of the powder on the paper."
Source comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/1hm4fi6/...
The license isn't Open Source Definition compliant.
Brother Printers for people who want DRM free ink. Just a big ink well.
Canon also makes a line of printers with refillable ink tanks, no chip involved. I've owned one for a couple years now, and I helped my father set one up about three months ago. Rough back-of-the-envelope math suggests a cost of 1-2 cents per page if you're printing in color, less than that if you only print black & white. (The black ink bottle costs the same as the color bottles but is larger).
Epson also makes ink tank printers, but I don't recommend them because the Epson I used to own refused to work until the "maintenance cartridge" (a special sponge that absorbs the ink used to flush out clogs) was replaced, and it's not user-serviceable. (Technically you could do it but you'd void your warranty). So when my Epson died, I replaced it with a comparable Canon printer. Canon will sell you a maintenance cartridge for about $10 (plus tax and shipping) right on their website, and I'm sure some retailers would carry them too (though I haven't looked). I haven't needed it yet, but it's good to know I won't have to buy a new printer because I couldn't replace a simple sponge buried deep in its guts.
I wouldn't buy anything from Brother. Their website is Ugly, search has never works properly, printer is thin plastic flimsy, cartridges also thin flimsy plastic. Even downloading their software is horrible!
Once plugged in, the brother printer under Debian just works. Why even Visite the website?
That's also the user experience on Mac OS and iOS. No drivers needed, just connect it to the WiFi once (using the buttons on the device) and it just works.
This is great. I'm surprised it hasn't happened earlier.
Patents around printing are out of control. All the major manufacturers cross license everything from each other
specifically since enterprises are easier to monopolize since the purchasers are not users. and they need carteling to maintain dominance over a product so simple
How is printing simple?
I dunno about simple, but it is >30 years old; it seems a little odd that nobody's managed to get an Open version working.
So how are these people working around patents?
Printes have been around for decades. All the major innovation are patent expired. There may be useful new things under protection but nothing critical.
like inkjet expiration chips
HP, Canon and Epson all sell printers that use bulk ink - no cartridges, just bottles that you pour into the printer's reservoir.
The handles-and-blades business model that is implicit when you buy a $40 printer is still utterly miserable, but it's no longer the only option. If you're willing to spend $200, you get a reliable piece of equipment that isn't constantly trying to nickel-and-dime you.
Yeah if you can’t justify a >$200 inkjet, you may not need an inkjet.
Order photos from a store instead of printing them.
Get a laserjet if you just want document printing at home.
If you are doing crafts, then buy a nice inkjet. The nice inkjets pay for themselves past some volume because (1) OEM ink is actually relatively cheap and (2) they are reliable.
The issue with laser jets is the microplastic pollution
[dead]
I personally think inkjet has superior richer color printing to laser jet even for basic use like printing out websites and recipes, and it also doesn’t take up a massive amount of space and weight like a laser printer. I also don’t like the power spike that laser printers do that flickers the lights.
Plus, a lot of inkjet buyers really need the scanning and copying functionality more than the printer itself.
I have a ~$200 HP OfficeJet printer it’s small, has all the multi-functions I need, and has been reliable.
Yes, the ink isn’t cheap. But I buy it at Costco which makes it less painful and it’s not the 1990s so printing isn’t an everyday thing. I have never had an issue with ink drying up or anything like that.
I think the thing you have to understand is that customers like me are not looking for the best dollars per page, they’re just looking for something convenient so that they don’t have to print at work or go to the library. They don’t want to buy a serious appliance that can’t be lifted by a large portion of the population.
[dead]
I hope this project makes it big EVEN IF the hardware is not as open as we would like it to be. I am done with the price gouging and the other practices of companies like HP.
I hope this company gets big enough and starts licensing its technology to other manufacturers.
Out of curiosity, why are they doing toilet paper roll style paper? Wouldn’t it be easier to spread adoption by using just standard printer paper?
It's not officially a printer until it's running DOOM at 1-2 FPS.
DOOM on the printer's display is a cop-out, I want my printer to be fast enough to actually print each frame fast enough to be playable.
Wait, I thought the hangup of consumer printers was ink, not the printer itself.
I'm reasonably sure that it's the printer that's the problem, even when dealing with ink. There have been 3rd parties that are happy to sell you the ink for forever, but the manufacturers make the printer block unofficial refills.
Yup. Bulk printer ink is incredibly cheap. The most expensive part of ink cartridges are the chips they add to lock you in with DRM
[dead]
This means that now we can build our own custom sadistic printer behavior firmware?
You mean, capable of photocopying currency? The firmware could ignore the EURion Constellation and other such security patterns?
Love it though the way cut sheets of rolled paper will curl is pretty annoying.
My HP 1022n is still kicking after 20 years, with zero maintenance. With laserjets, you don't have to worry about the ink drying.
Nice. That one is definitely a workhorse. Dirt cheap toner, too. I began my career in IT at a small business, and I deployed one of those for a very high volume location, waaaay above its supposed lightweight duty cycle. I recall it as being incredibly fast and low-maintenance.
At home I've had 3 HP lasers in my life, all acquired for cheap or free.
A LaserJet 2100N - owned this for 10 years after getting it for free from a closing store (it was their office printer, it only perished because I did a bad job replacing the dried-out rubber rollers. Printed multiple reams of paper with it and never even replaced the toner.
A LaserJet P2055dn - like $100 shipped on ebay? owned this for about 7 years, printed at least a dozen reams. It still worked when I gave it to Goodwill to replace it with an all-in-one when an inkjet AIO we used for scanning died.
A LaserJet M227fdn - Acquired with 200 pages on it for $30 at Goodwill. No issues as I assume this will probably last a decade.
Moral of the story: Laserjets - and especially monochrome ones if that fits into your lifestyle - basically last forever and print for far less than the paper costs.
I had a LaserJet III my dad got before I was born in the 1980s and it still worked when I got rid of it, even on Windows 10. PCL4 generic drivers worked just fine as well (they work on anything I'm pretty sure) and toner was $15 it just was gigantic and felt like it was going to blow the breaker when it printed
I remember one like that in the break room of a big retail store I worked at in the ‘00s, that everyone needed to use to print their weekly shift schedules with (and presumably had been there since 1990 or so). I’m sure it lasted another decade after I left!
tracking dots? https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-d...
More than the license issues, the real dealbreaker of this printer is the reel fill mechanism.
A printer without a normal paper tray and duplex printing is a dealbreaker. This thing can’t print envelopes, can’t print labels, etc.
About twenty years too late; inkjets came and went.
What an unexpectedly stunning design!
Really nice!
> Power via DC jack
...Can I urge the devs to go to USB-C? I know this will complicate power delivery, but wasn't this a requirement for many devices in EU?
This is one of those projects that half of developers would want to make, and nobody starts.
printers can peak at over 1kW when starting printing (heat up)
Is it RYF-capable?
does this printer still print those printer-identifying invisible dots?
This is nice and all but I live in a college town and I can get at a minimum 10 free printers per year. Printer companies don't make money on the printer, it's the ink that makes them money.
[flagged]