OG’s server is paid for by it’s members and sponsors. A lot of folks that were doing for profit on the side things have all now become Sponsors as the server does need feeding.
Us that don’t side-hustle like this do things like run server auctions like the “5 guys” one happening right now. Last year I and @CADMAN pooled together and raised over 2000$ usd for the server by doing an auction with the Jew Gold 1974 seeds we preserved.
This place ain’t like facebook and shoves adds down your throat and gives away your information.
This exactly.
If you were willing to share the data on “build-your-own” there should be no issue. If folks need you to build them then that’s a totally different thing and you can do that via email off OG if you didn’t want to make waves.
I am curious how you came to the conclusion you had to donate. Knowing this may make what I have to say is a misunderstanding clearer.
OG is not demanding money from anyone, especially not someone who is contributing to the community as you have done. Now things change if you expect to receive any proceeds from your work. Do you mind sharing details?
I’m glad you posted here to clarify before you lost interest in OG.
BUT IS AM NOT SELLING ANYTHING AT ALL. I am protecting my inventions with a strict license that ensures I can have thieves’ sales off of the internet.
All I am saying is “if” you intend making money off of my open-source designs, I WANT HALF. If were to make money, I would be happy to help financially. I am a disabled veteran and I do not work. I am on a FIXED income. I do not make engineering money anymore.
Before I “GIVE” anything else away, I will need an official message from OG. That deal includes how I described my open-source licence above. I have some inventions that I am hoping got release in the future. I am using my inventions to test them out and make improvements so they will be useable by everyone.
This is the Control system:
These are all of the work in progress electronics:
You would spend thousands to get an off the shelf product that could do this. Once I am done, even feeding will be automatable per plant. No rockwool, clay, or any consumable will be needed for hydro. I am fixing growing.
I think it’s the same with seeds/cuts here. Give credit where it’s due, and don’t try and profit from what’s been given to you for free; keep it in the circle of giving!
If it fails, will it drop the lights? What if it fails and you can’t move the lights? There are plenty of alternatives (hoists/winches), some come with wireless remotes.
Man, wish that were the case. Unfortunately @retnel is NOT wrong.
One could be an established member here for years, do good left and right, then one day someone start asking questions about what and how they do something. and one answers them honestly. This kindness is immediately repaid in a less than nice way when that someone tries to usurp their niche and force them out.
What can one say to someone like that? grin and bear it? I cannot ask that from nobody.
Hey @retnel, i see you’re a vet. I’m in a discord server made and populated by vets. its a loud bunch of ornery bastards. DM me and I’ll send you an invite if you are so inclined. if not, no biggie.
Consumables. If Rockwool and clay are no longer needed, then unessisay carbon is not produced, and energy is not wasted making an shipping irrelevant products. Also, water usage goes wayyyyy down.
I am designing for the newbie to personal growers. I plan to make the base system for 4x plants were TDS is monitored, and feeding can be automated in the future. I am also planning to design a sub-sytem that I am going to likely call simula-cloud. It will be geared at reducing light electricity usages and can also be used to control max temp.
I remember all of the pitfall of being a newbie grower and I think it would be nice for a really cools system that can be made by the user. Like with Marlin and Klipper for 3D Printers. I am hoping I will be able to find motivated cannabis coders who would love to contribute freely, or by the job updates to the system like in the Marlin and Klipper ecosystems on Discord.
@DirtySlowToes If they make it as a product, I want my end. They will be able to organically grow the system, but I did all of the heavy listing and I am not a millionaire. I believe I should get a cut, or have them buy me out.
@PsillyRabbit It uses a motor with serious gearing and can likely lift any reasonable lighting system. It uses the standard ratchet light cords. Custom hooks can be made for any light. The light part would not be expensive. it is the cost of the motors, one for each side of the light, and time printing in PLA>
@IKEA22 look at the motors link above, that motor even if it fails can not drop the light as the gearing will not allow it to. It also has the necessary torque.
@SaintAliasKnife If yo do not mind I will message you a couple of links regarding VA care for veterans. Abuse that the government is covering up. The recordings are real. I recorded them for years becasue I saw what they were doing. If I could get everyone to share everywhere they will not be able to keep it covered up. Social Media being the double edge sword it is.
There is a bunch of nuance that could be exposed here and open-ended back-and-forth but, at the top level, the rules are fairly straight forward. If the intent or motivation is to engage in marketing or commercial interest for profit, they must obtain an OG Sponsorship. This can be obtained by negotiating an agreement with the site administrator, LemonadeJoe.
As far as licensing of work product, it is not uncommon to utilize Open Source license terms that can include details such as ‘no commercial use’, attribution, back-licensing, etc.
A variety of license types can be found here, for example:
There are and have been examples where intellectual property (IP) has been, essentially, stolen from the author and, in some cases, the author is shut out of their own work. Engineering is an expensive proposition and, in some cases, corporations would rather cheap-out and utilize work that’s already done and proven. Sometimes, the company itself, is not even aware that an employee, perhaps, has utilized third party information without permission.
There have been legal battles where Big Corp sues little guy on IP when it’s the little guys property all along. The corporation was either not aware or they are a dishonest organization.
This is where Open Source licensing steps-in to provide some protection of publication of novel and proprietary information. Such license terms can also help protect others that choose to utilize such disclosures from third-parties whom may attempt to claim some form of exclusive ownership, as well.
Open source licensing schemes provide numerous use-cases. For some schemes, it is a completely unfettered disclosure. Anyone seeing the information is free to utilize it as they see fit without any type of liability. Other types of licenses will limit how the disclosure is utilized. For instance, no commercial use. Free to use but not for-profit. There are license terms such that any third-party modification/enhancements must also be disclosed publically under the same licensing terms. So on and so forth.
Generally, such open source licensing is utilized to protect the author’s proprietary disclosure from being utilized in nefarious manner. Some examples, generally for profit motivation, could include third party attempts at patenting or copywriting disclosed information. The use of disclosed information without proper attribution. The commercial sale of disclosed information without agreement, disclosure, or attribution.
It is up to the author to indicate such terms up front otherwise such publication of proprietary information is likely to default into the public domain. It is also up to the author to enforce such terms, no one else is responsible for that effort. Certainly not OG.
So it’s a ‘be sure you know what you are doing’ situation when disclosing proprietary information.
If the intent is to open source information freely while disallowing commercial use, determine a suitable license from Creative Commons or one of the other open source license providers. Read and understand the licensing scenarios. Clearly indicate that a disclosure of such novel and proprietary information is provided under the indicated license terms. For the ‘non-commercial use’ scenario, any entity or individual that wishes to utilize the disclosure in a commercial sense, will need to reach-out to author and negotiate what that means. Such agreements are made between individuals. The author and the commercial interest primarily after disclosure with associated license.
Here is an example of Open Source license use, this case CC-BY-SA which allows commercial use by attribution and sharing by disclosure:
I find that there is no problem with that. Further, to associate a license that states no-commercial-use also seems fine. If some commercial entity is interested, it is up to the commercial entity, to reach out to author. It is also up to the author to enforce such terms. Keeping in mind, it is not OG’s responsibility.
If the intent on the other hand is to profit from disclosure and/or to encumber third party (others) concepts, ideas, or their proprietary work/information, it has entered into commercial effort territory and acts as a disincentive towards public domain disclosure on this site.
Also, as a side note, someone disclosing an idea or concept does not naturally make the idea or concept another’s property. For instance, an author posting an idea here that someone else may be interested in, does not grant that someone else ownership to that idea. The individual effort in producing a concept and the work product, however, is that individual’s property and proprietary information … which if published can be associated with an Open Source license … to protect your work product in some fashion. The idea itself, in this scenario, is not transferred as property.
Much of what has being noted here is based on generalities surrounding copyright, patent law, the site TOS/rules, public domain disclosure, and how they may interact. And, in a somewhat stream-of-consciousness style.
To summarize, by default, an author publishing their information onto the forum is a public domain disclosure. A third party can not encumber another’s disclosure.
An author disclosing novel and proprietary work product can be made with an associated Open Source style license as long as the notification terms are clear, the license terms are clear (e.g. CC BY-NC 4.0 Deed | Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International | Creative Commons), it is not profit-motivated, and the information disclosed is the property of the author.
Commercial agreements (contract), commercial marketing, commercial licensing is between individuals off-site, off-forum, likely non-public.
It is the authors responsibility to enforce any associated license terms. OG maintains no liability in any form or fashion.
Commercial promotion, marketing, and for-profit motivations on this site must be approved by the site administrator.
Associating an Open Source style license with a ‘not-for-commercial use’ notification for a novel and proprietary disclosure is not a commercial effort, in itself. Going further than that, is though.
Setting for-profit terms will be considered a commercial effort and should not occur here except as noted earlier.
OG sets guidelines as to what is allowable on this platform which may be revised as various scenarios present themselves.
It is in everyone’s interest to encourage open discussion, the sharing of ideas, and developing new concepts. It is also to everyone’s benefit to encourage the sharing of useful work product while also protecting the author’s work product against nefarious use. Commercial agreements/terms/contract and enforcement on disclosed IP, however, does not occur here. Requiring a contract prior to disclosure, same.
That’s a lot of extemporaneous words right there. I think I understand what you are trying to convey but; yeah, nuance. Reach out to the moderation team and/or LemondeJoe for additional clarification.
