Later commercial use of public models possible (when buying a commercial license)?

fst

Hi Onshape team,

am currently checking out whether Onshape would be an option for a hobby musical instrument project I have in mind (up to now it looks very promising!). Would now want to understand some aspects of the subscription concept.

My plan would be to provide the design open source, so everybody can use and rebuild it. My hope is that at some point some people consider it good enough to even manufacture this (or a variant of it) e.g. in small quantities and sell it. (Wouldn't be a problem for me - in the contrary, the more people have access to such an instrument the better! Not everybody has a CNC at home)

So here my questions.

a) Is it possible that people can take my public model, potentially modify it (release modifications to the public again) and build one for their private usage with the free license?

b) the same as a) but the person sells the produced product. Would they need a commercial license if the design is still public? Or is this only needed if they want to keep their changes private? And can they take my public model as a basis or would they have to remodel it from scratch themselves with the commercial version?

c) Would the same also work for me, assuming at some point I think it would be nice to create a small batch of the product and sell it. Could I reuse my model that I made with the free version as a basis or would I have to remodel it from scratch with the commercial version?

d) How long would you expect a user to pay the subscription? Say, I want to create a yearly small batch (so interested people who cannot build the instrument themselves have a chance to get their hands on it). Would I have to resubscribe even if I don't modify the model anymore as long as I sell any product based on it? (So, can I amortise the price of a one year subscription over several years so the subscription share isn't making up the majority of the sales price)

At the moment I don't know at this point whether any commercial use either from somebody else or me is on the horizon(*).

I don't even know whether that instrument will work as intended, sound good or be fun to play in the first place.

I just want to understand the potential constraints up front, assuming I would jump on the Onshape train. The easy sharing and collaboration aspect would make this an appealing option!

*: To make small quantity production runs also viable, perhaps Onshape could consider to offer a similar license as Epic with their Unreal Engine with X% royalty from income as an option? That would also allow smaller quanities. But that is another topic. Currently I'm mainly interested in understanding the status quo.

Thanks and all the best,

Ferdinand

fst

Hi, any infos regarding this topic?
Particularly the aspects at which point one actually needs a commercial license is unclear to me.
From my understanding the usual order of things for people who start out with a free license is:

1 iterating on an idea on paper
2 building a first version in CAD
3 iterate on prototypes (involves further CAD usage)
4 potentially: decide whether the result is so good that it is viable to sell (at least in small quantities, to make it available to others)
5 if yes: use the last iteration of the CAD model, send it to a manufacturer and order X amount of parts and do end assembly and testing
6 sell those parts
7 potentially: in case some problems occur during usage, modify the design a little
8 continue to sell products based on this CAD design for the years to come

Where in this process would I need to buy a license - and how long would I have to hold it?
* In 1-3 it is highly uncertain whether I will sell any product at all (default: rather not). This is probably the usual scenario where I can use the free license, assuming it is ok for me that the design is public?

* In 5 it was decided that it is supposed to be sold. But I don't do any further changes on the CAD model anymore in the best case. Would I retroactively have to buy a license now for the time when I built the model? Or a minimum of 1 year even if I don't change anything?

* 7 would probably be the clearest case: There I already know that I want to sell this and I am actually using CAD in that state. Here it is clear to me that I should own a commercial license during the time I am altering the design

* For 8 it isn't clear anymore again: Assuming I would sell the product for the next 30 years while never touching the design again. Would that mean that making the initial design with Onshape would cost me 30*$1500=$45000?

I honestly can't make sense out of the current terms of service. Imho it would be best to just remove the "non commercial" aspect from the TOS. Then one would have an open source license for open source projects, where the designs are public and everybody can do with it what they want (including selling it) as long as they release potential design changes publicly again - no matter whether that person has a pro license or not. Additionally (perhaps optional, at the choice of the person who created the public model?) pro license users could have the right to derive private copies from public projects if they want, essentially like a contributors agreement in some OS projects.
And if one wants to keep the design private one can buy a  commercial license and has to pay subscription as long as one wants to be able to edit these private designs.
Pretty straightforward!

tim_hess427

@ferdinand_strixner - I think it's hard to answer your questions because there are two main issues here: 1) the onshape TOS and 2) intellectual property law and rights. 

The TOS describe how you can use the software (your activities while using the service). It seems like you understand that commercial use requires a paid license. I believe this is a separate issue from where your models come from, how they are shared, and what people do with the models. That's the realm of intellectual property law. 

Intellectual property law governs rights to use and modify intellectual property (designs and models). Do you have the right to use somebody's public design and make money off of it? Does somebody else have a right to take our open-source design and make money off of it? Can they make changes? I don't know. Those are all questions for an IP attorney, and again, likely a separate issue from the TOS. 

fst

Hi @tim_hess427, the usage permissions of the file are usually defined by the license it is released under. There are  "do almost whatever you want with it" licenses (MIT, Apache2, CC0 etc.) and strong copyleft licenses that require to make any changes public that end up in a distributed product (GPL3 etc.)

Of course it would be best if the person who releases a model could choose the license. Unless the requirement to use one of the more permissive licenses (that allow Pro users to create derivations without contributing back) is part of the "free deal" from Onshape side (so one of the commercial purposes of the free users would be to generate an attractive content pool that the Pro users can make use of).

This is of course an important factor to understand.

For the sake of simplicity (and to focus more on the main point of my posting) let's assume for the moment that I was the person who created a public model with the free version, made some prototypes, came to the conclusion that this needs to get into the hands of more people, so I want to produce and sell some.

And now I want to find out what I have to do in this situation - what do I have to pay and for how long.

I understand that the support team is hesitant to make any statements that might turn out wrong. But if nobody at Onshape is in the position to tell people what exactly they would have to buy and pay if they want to sell one of their public models made with the free version at some point then at least I would honestly look elsewhere, where I can understand the conditions and can plan accordingly.

On the description webpage for the free version of Onshape they write that one could make Open Source projects with it. But from my understanding of the TOS it rules out Open Source by definition as it directly clashes with point 6 of the defining criteria of an Open Source license: "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor": https://opensource.org/docs/osd#fields-of-endeavor

Open Source and commercial use are NOT mutually exclusive, to the contrary. Most successful Open Source projects are heavily used commercially (think Linux/Android, LibreOffice, Blender, gcc etc.)

Allowing Onshape to be used for Open Source projects would of course be great, could help to contribute some pretty amazing showcases and get the word out!

But to attract some serious open source contributions, Onshape would have to be pretty clear regarding their commitment and roadmap.

Because using any free software isn't exactly "free" - it costs a lot of time, one of the most precious resources these days. So particularly the high profile Open Source contributors will want to get something out of it for their time. Building an asset library for the Pro users while not being allowed to use those assets themselves as they see fit is likely not attracting too many.

So long story short: Onshape should decide what they want, commit to it and communicate this strategy with clear words so people don't need to hire a lawyer to understand whether they can use this software or not.

shawn_crocker

@ferdinand_strixner
Hmm. After attempting to read your entire post without crying, I gave up. I'm thinking, just simplify your life and start using Onshape for your project. Laws this, laws that. Wow! Just start designing and let go of your fears of a higher power robbing you of what you deserve. I believe you have to buy Onshape for a year anyway so once you love the design you make and are ready to make money off it, subscribe and maybe it's just simple like that?

tim_hess427

Yea - I'm not super familiar with "opensource.org", but doubt they are final legal authority on the definition of "opensource" and I doubt onshape cares either. If you're doing an "opensource" project as a hobby. Use a free account. If you're using onshape for a job or to build a commercial thing, pay onshape what they deserve for building a useful tool. If it's not clear cut, talk to a lawyer or use your judgement. 

From the point of view of onshape, they probably don't care what "license" you say you're releasing your project under (the question about whether that license is actually enforceable is a whole 'nother can of worms). If you're using the service for commercial purposes, pay onshape. If you (or someone else) uses data that was at one point hosted or modified within onshape, that's between you and whoever owns that data. 

nick_papageorge073

I think the odds that someone is into music, is into building their own instruments, is into CAD, and uses OS, are pretty slim. I think you are overanalyzing this. Probably no one will care what you did, and you will have spent a lot of effort to try to appease some public interest that probably does not exist. Just make what you want for yourself and be done with it:)

fst

Answering here in in reverse chronological order, always takes some time, non Pro user postings seem to require manual approval in each and every case...)

@nick_papageorge073
You might be right. Perhaps the instrument doesn't even work. Or it will be great and many or at least some will want one? Or I consider it great and still nobody but me wants it. We'll see If the thing should take off I also think that it would be important to be able to make instruments for those who cannot make one themselves. And optimally it is not a single person who makes them for others, but different instrument makers. I would expect the design to significantly improve, particularly in the beginning, when instrument makers with years of experience and centuries of conveyed wisdom put their hands on it.

@tim_hess427 opensource.org is the homepage of the OSI (open source initiative) who coined the term and who consider themselves responsible to assess licenses for compatibility with the OSD (open source definition). So as official as it gets


@shawn_crocker Sorry for the long text!
Yepp, Onshape is definitely still high on the list

Am currently checking various CAD systems. Probably not the most efficient approach to get my design done, but it's a fun experience in itself

Have extracted a core challenge from the design I have in mind and tried to make that in various CAD systems. The Onshape team helped me to come up with a very idiomatic approach for Onshape that I probably wouldn't have found myself easily:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/16633/how-to-loft-sketches-that-were-created-by-patterns#latest

Up to now I have these results. Important note: That I wasn't able to do something doesn't mean that it doesn't work with a package - only scratching on the surface in most of these systems, so it could very well just be me.

a) Solutions where a fully generative approach was possible (so arbitrary numbers of new pipes can be added just by changing one parameter):
* Onshape (the pattern feature allows translators and variables)
* Solidworks for Makers (the pattern feature in SW allows to drive variables in the patterned feature as a function of the incremented value)
* CadQuery (it's Python, so loops and recursion are your friend)
* OpenSCAD (also both loops and recursion)
* NX Student (the Solidworks solution worked there 1:1)
* FreeCAD potentially with Lattice2 Workbench or scripting (still trying)
* Alibre Design Trial (via scripting)

b) Solutions where I have to create at least some parts (e.g. the lofts) manually but can hide them depending on a variable value or configuration
* Solid Edge Community Edition (suppressions can be guarded by expressions)
* FreeCAD potentially via configuration tables on Realthunder Linkstage 3 branch (still trying)
* Alibre Design Trial (via configurations)
* Fusion 360 (suppressions can be guarded by expressions)

c) Solutions where I have to maintain different copies of the model for different pipe configurations:
* barebone FreeCAD
* Alibre Atom3d Trial

So long story short, Onshape is in the first class feature wise for my use case.
But there are other factors to consider. Option to go commercial, price, availability, longevity, community support, support for collaboration, usability etc.
For Onshape I have the doubts mentioned above mainly for the going commercial option (if that ever becomes relevant). But it's pretty great in most other departements, so it's definitely still on the list!
E.g. for many other packages on this list I already *know* that scrapping and restarting from scratch with a commercial license is what I (or anybody willing to produce this commercially) would have to do in case one wants to sell anything. And some packages are so prohibitly expensive that at least I could realistically never go commercial when going with one of those.
But in case of open questions it's usually better to assume "no, doesn't work" instead of blindly relying on wishful thinking. So as long as I don't hear anything else, Onshape is in the same mental departement as the SE base package for me - at the upper boundary of where a commercial license could at least still be an option for smaller batches - and assuming that one would have to redo the design from scratch and cannot just reuse a project that was started with the free license commercially.

Sometimes life is easier with less choices. But also potentially less fun :P