Who copied my document?

øyvind_kaurstad

In the "forced share plan" (AKA "Free Plan") we have to make most of our documents public to even be able to use Onshape. A while back Onshape added a copy counter to public documents. In all fairness, I think it should be possible to click on that counter and get a list of who copied the document. After all, only registered users can copy a document, so Onshape probably has that info stored, or at least could do so.

What do others think about that?

TimRice

Interesting idea. What would you like to do with that information?

øyvind_kaurstad

It is no secret that I am extremly disappointed with the lack of a middle tier plan from Onshape (and I haven't yet heard a single good argument for why not). I really want to pay some money to have just a little bit more privacy, but the Pro Plan isn't justifiable for a maker/hobbyist. The Free Plan is really a "forced share plan", as you can't really use Onshape like it is meant to be used without going public, since documents really quickly outgrows the 100 MB limit.

Now, being able to see who copied my documents doesn't really do much besides satisfying my curiosity, but one could also argue that if I create a document where I explicitly add one of the CC licenses (like attribution), then I could at least to some extent find out if someone violates that licence.

michał_1

@øyvind_kaurstad, forgive me honesty, but you haven't heard a single good argument, because it's none of your business. I would advise not to argue about company policies. No one is telling us how to run our businesses, and we should respect others policies.
I'm happy that Onshape didn't come with non-commercial or demo/trial idea (and yes, I know about Education Plan). Non-commercial license are very often violated. Current licensing is fair and gives some space also for those who can't afford Pro.

øyvind_kaurstad

michał_1 That's a bit harsh, don't you think? I'm quite sure that Onshape can handle users voicing their opinions on their own public forum. Sure they have an exclusive right to decide for themselves how they want to do business, just like it is my right to be disappointed at how they choose to do (part of) said business. I am (still) convinced that they would make more money by a careful introduction of a middle-tier plan to cater for those that need some more privacy than the current Free Plan, but not as much as the current Pro Plan. Finding that level shouldn't be too difficult, as they have full stats of how their Pro users are using their plan today, so they could make sure that a middle plan wouldn't cannibalize the Pro Plan.

They clearly don't want to do this, but there has been no good arguments for why not (just that there are no plans to do so). I could of course just jump ship and start using the main competitor (which is free for makers and hobbyists), but I really prefer Onshape, and would like to pay some for that.

michael3424

øyvind_kaurstad on this and would also welcome an opportunity to pay for a middle tier plan.  So far Onshape doesn't seem to be annoyed with these periodic suggestions from users.

michał_1

@michael3424 I'm sure Onshape team have nothing against any suggestions from users, as long as someone is not suggesting they're unfaithful (" The Free Plan is really a "forced share plan""), or stupid ("and I haven't yet heard a single good argument").

@øyvind_kaurstad Onshape in 2012 raised $9 million funding (http://archive.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2012/12/solidworks_execs_reunite_to_ta.html), in 2013 another $25M (http://archive.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2013/04/next-generation_cad_startup_be.html), when they've launched in march 2015 they had total of $64M in fundings (http://fortune.com/2015/03/06/exclusive-solidworks-vets-raise-64-million-for-onshape/), just 6 months later they get $80M more (https://www.onshape.com/press-release/onshape-raises-new-round-of-funding).People behind these investments have heard all arguments about pricing policy. Not only these arguments had to be good, but it looks they were very convincing. Only way you can think different is, if you would assume that either, people in Onshape are fraudsters, or investors are idiots. I have no reasons to doubt in their common sense or honesty.
Arguing after you've been told "I know you have specific questions, but as a policy, we do not publically discuss our future business strategy", is rude and accusing them bad will or foolishness is disrespectful, which they did not deserve.
Your argument about "careful introduction of a middle-tier plan" is a pure speculation, and without any estimations, baseless.
In the end, what I'm asking for is, if you could be less harsh, when you articulating your disappointment (by the way, misaddressed disappointment).

øyvind_kaurstad

michał_1: I haven't called anyone for either idiots or stupid, so please refrain from interpreting what I wrote. When I said I hadn't heard any good arguments against a middle tier plan, then that's literally what I meant. In fact, I have heard no arguments at all.

I am a big fan of Onshape, but you seem to try to picture me as the opposite. I think that's unfair, and it seems there is no point in discussing this any further, at least not with you. In addition, you call my disappointment "misaddressed". That's just not for you to say. Attacking me like this is rather counterproductive, I think.

michał_1

Last thing, could you explain me how should I understand this quote: The Free Plan is really a "forced share plan"? And why Onshape didn't use that name in a first place?

øyvind_kaurstad

I explained what I meant in that post, so please re-read it. It wasn't a suggestion to rename the Free Plan, it was just a slightly tongue-in-cheek description of how the Free Plan really works. And that is also how Onshape intends it to work, I think.

I'm not criticizing neither the Free Plan nor the Pro Plan (both are just fine as they are), just the lack of a middle tier plan.

peter_meilstrup

To get back on the topic, being able to see who has derived your work is part of the cluster of social-networking features that made Github into the dominant platform for collaboration among programmers. It looks pretty clear to me that Onshape takes a lot of inspiration from Github, and could be playing to become a sort of "github for shapes" but the collaboration / networking features are a bit lacking as yet.

Kokoro

øyvind_kaurstad. Having chosen to by default mark my documents with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License I would be interested to know who has copied my documents as that license effectively means they can look at it but cannot do anything with my file at all. Without being able to see who has copied it, and be able to contact them about it, I cannot employ my right to protect my work. Exactly how does that comply with Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

A way to pay that is reasonable for hobbyists would be widely appreciated, of that I am sure. I have no desire to just give away my ideas for free but cross platform CAD software that isn't priced at levels only accessible to large businesses is nigh impossible to find. Not everyone is looking for everything to be "free", many would be happy with just a "reasonable" price.

michał_1

I have an idea, maybe Onshape should change how free plan works. I think it should be specified that free plan is for non-commercial use only, period.
If that would be true, Kokoro demands would show at least some legitimacy.
Copyrights are well defined in legislation (of most countries) with an exception of these rights legal disposal. The whole effort of open source/copyleft community is to create a practice of such legal disposal, for the benefit of society.
Kokoro is concerned about own benefit, only. Attempt to lay a burden of policing Kokoros alleged benefit, on Onshape shoulders is beyond impertinence.

@Kokoro, none of your human rights are violated by Onshape existence. Get the paid subscription or deal with a current free offer.

I bet that if the free plan would be for non-commercial use only, Kokoro wouldn't even signup to Onshape.

Kokoro

michał_1 but I am beginning to think you have comprehension issues as you seem to be deliberately misinterpreting every post in this thread and then posting vitriolic comments in response. I am not entirely sure what your particular problem is but perhaps you should vent your frustrations elsewhere?

john_gentilin

Wow, stumbling upon this thread is a huge argument for me to leave the OnShape platform. I am fine with the free policy and I too would like to see middle tier plan, but authorship is authorship. You put in 100's of hours into a design to have someone just copy it from you without a trace can be very disappointing. 

I have argued this point from the other side, when I find a part, I would like to copy it (fork it) modify it, and even offer pull request back to the up stream author and most of all have a show of attribution for the parts I have found useful and have included in my design from others. This notion of copying without attribution is very much a cowards act. 

If there is no ability to track how your works of art have been shared why even offer the copy counter except to produce a sense of anxiety in the author who wants to produce open designs. Today someone copied my document and instead of feeling proud that someone found interest in a design of mine, I felt robbed because I was unable to know who they were. 

michał_1

@john_gentilin your post won't get any attention, this thread even with new entries is not pushed to the top, it remains on the 7th page of Product Feedback category, and I don't even care how far away it is on Recent.

kevin_34

Personally I just use OnShape as basically a sketch pad for ideas I don't care about privacy on. For privacy I use Fusion 360 at a fraction of the price with full cad/cam capability.

To the subject of this thread, I have a personal design for the common lapidary grinder which has been copied 158 times currently. I'd just like to see what others are making out of my starting point. Maybe someone has come up with an improvement that I could incorporate back in to mine. If others can find and copy my design, I should be able to click on the copies icon and see a list of theirs. It should just basically apply a filter to the regular gallery.

I've been building corporate, database backed web applications for 20 years so I do know a bit about what it would likely entail.

EternalPath

You can see who has copied your documents by searching for the document title in "public documents". Most of the copies will have your original title + "- copy" added. It shows the document owner. 

If they have changed the name of the document you can also search by part name within public documents. hopefully you gave at least one of your parts a unique name so that you aren't searching for "rod" in public documents :P

I also add a license.txt to as the first tab in my documents and it contains an open source licence requiring attribution and republication of any mods. so they can't (shouldn't) change it to a private document