Open source printer with refillable ink, no bullshit, accept rolls of papers.
Finally an open source printer ! I dealt with so much stupidity with printers. it warm my heart.
I do have too much joy to practice mandatory critical thinking about the release of a new project. Lets talk about it? i am not the only one to be happy about it, i have no info about the price though :/
Sacré bleu, c’est magnifique!!
I’m not sure if most will know, but an open source printer is a very challenging thing to do correctly. Tons of people have been pouring their hearts and souls into this effort.
One primary issue has been practicality. Open source is only as good as the ability to actually utilize that openness in practice. This includes the being able to actually repair the device as an end user whether on your own or with assistance. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that if it doesn’t print well, it doesn’t matter how open it is because nobody will care to use it.
Obviously this is pre-release so don’t quote me on this, but I think this may just be one of the best attempts I’ve personally seen. Parts are off the shelf and reasonably priced, it can print in multiple sizes right at release, and from the videos the print quality looks very good!
I wish I could get my hands on one of these. I can’t say too much publicly, but there is a group of people who I would love to demonstrate this to and educate about. I know for a fact that even for those who don’t give a damn about open source, people do give a damn about the realities around modern-day printing.
For everyone’s sake, these need to reach the average Joe and be understood. Much of my life seems to be acting as a bridge between the OSS heavyweights and the average consumer if I think about it.
You know, vintage printers offer much the same.
I have an HP 4050DTN from a good quarter century ago that has no DRM of any kind, no tracking dots, no reporting home to the mothership, is eminently repairable, and can accept overstuffed toner cartridges that are advertised to do 20,000 sheets at 5% coverage.
And the toner claim largely bears out. Two degrees later and I’m only on my third cartridge in the machine’s entire life. Last I ran a duty report the sheet count was getting close to 50k. Low 40s, at the very least. So it’s tracking decently close.
Sure, it now needs some parts refreshed. Rollers, fuser, and so forth. After a quarter century of use I would be surprised if something wasn’t starting to go. But parts are still readily available and surprisingly cheap. I mean, I have the parts in, I just haven’t had the time yet to swap them in.
The only downside of kit this old is that networking was an afterthought. Most units will come with USB, DIN-8, serial, and parallel ports, but finding a good JetDirect Ethernet network card - ideally 635n or newer - is difficult and expensive (the 615n bricked itself with distressing regularity, avoid at all costs).
I also have an HP 5000DTN that is of the identical build quality and can do oversized sheets up to 11×17. Beautiful machine in its early-2000s brutalist beigeness.
So if you want HP at their peak of printer glory, long before enshittification set in, hop on over to Wikipedia and consider any LaserJet model first released before 2006-2012.
To fix the networking you could get a dedicated USB print server or a RasPi with CUPS and attach the printer via USB. Probably cheaper than a vintage printer network card.
Yes but JetDirect is still cheaper and better integrated. There is the issue with outdated certificates and max. TLS 1.2 with the print server, but in a home/SOHO environment this should not be a critical security shortfall.
Thanks a lot ! I learned so much things. Thanks for the precise references.
It is a solution but i am not sure the supply will last. It can only dwindle.
Your arguments are sounds and valids. I have another solution to a problem, thanks again !
Get an extra roller kit and fuser kit, and you should be golden for the next two decades. The cartridges aren’t going away any time soon.
Its actually funny that Gta6 came out before this.
Never will i go back to ink cartigage or refillable ink… Those wear off faster than speed of light.
I switched 2 month ago and it’s day and night…
Not Open Source hardware or firmware.
License is CC-NC-SA, which fails all formal definitions of Open Source.
Also why are they using a content license for software and hardware? We need to create an online course that teaches people how not to suck at doing foss… and then license that course with a eula, cause that would be so fucking funny.
I disagree. Open source can mean many things, this license permits you to do anything with it, just not selling it.
Only thing is, you have to use the same license when publishing changes, which is normal for almost all open source.
I dont See anything wrong with it and calling it non open source is a bit misleading i think
No they’re right, cc-nc-sa is not open source or freedom respecting.
Edit: I’ll elaborate. The core principles of the free software movement will follow. All other definitions not only do not conflict with this basic definition, but often expand on it with additional rights expectations. The Four Freedoms:
-
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
-
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
-
Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
-
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
-
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Restrictions on commercial use are a suppression on freedoms 2 and 3, and notably (at least as far as I’m aware), none of the licenses to come out of the FSF have commercial restrictions.
And in the Open-Source definition, it’s literally in rule 1:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
I agree that its weird to use a content license.
But in what way do your listed requirements not apply to this project and license?
You can do whatever you want, besides makind money with it or sharing/changing it without attribution.
As far as i know hardware licenses are a bit strange still?
But i just dont unterstand your point and would like to
The restrictions on commercial use are what make it unqualified as an open-source license.
@Augmented1207@feddit.org @AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net their point is that commercial restrictions go against both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement as layed out by both of their definitions and it’s harmful for several reasons (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html)
sit with the thought for a moment, what if the GNU operating system or the Linux kernel, etc… had a commercial restriction on them, there would be more complications then, and the physical copies made by other distributions wouldn’t be made, and so on
-
Slight open-washing involved though - the license is CC-By-NC-SA, which sadly makes it incompatible with open hardware projects, and restricted from being available as a pre-assembled kit.
Well you are right ! Still i see it as a massive positive win in this particular sector, but sure, lets see what happen and be greedy with licensing! May the next one/release/update be more open.
I thank you a lot
They do have a survey that includes the kit question.
Here is the link if you are interested: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc0MLIj1Mfv81vaiOIQG1yMEilruRfNgx7h36l5a0qC-G9TZw/viewform
From this update : https://www.crowdsupply.com/open-tools/openprinter/updates/on-the-road-to-launch
creative commons doesn’t even recommend their licenses be used for software (it’s in their faq). i’m guessing the same would apply to hardware designs as well.
Creative Commons does not have any guidelines about using their licenses for hardware. It would still be a better idea to use CERN-OHL for hardware though.
Thanks ;) I learned something!
Fuck NC.
The hardware is pretty trivial. The cartridges, which are the most problematic part are HP. This is so underwhelming.
All I want is one laid-off and bitter engineer to get drunk one night and say “fuck this” and open source solve everyone’s problems with the abusable HP shit.
I don’t even care if it’s dot matrix all over again.
Problem is that those cartridge nozzles that deposit tiny droplets of ink precisely when and where you want them are pretty close to magic.
They’re about as easy to manufacture as microchips, and they’re also the one part of the inkjet printer that you absolutely need to be on point if you want it to print right.
I’m surprised we don’t have open source laser printers though, that’s still hard but should be doable, if you can source the material for the rollers and figure out the led strip that charges it?
I’m wondering if you could do a tiny valved pneumatic nozzle the sprays ink that way instead
it’s still a good start . Also aftermarket cartridges exists.
oh, and also they offer refill kits.
HP carts have the printhead included, disposable, so quality will degrade fast with refilling. Epson/brother and some Canon have permanent printheads which will last orders of magnitude longer. If the cart/printhead is still going to be propietary, epson/brother printheads, which are readily available, and which can be setup pretty easily in a CISS configuration would have been way better. The project is really bad. The fact that they use paper rolls is also dumb. Are you really going to cut every single sheet? Rolls make sense for large format printing. Epson/brother with aftermarket CISS are the way to go, especially because you can get actual Epson ink in bottles for refilling, the ones used in their ecotank line, super cheap.
it also takes normal sheet paper. but it has an integrated cutter so the rolls enable A4 or A3 (us letter or 11x17), or any other length, or continuous from the same source.
permanent printheads are not really any better from a longevity standpoint. they still do degrade and need replacement. more often than not, that replacement either doesn’t exist, hasn’t been manufactured since the printer was a new model, or is prohibitively expensive and/or only available from random third-parties.
the last ink tank + separate printhead setup that you could very easily get tanks and printheads for was some old canon printers from 25+ years ago. the printheads were in a removable caddy, and that caddy was sold in stores with and alongside ink tanks.
printheads also need to be used, regularly. once you go a few weeks without printing, every day that you don’t increases your chance those printheads will never print again. when the printhead is in the consumable, it gets replaced far easier and automatically on a cartridge swap. yes, that is at the expense of higher cost new consumables.
we’ve had to bin three brothers, two hp, an epson, and a canon over the twenty years because of bad and unreplaceable printheads. coincidentally we’re currently using two salvaged hp printers that use the same cartridges as this ‘open’ printer, use refilled consumables, and the printers are old enough they don’t scream and refuse to print if the color is empty–we can use and print black only.
the problem here with this project is they don’t have their own printheads and cartridges, which means some of their code was either lifted from hp printers or reverse engineered; and they rely on hp as the only source for new consumables and printheads. hp would be very hostile to this project, so i hope they fully documented their entire process of development and are ready for the inevitable lawsuit.
In the linked survey they’re talking about selling an ink kit. With that, the non-commerical license meaning nobody but them can sell spares, and them filing a patent, it’s almost like they’re just trying to start another printer company and just using the open source community to do advertising 🫠
I think you’re misinterpreting - the thing needs ink one way or another, and the kit suggested in the image is just a standard ink refill kit. They’re just asking if people want them to provide that, or if they want to get it elsewhere - I selected elsewhere.
What it means though is that nobody in the community can sell upgrades to the printer, sell spare parts, or, and by far most importantly, nobody can develop a fully open source printhead for this printer to sell.
Right now they are using a proprietary print head from a normal printer (understandably because it is by far the most complex engineering piece and is very complicated). However, an external team that wants to make an open hardware project taking on that engineering challenge with more expertise than this team will not be able to be compensated for their work if they make it specifically for this open source printer. According to my understanding of the license.
From my understanding, they might still be able to develop a fully open source printhead that is compatible with the printer and sell it separately, but developing a copy of the said printer will be a breach of the patent.
HP 63 et HP 63 XL (US)
HP 302 et HP 302 XL (Europe)
HP 803 et HP 803 XL (Asie)
And the ink they use is cheap/available internationally.
I also think that one can refill these with regular ink bottles from amazon/aliexpress
I’m not an expert in those legal fingerprints, but i can imagine that you might need a parent even if you want to open source it, simply so nobody else can patent it. on the other hand, in right now to lazy/sleepy to read the article, so don’t mind me :)
That’s not how patents work. If you open source something, it will count as prior art if someone else tries to patent the same thing.
ok, as i said I’m unfamiliar with this topic, so I’m happy about some inside.
how do you proof that you open sourced something before somebody patented it? i mean a parent is registered at some authority. is it sufficient to refer to your, e.g., GitHub history?
Now do a laser printer
No more frustrating blockages like: “Cannot print in black because the yellow is empty.”
I think they’re trying to seduce me
Doesn’t that happen because of legal requirements? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots
I don’t think that’s a legal requirement. Many printers don’t do MICs.
Is there a list of the ones that don’t?
Every black and white laser printer.
Lemme tell you it is working
LETS GOOOOOO I have a small print shop and I only use Linux and it SUCKS
Certainly a cool idea, and I hope it succeeds and turns out to be what it seems.
No price listed on their crowd fund page, so who can say what this might cost? Uses a Raspberry Pi Zero W for the brains and a STM32 for the cartridge board.
While I understand why are they unwilling to allow commercial usage of the final product, it also makes it difficult to actually put in the hands of people. I agree, hopefully they can reconsider for a later iteration.
If it’s not really FOSS, It’s just an attention grabbing, open washing failure in progress, sponsored by people who don’t understand the licensing implications.
i do enjoy the fact they’re repurposing hp cartridges. but if this printer thing actually grabs some traction, i can totally see hp EOLing every printer that uses them and ending new production of those cartridges.
Maybe by then openprinter would have migrated to their ink standard and started producing it. Old models’ ink cartridges can still be refilled but not changed.
I do understand your passion and i respect your disappointment.
While i understand the explicit implications of cc-by-nc-sa, (attribution, non-commercial,share alike) i fail to understand the implicits implications. Could i trouble you to explain it ?
I think the criticism is that it’s less likely to build an ecosystem like a Gnu Public License would (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap for an example of a 3d printer that very successfully used the GPL). The CC license prevents large corporations from stealing the design. But it also prevents someone from 3D-printing parts and selling them on a small ebay store.
Seeing the dissembled printer makes me want it regardless of license tbh
Finally a real answer haha, had to scroll awhile.
So the licensing thing is just mostly people complaining that it isnt the most truiest of openness since people tend to conflate floss with accessibility when people call it open and they mean accessibility.
Still getting a reliable printer that I can fix that I’m not vendor locked by that does all the things I could want a printer to do, since this was their goal I’m glad its happening.
The limits imposed by the license will harm adoption, I hope I’m wrong but there will be no community around this. It will most likely be DOA. Which is a shame… The AGPL would better protect his interests.
Idk how their choice of license limits me front buying their printer and doing the things I want to do with it.
The perfect color for a printer doesnt exi…
spoiler
Curious how 3D beat 2D by, what, 10 years?
Ease really. Once the patents expired it was fairly simply to make a 3d printer, which is essentially a hot nozzle squirting plastic. It’s more akin to a pen plotter
An inkjet printer is significantly more complex. Even if you know how it works you essentially need a semiconductor level fab to make the printhead. That’s why all these projects just reverse engineer hp cartridges. Literally every inkjet printer patent could’ve expired 10 years ago and it wouldn’t change the engineering and manufacturing challenges
3D is actually 100% open source.
This still uses proprietary cartridges.
Aren’t printers pretty restricted due to needing to have surveillance and anti-counterfeit features? Is this legal at scale?
I think the feds just asked printer manufacturers nicely
I don’t actually know but I imagine it’s all voluntary. It seems like kind of an endless tail chase to constantly limit anything that could feasible be used to commit a crime. Actual counterfeiting with any success requires some pretty specialized shit. Honestly if this printer could be configured to meet those specifics them more power to them. End of the day though I wouldn’t imagine this being the gateway to massive expansions in the counterfeit market.
Still doesn’t atop them from regulating 3d printers like crazy
Those regulations are silly. It doesn’t stop you from using your 3D printer to print a 3D printer that has no restrictions
Yeah I guess there’s no accounting for the power of neophobia.
I should clarify, it’s more of a justification for tracking features and market protectionism (like allowing only 4 brands of printer) than an actual issue.
Yeah I was thinking about that. Like, these companies probably have some number of government contracts and those contracts give latitude to make some interesting demands.
The counterfeit features from my understanding are just matching one simple dot pattern. That could be included in the firmware here as well.
In their discord server the open printer staff said they explicitly aren’t including thst kind of stuff.
OK, that’s kind of a big deal
