"Ownership" of sbp files

[richards]

I received a very interesting email yesterday from a company that has a program that generates SBP code (the company has no connection to Shopbot).

In short, the company asked me to agree to a licensing change that would allow them to insert a copyright notice in all SBP files. Of course the copyright would belong to their company and not to me. I disagreed and the company very graciously promised to refund my money.

Now, with that background in mind, the question is: Who should owns the copyright on a SBP file, the originator of the design (me) or the company that produces a conversion engine to create SBP code?

I would think that the software company has total copyright rights to the code in their program, meaning that I could not copy, sell or distribute their program code without their permission. However, in my opinion, the output from their program should not insert their copyright into the SBP file. Microsoft does not insert their copyright into my Word documents. AutoCAD does not insert a copyright into my DXF files. PartWizard does not insert a copyright into my SBP files.

As far as I'm concerned, a SBP file that contains a copyright would require me to obtain written permission from the copyright holder before I could use the file - especially if I planned on selling a part that was generated by the code in that SBP file.

What do you think? Was I wrong to disagree with that company or was the company wrong?

-Mike

[richards]

(I thought that I was posting the copyright question in the Shopbotter Message Board area - oh well, I must be getting old.)

-Mike

[jsfrost]

A copywrite is granted to the creator of the design, not to software that processes the art. Would a french translation software vendor expect to own the french version of the book? I believe that the proposed copyright notice would be unenforcable but paying a lawyer to establish this would still be costly. I'd suggest to them that there are better places to put their copywrite.

[mikejohn]

Mike
If you create the design, be it in AutoCad, Rhino, Corel Draw or whatever, as soon as you save the file, the copyright of that design is yours and yours alone. You do not even have to register it for it to be your copyright.
The format of a .sbp file is not copyright to anyone, if it were, the machine would be commercially inoperable. There are many ways of arriving at the .spb file from the same original drawing, so I really don't see how any one who writes a program that does the conversion can claim copyright of the output .spb file.
I think you were spot on in disagreeing.
In order that others don't follow the same path, can you name the software?
..............Mike

[gerald_d]

"As far as I'm concerned, a SBP file that contains a copyright would require me to obtain written permission from the copyright holder before I could use the file - especially if I planned on selling a part that was generated by the code in that SBP file."

Not correct. A copyright on that file applies only to the code in that file. It does not apply to the objects created from that file. A copyright in that file will only prevent you from selling, copying, or posting that file, and nothing else. A copyright on a novel does not stop you from reading it - as many times as you want to. Or lending the novel to your friends, etc.

There is an increasing trend by professional service providers to say that you have only paid for use of their work, and that they won't give you ownership of what you paid for. I resist that trend, but I wouldn't worry about a copyright in a .sbp file unless I wanted to sell that file (not the resultant object) or post the file content in places like this forum.

This view assumes they only wanted a simple "Copyright of XYZ" line. If they wanted a more detailed statement and limitations then they can get lost.

[richards]

Sorry, the company shall remain nameless. They have a good program that works well for its intended purpose. All users of the program were notified of the license change and given the choice to accept or opt out. The company also stated that they are drafting a three page licensing agreement that future uses of the software will have to sign before receiving the software - so, no one will be caught unaware.

(I'm also thinking that they may re-evaluate their position and I would hate to cause them to lose sales because of a simple misunderstanding of copyrights.)

-Mike

[bill.young]

Hey guys,

There's a lot of confusion about copyright and what it does and doesn't cover. One of the sessions during the Jamboree will be presented by a lawyer who will discuss copyright law as it applies to the sort of work that we do, including ways to protect our work and how to keep from ripping off someone else's.

If you're not going to be at the Jamboree and have a question on this subject, email it to us at campshopbot@shopbottools.com (mailto:campshopbot@shopbottools.com) and we'll pass it on.

Bill

[gerald_d]

Mike, I love those "3-page licencing agreements". Without making an issue about it, I alter the words to suit me, sign them, and fax them back. In 15 years of trading for my own account, none of my suppliers has noticed the changes - but I always try and maintain a reasonable relationship with them so that we have never had to go and look for old "agreements".

[mikejohn]

Bill
There's been a lot of information (misinformation?) over the years on this Forum about copyright.
Any chance of posting a summary of the facts after the jamboree?
..........Mike

[richards]

Gerald,

You've raised a good point and one that I may have missed in their new license agreement. One of the reasons that they are changing the license agreement is that they want to prohibit transfer of the output code (SBP file) to anyone not licensed to use the program that created the output file. In other words their intent is to limit the use of the output code (SBP file) to licensed users of the program. (If it were not for the copyright issue, I would agree with them on "proper use" of the output code.)

It's been my experience that other software vendors (PartWizard for example) disables output from their program when they allow potential users to "demo" the software. It's also my assumption that SBP files created by PartWizard can be given/transfered/sold to other parties as long as the code was generated at a computer running a licensed copy of PartWizard.

-Mike

[mrdovey]

Mike (Richards)...

I'd really like to know who this outfit is so that I don't have to waste my time returning their code and having to wait for their refund check to clear at the bank.

...Morris

[richards]

Morris,

Let's give the software company a little time to review their position - after all, this whole thing only started yesterday. Other than my disagreement with them over copyright issues, I would purchase their software without question.

-Mike

[bill.young]

Hey Mike (John),

We're going to try to do some more "real-time" coverage from the Jamboree this year by blogging and posting pictures on the web. With any luck we'll be able to get volunteers to take notes in some of the sessions so that we can get them posted.

Bill

[paco]

Bill,
I might be willing to pay for a good summary document about the Jamboree's topics content!! I REALLY wish I could be there... I would guess many other wish too...?

[Brady Watson]

Yes, Mike...I too would like to know who this mysterious vendor is. You can't post something like this (which could be a MAJOR sanfu for ALL of us) and leave the meat out of it.


-Brady

[fleinbach]

Mike

What harm could come from divulging the name of the company so that others don't find out to late.

Gerald
I totally agree with you. I have been doing the same thing all my life. If I don't like what I'm signing I change it to suite me and if I and the other party can't agree, I will not sign.

[jsfrost]

Allowing Software X experts to design and sell useful output should be considered advertising. If I have contiuing need for designs of type X and I know of affordable software that does the job, I'll seriiously consider buying. I do need to know it will do the task, and find a 30 or 60 day trial useless. I do not have hundreds of hours to invest in learning that Software X will not do what I need. If I have a onetime need for a type X design, I'm not and never will be a potential customer.

[mrdovey]

Mike...

'S up to you - but from my vantage point there can be only two possible motivations for what they're doing, and I consider both larcenous:

[1] They intend to prevent customers from exercising normal ownership rights over those customers' own creative works by appropriating some of those rights for their own benefit; and/or

[2] They're setting the scene for litigation against those customers who do exercise their normal ownership rights.

I don't care if they respond to market pressures or not. I just don't /ever/ want to do business with them - or anyone like them. As far as I'm concerned, that stink doesn't wash off.

...Morris

[richards]

Hey Fellas,

I've opened a can of worms here. My intention was NOT to have a company black-listed. That company notified ALL of its customers and gave each of us the opportunity to accept or reject the new terms. They've also stated that any new customers will be notified in writing (3 page license agreement) BEFORE any software will licensed to them. Time will tell whether they decide to pursue the new licensing terms or not.

If you didn't receive an email yesterday, then you're not a current customer. If you did, then you've had the opportunity to agree or disagree with their position.

Up to this point, that company has had excellent service and a quality product. They've never failed to respond to questions - even my stupid questions. In my opinion I think that someone gave them some very poor advice, which they acted upon. I want to give them the benefit of a few days to review their position - just like I would sometimes like a few days to reconsider my position on certain things I've done when I've made a rash decision.

Now, with that being said, it should also be understood that a good programmer could easily write software in less than a week, using JAVA and NETBEANS that would blow their software out of the water. That was my first thought - that someone needed to be taught a tough lesson; however, after counting to 1,000 - several times, I realized that there was a time when I had written my first significant program and thought that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around it before realizing that what I had written was functional and useful, but that it could be written by any competent programmer in a matter of days instead of the months that it had taken me.

That's where I stand now. Those people worked hard to write something useful. They may have an inflated idea of the value of their software, but as stated above, they wouldn't be the first. It's not my desire to destroy them or to cause them any kind of embarassment. If they make the wrong decision, someone will write something better. Isn't that the whole idea of a free-market place?

My question was whether or not "I" had the wrong idea. I didn't want to be in a position where I would unknowingly owe royalties of some sort to various companies that claimed copyright ownership of my designs simply because I'd processed those ideas through their software. It looks like most of us have similar strong feelings on the subject, but strong feelings aren't necessarily always correct. I hope they are, in this case.

-Mike

[dirk]

I'm still counting

[mrdovey]

Mike...

I think you did the wise thing and that your reasoning was sound.

You're invited to forward my comments to the company

...Morris

[alabama_davo]

Wow! What a mess... I purchased thie software 2 months ago and as stated above, I got an e-mail which I read, readily agreed to, And signed.
Some thing not asked above, why attack this company? I feel it is VERY fair to protect my investments why are some of you having such a problem with them protecting theirs? This company, as also stated above, has given exceptionally good support and I cannot knock them for looking ahead for some possible issues with users.
I have paid for this program 30+ times and can only dream of future investments like this.

Dave

[Brady Watson]

OK Mike...I get it now & I too agree with your reasoning & comments...

Dave,
Not everyone wants to give up their rights to sell the fruits of their labor as easily as you do. What if the person who bought the software wants to sell SBP files to another botter who can't afford the software at the moment?? I believe that is his right to do so, because the output SBP is created from the user's design. So it's not a matter of the software company protecting "theirs"...it's a matter of them stealing yours.

-Brady

[richards]

Dave,

It is good software, isn't it? To me the question is not whether their software performs as advertised, it's whether they have the right to put a copyright on an output file that would never have been created without my original design.

Since the mid 1970's, most of my income has come from building and programming process control computers for the photo industry. One of those designs for a Kodak-S series printer was so large that it exceeded the D-WORD group in Borland's C++ compiler. (I got several inqueries from Borland on that program!) Anyway, the point that I'm making is that even though my hardware and software created the actual final photographs, at no time did I have the right to put my copyright on the backs of those photographs. The opposite was true. One of the functions of the process control computer was to print the original photographer's copyright information on the back of every photograph produced.

Like many others, I normally put a copyright notice in the SBP files that I let out of my shop. HOWEVER, I put the copyright on those files to keep someone unknown to me from putting their copyright on my original work which COULD keep me from using my own work at some future point. I know that we're picking nits here, and that any court of law would not allow someone else to copyright my work - if I had documentation that showed that I was the originator of the work and if I took the offender to court. All of that can be stopped by putting my copyright in the file. By the way, I've never charged anyone for a SBP file, nor would I, unless someone actually hired me to create a SBP file for them. In that case, I would NOT put my copyright on the file; instead, I would put THEIR copyright on the file since it would be their ideas and designs that let to the creatation of the file. (The use of a copyright in this manner is patterned after the Linux GPL copyright - call COPYLEFT by Richard Stallman and others who strictly adhere to the free software movement (free as in freedom, not free as in without charge) which gives everyone in the Linux community the right to use and enhance the software programs, but to never claim personal ownership of other programmers' original designs.)

Now, back to the company in question. In my opinion they should copyright the program that they are licensing to others. That program is their original work. They have the right to protect their interests in that program. They have the right to limit the use of that program to whomever they choose. As for the output of that program, do they have the legal right to copyright a design file (SBP output file) that is not original to them? The SPB file could not be created without first having someone enter data from a design that originated before being entered into the SBP generating program. (So far their program has never magically produced SBP code without requiring me first to input my design dimensions into their code generator. What their program does is save me, on average, 3 to 5 minutes conversion time per widget produced. If I only need a few widgets, I normally use AutoCAD Lite to generate dimensions which I handcode into a SBP file - each widget only needs a dozen lines of code, and hand coding also gives me rotational control and nesting control as well as allowing me to use cutters with dimensions not handled by their program. However, if I'm going to cut different sized widgets all day long, I use their program to speed things up. That, in essence was the reason that I originally purchased their program - to speed up a process that I was fully capable of performing on my own, with the foreknowledge that their program produced SBP code lacking some of the refinements that I sometimes required.)

-Mike

[richards]

Dirk,

I just re-read this thread and saw your post, "I'm still counting." I'm still laughing.

But I know exactly how you feel. In fact, I was so upset that I drank a diet-coke (you fellow Mormons can stop praying for my soul - I've already repented.)

-Mike

[matt_r]

Here's to you Mike - (lifting my Diet Coke). Enjoy!

Interesting thread. You'll have to let us know if the company changes its position.
Matt
MPR Designs
Farmington, Utah

[richards]

True to the company's word, the refund check arrived a few minutes ago (express mail) along with a pre-paid priority mail shipping box for the return of the software.

This proves to me that the software company is just as reputable as I've always assumed them to be, especially when they were willing to give a full refund even though I've used the original version since July when I first ran their software. In fact, the email from them leading up to all of this did not prohibit the continued use of current software; but, it stated that no future updates would be sent until they had received my acceptance of the new licensing terms. (The original purchase terms promised future updates at no addition cost, as those updates became available.)

(To anyone interested, I agree in principle to their right to restrict the distribution of SBP files created through the use of their program - although I would rather that such a condition be clearly stated in their pre-sales literature. Even after the sale, I would agree to their restriction on NOT passing along SBP files to anyone who did not have a license to create the SBP files, if they would retract their intent to copyright the SBP file(s).)

-Mike

[mikejohn]

Mike
If the sbp files of the original plan (be it .dxf or whatever) are considered to be a derivative work of those plans, then the copyright is retained by the owner of the copyright of the original plans. Most certainly the physical object you make from those plans is a derivative of those plans. If you make a lythophane of the Mona Lisa, the copyright (if Leonardo de Vinci still owns it!) belongs to him, not you. Although they are two completely different media, one is clearly derivative of the other. The .sbp file is different to the.dxf file, but it is clearly possible to take the .sbp file and remake the .dxf file. It must, therefore be derivative.
I think that the software company are wrong in claiming that the .sbp file is stand alone, and can have its own copyright completely detached from the original copyright.
However, I'm not a lawyer, but I did use to sleep with one (my ex-wife)
.............Mike

[dvanr]

Lets say (for the sake of argument) you develop a product that helps people cut profiled arcs, splines or even straight paths for windows and doors such as discussed in this http://www.talkshopbot.com/forum/messages/2/6258.html#POST20323
thread.
You write the program with predefined profiles but don't specify the path, that is done by the user.

Who owns the generated code? ( I think this is the problem software X has created )

My guess is you do ( as the program developer) since the new 3d product is a derivate of the 2d profile you wrote into the code.

DvanR

[guest (Unregistered Guest)]

http://www.shopbottools.com/sawhorse.htm

Go to the bottom of the page to see their copyright of an sbp file or just read it here.

"This Project file and its design are Copyright property of Bill Young and ShopBot Tools, Inc. They are made available to you here for your private use. To use or sell these projects or any components of them commercially, a license must be obtained from ShopBot Tools. Licenses are available for a reasonable fee."

[btk]

The difference is that Bill Youung put a copyright on that specific file/design, however he created them with PW or some other software. He did not copyright a certain macro function within Partwizard, just the Sawhorse design. Of course people can sell SBP files created within Partwizard.

[paco]

Dick (and all),

I might be missing something about all this... but if I were to sale a code/program that I wrote to machine profiled moulding, I would the most happy for you if you were to become RICH out of the creations you could make with it!!! I would still be as very glad if I would have give it freely or if I would have givin' you a SBP file with which you'd be making tons of $$$ out of it!!! The only thing I MIGHT expect is to hear from you and to drink to your great success with you!!! 8-D

This thread is really confusing AND suprising... what if I make pen; do I own the writin' text from it!?!?!?

I would really like to know who is this software company... to avoid 'em!

[dvanr]

Just another question:

Say you write a file which is to use a .25" ball nose bit to cut a profile known as an ogee ( about as simple and as common as you can get and been around for ages. Clever man Ogee ) . You include the profile in your program.


4899

Can you copyright that sbp profile?

From what has been said concerning derivative work, I don't believe you could copyright sbp code of a profile already in the public domain.

DvanR

[alabama_davo]

I think that ShopBot allowing the private use of Bills sawhorse is very generous. I also feel that a licensing agreement is fair. How does this differ from the company above? Just because you enter sizes and fill in fields dosen't mean "you" have created something...the program is responsible and "You" magically take credit?
How cool is that. Mike I know how you're thinking and it would be cool if it were that simple, but I am going through copyright issues in my business right now and it is far more complicated and than what has been discussed here. Some advice, next time you start to cut a cabinet door, think about how nice it would have been to have a program with lots of updates and the kind of support you just sent back...
Thats why I readily agreed to their simple use agreement.
Best wishes,

Dave

[mikejohn]

Dave
You have added a little more information here, it seems.
There has been an assumption in this thread (started by me
) that the programme was converting a .dxf (or other) file into .sbp.
However, you say "sizes and fill in fields dosen't mean "you" have created something"). This suggests to me that the writers of the programme have created a means of making, say, cabinet doors. Their programme is essentially a library of door plans, albeit the exact size and shapes only appear after you select the dimensions.
If this is the case, then this 'virtual library' may very well be the copyright of the software company.
I would suggest that their is an implied agreement for you to use the sbp file in your purchase of their software, but I can now see why selling or distributing the sbp code itself may be copyright infringement.
As you say Dave 'it would be cool if it were that simple'
.............Mike

[weslambe]

To all,

You have been led down the primrose path!
The software in question, DoorBot, creates three pre-defined designs. All that the user does is input dimensions and presto, out comes the file. The "art and science" involved is not derived from the user's ability to input two numbers on a spreadsheet, but comes from the inner working of the program. The design comes from the program and the output IS that design. The 3 program defined designs are not for sale, the finished product is. In no way whatsoever is the user creating any design. The fact that he may use different sized cutters doesn’t change the toolpaths created by the program. The learning curve on this software is about 5 minutes. That's about how long it takes to install and create your first house full of doors. This software is completely automatic except for the users size and cutter input.

to quote BTK:
"The difference is that Bill Youung (sic) put a copyright on that specific file/design, however he created them with PW or some other software..."

If Bill Young wrote a program that allowed the user to create as many different sized sawhorses as you wanted, his copyright would still be in effect on every file no matter what the size! Just because a user can change sizes doesn’t mean that they become the sawhorse designer!

That is exactly what this program produces, three different designs with user defined dimensions. No profile is being claimed as having a copyright, just the output files created. The shopbot cut product is yours to do with as you see fit. Give it away, burn it, I don't care.

As the developer of this software, it is my intention that my program doesn't end up with people stealing files and code to enrich themselves at the expense of my family and the honest paying users of this software.

Honestly, have you ever heard the saying "me thinks they doest protest too much?" I have to seriously question the motives of anyone who cannot, or refuses to use the program for it's intended purpose. What is their loss by using this software with it’s current license? Nothing unless they were going to try to go into business selling the files created by the program.

I have watched this thread in stunned amazement. I offer a tremendous product that gets better all of the time. I get excited emails from users almost daily. They are excited because they are making money using my software. The following note was emailed to me today by a Shopbotter in Atlanta:

Today "I" spent my day working out the details on my 'NEW'
business, yup, you guessed it. Making MDF Doors - For Sale !!!
And it is really going to be easy !!! I take the orders, do the
'quick' and 'easy' design work, for my business, cut my product,
and deliver them. I did it all by myself, and for myself !!!

"" WHAT A DEAL ""

Yes, this guy said "design work" in his mail. He should have said "inputting the door values." That is a common mistake. The doors are PRE-DESIGNED, yet you can change cutters and sizes.

In the beginning of this program I almost did include a real database of every possible door. It occurred to me that it would be better to do it virtually.

This software is very good and getting better. I have not claimed any referral fees yet from Shopbot but I personally know of at least 5 people who have bought the new Alpha machine because they had a product to sell with my software.

Wes Mason
DoorBot parametric mdf cabinet door software

[gerald_d]

"You have been led down the primrose path!" - by who?

"I have not claimed any referral fees yet from Shopbot " - that's rich. How many people are "buying" your program because of your advertising on ShopBot's website?

[weslambe]

Gerald

Everybody who is set up as a demo site can get a referral fee for helping them sell their machinery. I was only made aware of this in January and I may fill out the proper forms at some point and take them up on their offer.

I'm sure that many people have bought from what they have read here. I have thanked and continue to thank Shopbot. Everytime I give a presentation I tell of the benefits of buying an Alpha. I also tout the Alpha on my website and I am proud to do so.

Without this fine company, I wouldn't be able to stay at home with my children and make a living.

Wes

[mikejohn]

Gerald

Had Mike been a little more forthcoming in his original post, and had I not gone down the .dxf conversion path, then maybe the responses would have been different.
I feel Wes deserves his copyright protection.
He says The shopbot cut product is yours to do with as you see fit. This gets over a lot of the objections voiced in this thread.
He also says The design comes from the program and the output IS that design. I agree.

Wes
you also say "I have watched this thread in stunned amazement. Why didn't you step in earlier? Your product was praised from the start.
From the earliest posts a complete mis-understanding was created, initially by my interpretation of the original posters "the originator of the design (me) ", then compounded by me in my .dxf to .sbp argument.
I can quite understand how you would get bent out of shape if one person bought your software, and offered to sell (or even give) .sbp files produced by the software. All the shopbotter would need to do is email the door dimensions and styles, and bit size.
I agree that you have made a good case for your copyright.
But Wes, read the thread again, and see how much sooner you might have stepped in and clarified the problem

Your referral fees remark is, I guess, tongue-in-cheek. Without ShopBot, you have no programme (although I guess it could be re-written for other codes) ShopBot still have a product that produces cabinet doors without DoorBot.
..........Mike

[weslambe]

Mike,

I didn't see that this would spiral like it did. I have also learned in the past to simply let a bad thread die by not adding fuel to the fire. This one refused to.

I kept waiting for someone to let the cat out of the bag and one of my customers finally did.

As for the "tounge in cheek" about the "demo" fee. I didn't intent it to be a smug remark at all. I would love to recieve the $100.00 per machine "demo" reward offered by Shopbot to ALL approved demo sites. I'd have at least $500.00 extra dollars! All that I need to do is fill out the Shopbot paperwork to become a demo site. (I think)

Yes, DoorBot is being written for g-code machines also. I do have a large number of people waiting for it's release. But I wouldn't even be doing any software if it weren't for the tool I purchased from Shopbot. I backed into this market. I wrote this software for my own needs and after visiting Frank Horrell in Louisiana, I was convinced to market it.

I cannot express my gratitude enough to those good people in Durham. Without them, I'd still be searching for a product that sells. Now I have one and am making a living with it. It's not selling the software that makes the lion's share of my income, it's selling cabinet doors!

Best regards,
Wes

[mikejohn]

Wes
I know nothing about $100 demo whatsits. Presumably, if Shopbot sells a machine as a direct effort on someone elses part, then ShopBot will recognise that effort.
I think the thread was only 'bad' because it went totally in the wrong direction.
I'm now on your side

.............Mike

[btk]

Wes,

I agree, from your description, your program is not in the same category as Autocad or Partwizard which are Design Tools.

Short of knowing what the product was, I guess my point was that I could not see those tools inserting a copyright on user created Curves or Circles (even if the the user only had to enter in parameters to generate them.)

It seems that you are practically just selling 3 SBP files of doors and I think you should copyright them just as Bill Young did.

[kerrazy]

Wes,
I am on your side and I empathize with your situation, and I guess as I was reading this thread from the beginning, I too was feeling the back of my neck clench, As I know when I do artwork for a potetial client, I own the design, even after completion and the sign is paid for, I in fact own the original design and if the clients wishes to reproduce it they require my permission.
this protects me from a client taking my design work down the street to some basement dwellar who does not have to consider overheads and can produce the same or similar sign for less money.

But the fact that There is no design per say involved when using your software, just dimensions being entered, then yes there is a proprietary issue then. as the end user infact does not add his or her own creativity to the sign.

On the other hand if I create some artwork and add special effects to it in Adobe photoshop, and use and eyeCandy plugin for more visual effects, which in effect allows me to dial in numbers similar to your software, this does not give Adobe or eyecandy the right to my finished work.

The simple fact is they purchased a product from you, for the end result, The real end result is that it will write code for a ShopBot, not that it creates doors. So much like Eye Candy or Adobe you do not own that code. you own the rights to the software that creates that code and may reduce the duplication or sharing of that intial software, but what it produces in not yours to own. Hmmmm.
And throwing ShopBot under the bus like that, regarding referral fees, shame on you. That is your own doing they offer that to anyone who is an owner of the tool and if a tool is purchsed by a referral and the referral mentions your name than they do not hesitate to forward the fee to you.

But I still like you!
and truly wish you all the best with DoorBot!

[weslambe]

Threads like this take on a life of their own don't they?

I fail to see how heaping praise on Shopbot for having a wonderful product and a great "demo" program is "throwing them under the bus."

When the customer installs any update or the new software, they can choose to not accept the terms. If they choose not to, they don't make my cabinet doors. As Mike John said before, there is more than one way to make cabinet doors, of which, mine is one.

I hope that I have said all that I need say on this thread about my program.

Best regards,
Wes

[paco]

Hummm...
that's an whole different story... some parts of this thread were misleading... no desiging involved...

[jthelen]

I have Solidworks which is a 3D parametric solid modeling program. I need to use G code for my machine and DoorBot for G code was not ready. Necessity being the mother of invention I turned to Solidworks to see what I could do. I have set up a few different types of doors and yes with 2 dimensions per door I can product a DXF file to export. I still need to take the DXF into a tool path software so it is not as slick as the program Wes wrote.

I suppose I could spend a bunch of time and write a backend to Solidworks and product G (or .SPB) code directly, but DoorBot is a reasonably price program that would save me time, already done and supported. I built my own router and support takes on a new meaning when it is only the guy in the mirror.

What Wes is asking is use DoorBot to make money making doors. The intent of the licensee is NOT to make money selling files. I don't think that is an unreasonable request. If you want to set up "MDF Door Cut File Inc" using DoorBot to compete with the direct sales of DoorBot... You can see this would not fair to DoorBot.

Maybe a per door royalty but how do you monitor that. Or maybe DoorBot professional for $5000 and a license to sell the files and a yearly maintenance fee.
(Solidworks fee is $1295 a year) That gets you support and updates. I let mine laps every other year to save money but then I am back to the guy in the mirror for support and using an older version.

Just my $.12.
Jim

[jsfrost]

Wes and others,

My previous comments reflect my feelings in a general case. With Doorbot specifically it’s greyer. I own the software. It does what it promises and the price was reasonable. I saved enough time on a home improvement project to justify the expense, and may never use the software commercially. Thus, I have not yet opened the latest updates and read the offending copy write. I agree Wes has the right to protect his creation.

But with Doorbot, who has created what? I can use the program to quickly design a door. I can, with significant effort, design a visually identical door with PW and a few lines of code. I can design something unique by selecting different bits with Doorbot files alone or a combination of Doorbot files and PW files.

I think the real problem is choice of terms. If At the present price, if Wes were to state in his license that the program is for a single user, and that files are not to be provided to unlicensed parties I’m OK with that. For more money, I would expect more privledges. But as I understand or misunderstand the term copy write, Wes’s ownership of files is a stretch.

Ultimately the only protection Wes has is trust. Most will respect his work, a few will not. Legal verbiage does not change this.

[bill.young]

I've started a new thread here (http://www.talkshopbot.com/forum/messages/312/6712.html?1109865785) with some questions on these issues for the lawyer that will be presenting at the Jamboree.

[richards]

Now that Wes Mason has let the cat out of the bag about which company was being discussed - great!

As for the complexity of laying out cabinet doors using tools such as AutoCAD Lite, let's take a typical example and you can decide for yourself whether it would be difficult to use AutoCAD and PartWizard to create the SBP files.

AutoCAD
1. Create a rectangle that is the outside dimensions of the door. (12x24)
2. Offset the rectange (inward) to allow for the stiles and rails
3. Offset the stiles/rails rectange (outward) for the V-cut (depends on the angle and depth of the V-bit used - no limitation to use a 90-degree v-bit
4. Create a line segment at each of the four corners of the stiles/rails rectange to the V-cut rectange
5. Delete the V-cut rectangle
6. Offset the stiles/rails rectange for the 1/2 groove
7. Save the file

PartWizard
1. Create outside profile cut for no. 6 above for 1/2-inch dia. cutter
2. Create outside profile cut for no. 6 above for cove/decorative cutter
3. Create Machine Along Vectors cut for no. 2 above for V-cutter
4. Create Machine Along Vectors cut for no. 1 above for V-cutter/round-over cutter/etc. for outside door
5. Create Machine Along Vectors cut for the four corner line segments of step no. 4 above. (You will have to hand edit the outside end of each line segment (M3,X,Y,material surface)

Additional "decorations" such as arches, circles, triangles and stars can easily be added to the original AutoCAD file. In fact, if you really get wild, you can have an arch/roman arch on all four sides of the door. It's very simple to add.

The first time you attempt this, you might spend 30-60 minutes. After that, if you create a worksheet with default values for the cutters that you use, the process will take less than five minutes.

There you have it in a nutshell - the great brilliance from the mind of a tired out old 55 year old ex-programmer who discovered the method to create door designs while comtemplating the purchase of a Shopbot, someone who ordered the Doorbot program AFTER placing the order for the Shopbot, someone who also thinks copyrights should be reserved for significant additions to the knowledge pool (and someone who also deeply resents receiving an email where he is told that because of "me" the copyright notice would be necessary - as a point of fact, I have never discussed/given/sold/shown ANY output code from Wes's program to anyone - not even those in my family who watch me use the shopbot.)

Now from the simple steps listed above, it is obvious, even to the untrained, that a design step is necessary before a program such as the excellent DoorBot program is used:
1. A door with dimensions is draw/sketched/visualized
2. The door is modified to include rails and stiles
3. The door is modified to resemble a 'raised panel door' with a groove, V-cut, cove-cut, etc.
4. A program is used to convert that design into a SBP file.

I normally use the TAN function on a $10 calculator to figure the offset of the V-cutter. Do I owe a royalty to Texas Instruments for using the TAN function that changes the data input into output data?

If it appears that I'm a little hot under the collar right now, please excuse me. I've tried to be a gentleman and have expressly tried to not lead anyone down the "primrose path" but to present a question that I had on copyright protection in as fair a manner as I could. Maybe it's time for another Diet-Coke.

-Mike

[alabama_davo]

Hey Mike maybe it's time to move on...

[Support]

Agreed - this thread is closed