I'm not saying I'm for those over open source licenses in general, but Prusa brought up some fair questions when discussing the OCL. Essentially: define "personal use." Have I violated a non-commercial license if I print this keyboard and then use it to build someone a website? Does CC-NC mean a Prusacaster -- or any guitar knob with such a license for that matter -- is strictly barred from being taken on tour? Or used to record albums that are then sold? (And I say "guitar" knob, but I'm choosing an example a little consciously that could exist in any variety of controls, instrument and otherwise.)
Where are the lines of that when it's physical things? How far downstream does that go if it isn't CC-NC-SA in particular?
I'm not really sure that Creative Commons had the idea of physical production in mind, given that it dates back to a time when we were more broadly talking about digital piracy, and I honestly haven't kept up with its evolution much in more recent years. But maybe it just doesn't make the same sense for designs of physical things, for comparable reasons to why it wouldn't make sense for code -- and, conversely, open source projects that opt to use CC licenses for assets.
(None of this would stop me from attempting to build/mod one for fun, mind you. It just raises what a more averse person might call risks, and what I will at least call curiosities.)
Where are the lines of that when it's physical things?
The automotive aftermarket has largely settled that; even without the original design files, it's perfectly legal to make compatible parts, patents and the like notwithstanding. You can build an entire "small block Chevy" engine wholly from parts that GM did not make, and it will fit perfectly in a car that originally had the "genuine" one.
IANAL but as long as you don't violate any patents they have (if any) nor use their trademark, feel free to make and sell keyboards that look like theirs (not that a keyboard of their design is particularly distinctive anyway.)
Hasn’t Creative Commons disavowed or at least really downplayed the NC license for exactly these reasons? There are so many ambiguities and headaches involved that the only advice I’ve ever seen is not to use it.
- If it’s a company doing an NC license, probably best to be careful because they can make your life hell with lawyers.
- If it’s a random joe doing an NC license, feel free to ignore it because they don’t have the money to defend it anyway. Especially so if it’s CC-BY-NC-ND, people that pick that one are especially likely to be in the all-bark-no-bite category.
At least that’s how one of the companies I worked for treated CC licenses… I don’t work there anymore.
Likewise, I was unaware of this (and still see it in use regularly, especially on places like Printables as I've recently gotten my hands on a printer myself)
Not a lawyer, but as I understand it the license is a matter of copyright, and the copyright only applies to the design files. So as long as you're making that keyboard for yourself then you should be good to do anything you want with the keyboard, because it is no longer using the license at that point.
Now, what is interesting is if someone were to blatantly violate the license and start manufacturing commercial keyboards. I believe their only recourse would be to revoke their license of the design files, and then it would be copyright infringement. The thing is, I don't know how copyright law would handle any damages.
I don't know if making a physical product could be a violation of copyright, regardless of if you had a license to use the design in the first place. I could definitely imagine a company trying to enforce this, and a judge throwing it out because it should have been handled with patents.
> Not a lawyer, but as I understand it the license is a matter of copyright, and the copyright only applies to the design files. So as long as you're making that keyboard for yourself then you should be good to do anything you want with the keyboard, because it is no longer using the license at that point.
What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?
What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?
You're asking some pretty niche copyright questions that even a lawyer would have to spend time searching for case law for. It may be more expedient to look for that case law yourself.
Copyright law forbids the creation of derivative works (excepting any region-specific fair-use rules) so you're only allowed to create them under the rights granted to you in the terms of the license - thus under this particular license you can't make commercial use of derivative works.
But is a physical item a derivative work of it's technical specifications?
If the design files qualify for copyright protections, then modifications to them would clearly be derivative works.
I don't think it is clear if the keyboard itself would be a derivative work, as it almost certainly can't be protected by copyright. This is what patents are for.
The design files don't qualify for copyright protections, they describe the design which (maybe) qualifies for copyright protections.[0]
The artistic design of a specific keyboard can certainly be copyrighted, but not the functional nature of it.
[0]The exact wording might be protected, but not the factual information contained. Sports scores, or say measurements of a keyboard, are not copyrightable items as they are just facts, though their presentation might be.
> What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?
This is probably acceptable
> What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
This is probably NOT acceptable
> What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?
If you used that for personal things yes that would be acceptable. I do not think that would give you the right to then sell that as a product neither digitally nor phsically
What if I'm a sculptor and I design and produce a statue? Shouldn't I still have the copyright to the statue, no matter what kind of machine I used to do the actual sculpting?
What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?
Hmm, without patents it would definitely be fine to scan an existing one and recreate it. I think this would be fine too, but any time you are clearly going out of your way to skirt the law is a red flag. The thing is, I don't even think technical designs are copyrightable outside of their aesthetic value.
What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?
What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
If it is indeed covered by copyright, then these would likely be violations, though I guess it depends on how prominent it is in the staged photo.
Yeesh. People. C'mon. It's okay to use some common sense here.
Keychron is a keyboard/mouse company. It is VERY reasonable to interpret "non-commercial use" as meaning "don't sell mice/keyboards built or derived from these designs."
NOT "we are going to sue you if a 3D-printed copy of our mouse ends up in the background shot of your movie," or similar contrived madness.
I think CC originally did have producing physical items in mind. For example, one use case for the NC licenses for photos was that you can pay someone to make a print and frame it for you. This went sideways when Flickr offered to streamline the process because for many creators, NC means that no one (else) should be able make a profit using the work.
I have their Q60, which is a retro-themed HHKB layout 60% board. Paired with a set of beige-Mac-themed MT3 Extended 2048 keycaps, out of my collection it's one of my favorites and sees some of the most use. It goes head to head with pricier one-off hobbyist boards.
I wonder how suitable these CAD files would be for either CNCing or resin-printing a translucent fruit-colored plastic case for a different flavor of retro. That'd be really cool.
I had to convince myself to spend the money on a keychron keyboard, but at this point I really like it. I've spilled 3 bottles of water on it as well as 1 protein shake on it and I've been able to fix it each time by just disassembling it and letting it dry out. It's been working perfectly after each time. So far it's been worth the money. That and taking it apart was actually really easy and straightforward.
I have a Keychron that I love. I have a jar full of replacement switches, so I suspect that I won’t need to get a new keyboard, anytime soon.
I have an Apple Touch ID keyboard, that I use only for Touch ID. I don’t like it, otherwise. I’ve always wondered why Apple doesn’t ship (or license) a simple standalone Touch ID pad. They could probably get a decent premium for it.
That said, like a lot of open-source libraries, I appreciate the gesture, but will likely always use the built product. It’s just that hardware has a habit of “aging out,” so this is a way to ensure that a legacy product can remain viable, even after discontinuation.
Sort of tangent - but I've always thought there would be physical stores in big cities (like NYC, where I am) where I could try a number of different keyboards and keys since it's such a tactile experience.
But there seems to be no stores like this? So... is everyone ordering keys and keyboards, returning them, trying others, etc.? I know there are key switch samplers... is that it?
- It's way, way too heavy. Heavier than my Northgate Omnikey Ultra. Like it's more adept as an improvised weapon as much as any keyboard ever was.
- Didn't come with all black enter and escape caps (they were red orange), requiring purchasing an expensive complete replacement set.
Minor areas for improvement:
~ Battery life could be better.
~ Charging takes a long time and I'm unsure if there's a charge finished indicator.
~ Would be nice to have an offline flash update & macro programmer to not depend on cloud-based software that will eventually evaporate like everything else.
I do like:
+ Replaceability of switches as I've tried a bunch, settling on Kailh Box White V2.
+ RGB effects can be turned off completely or show a solid color at low brightness.
+ Native USB proprietary wireless dongle, BT with 3 profiles, or wired.
I have the k10 he special edition! I am so happy with my purchase, I love the magnetic switches (they feel much nicer to me than mechanical), it's nice to look at, the build quality is great, and the software is really solid. Very impressed overall :)
I still use my K2, which I bought in 2019 from Kickstarter, non-stop. What a piece of hardware! I have no plans to switch and will use it until it dissolves, which doesn’t seem to be happening in the next decade or so
Very cool. I have the V7. I'm a fan. Just did this golang project: https://github.com/mbarlow/saengsation Can control the LEDs from commandline. Includes claude skill and hooks. I'm using it to now see claude state. Rainbow animation while claude is working, glows amber when need to switch back to give permission to command, etc. Configurable. Works well.
"Production-grade hardware design files... Study real CAD... Learn from how real products are built... STEP"
I'm sorry, I hate to be that guy, but while STEP files are often used as the final export to the contract manufacturer to cut the molds, or for some level of fit checking, they're not used for anything else. The real engineering that you can actually learn from is in the SolidWorks (or equivalent) part files, and you'll note that they're not offering those.
I have an IBM Model M, but after prolonged sessions of coding, my finger joints are aching. Are these Keychron keyboard have better switches or what are the experience using these mechanical ones?
I never understood why the K6 had aluminum on the sides, but not the back. For the last few years, I had two K6's with different switches I swapped between. When one keyboard's battery went low, I would swap and keep working while charging.
Then, on my newer K6 the battery turned into what reddit affectionately calls a "spicy pillow." The keys warped convex around the bulged battery and equivalently bulged out the back plastic. That's why you can't put metal back there. I quickly brought it to my nearest battery recycling center. I could've just removed the battery, but I also enjoy having my face in one piece
Source available, meaning we just want to use open source as a marketing gimmick and don't do anything too interesting with it that could affect our bottom line.
These projects get shared on HN sometimes and it doesn't fit with the hacker ethos overall. Everyone wants to yell the cool part aloud, but mutter the asterisks and license language that takes power away from a would be tinkerer underneath their breath.
It could actually be marketed in a decent way, like saying if our company ever goes under you'll have these designs and the license to do anything you want with them. Even a conditional license like that would have more value.
As it stands this is a neat thing that some people can use and disregard the license that wants to hamstring you into doing free research and development for a company that produces a product that they tell you not to make.
149 comments
I'm not saying I'm for those over open source licenses in general, but Prusa brought up some fair questions when discussing the OCL. Essentially: define "personal use." Have I violated a non-commercial license if I print this keyboard and then use it to build someone a website? Does CC-NC mean a Prusacaster -- or any guitar knob with such a license for that matter -- is strictly barred from being taken on tour? Or used to record albums that are then sold? (And I say "guitar" knob, but I'm choosing an example a little consciously that could exist in any variety of controls, instrument and otherwise.)
Where are the lines of that when it's physical things? How far downstream does that go if it isn't CC-NC-SA in particular?
I'm not really sure that Creative Commons had the idea of physical production in mind, given that it dates back to a time when we were more broadly talking about digital piracy, and I honestly haven't kept up with its evolution much in more recent years. But maybe it just doesn't make the same sense for designs of physical things, for comparable reasons to why it wouldn't make sense for code -- and, conversely, open source projects that opt to use CC licenses for assets.
(None of this would stop me from attempting to build/mod one for fun, mind you. It just raises what a more averse person might call risks, and what I will at least call curiosities.)
The automotive aftermarket has largely settled that; even without the original design files, it's perfectly legal to make compatible parts, patents and the like notwithstanding. You can build an entire "small block Chevy" engine wholly from parts that GM did not make, and it will fit perfectly in a car that originally had the "genuine" one.
IANAL but as long as you don't violate any patents they have (if any) nor use their trademark, feel free to make and sell keyboards that look like theirs (not that a keyboard of their design is particularly distinctive anyway.)
- If it’s a company doing an NC license, probably best to be careful because they can make your life hell with lawyers.
- If it’s a random joe doing an NC license, feel free to ignore it because they don’t have the money to defend it anyway. Especially so if it’s CC-BY-NC-ND, people that pick that one are especially likely to be in the all-bark-no-bite category.
At least that’s how one of the companies I worked for treated CC licenses… I don’t work there anymore.
Now, what is interesting is if someone were to blatantly violate the license and start manufacturing commercial keyboards. I believe their only recourse would be to revoke their license of the design files, and then it would be copyright infringement. The thing is, I don't know how copyright law would handle any damages.
I don't know if making a physical product could be a violation of copyright, regardless of if you had a license to use the design in the first place. I could definitely imagine a company trying to enforce this, and a judge throwing it out because it should have been handled with patents.
Again, not a lawyer, just speculating on a forum.
> Not a lawyer, but as I understand it the license is a matter of copyright, and the copyright only applies to the design files. So as long as you're making that keyboard for yourself then you should be good to do anything you want with the keyboard, because it is no longer using the license at that point.
What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?
What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?
> What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?
Probably fair use, provided the design wasn't the main focus of the photo, but merely part of the "set dressing."
> What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
> What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?
Those questions are simpler - both scenarios would be derivative works of the original files, so covered by the license.
If the design files qualify for copyright protections, then modifications to them would clearly be derivative works.
I don't think it is clear if the keyboard itself would be a derivative work, as it almost certainly can't be protected by copyright. This is what patents are for.
The design files don't qualify for copyright protections, they describe the design which (maybe) qualifies for copyright protections.[0]
The artistic design of a specific keyboard can certainly be copyrighted, but not the functional nature of it.
[0]The exact wording might be protected, but not the factual information contained. Sports scores, or say measurements of a keyboard, are not copyrightable items as they are just facts, though their presentation might be.
> What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?
This is probably acceptable
> What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
This is probably NOT acceptable
> What if I print the design, then use a 3D scanner to recreate a file from the physical artifact?
If you used that for personal things yes that would be acceptable. I do not think that would give you the right to then sell that as a product neither digitally nor phsically
Hmm, without patents it would definitely be fine to scan an existing one and recreate it. I think this would be fine too, but any time you are clearly going out of your way to skirt the law is a red flag. The thing is, I don't even think technical designs are copyrightable outside of their aesthetic value.
What if I take the design, print it, include the thing in a staged photo, and sell prints of the photo?
What if I skip the printing and use the design files as a basis for a rendered photo or animation?
If it is indeed covered by copyright, then these would likely be violations, though I guess it depends on how prominent it is in the staged photo.
...this stuff is fun to think about.
Keychron is a keyboard/mouse company. It is VERY reasonable to interpret "non-commercial use" as meaning "don't sell mice/keyboards built or derived from these designs."
NOT "we are going to sue you if a 3D-printed copy of our mouse ends up in the background shot of your movie," or similar contrived madness.
I have stuck with the System76 Launch keyboard but I basically always consider Keychron first when looking.
I wonder how suitable these CAD files would be for either CNCing or resin-printing a translucent fruit-colored plastic case for a different flavor of retro. That'd be really cool.
I have a Keychron that I love. I have a jar full of replacement switches, so I suspect that I won’t need to get a new keyboard, anytime soon.
I have an Apple Touch ID keyboard, that I use only for Touch ID. I don’t like it, otherwise. I’ve always wondered why Apple doesn’t ship (or license) a simple standalone Touch ID pad. They could probably get a decent premium for it.
That said, like a lot of open-source libraries, I appreciate the gesture, but will likely always use the built product. It’s just that hardware has a habit of “aging out,” so this is a way to ensure that a legacy product can remain viable, even after discontinuation.
I’m a happy user of their keyboards.
I’ve got 2 ortholinears (home and work), and a compact for another machine.
Is any or them dies, instabuying another Keychron!
PS: IF you’re listening, PLEASE release a split wireless ortholinear
But there seems to be no stores like this? So... is everyone ordering keys and keyboards, returning them, trying others, etc.? I know there are key switch samplers... is that it?
Thanks
- It's way, way too heavy. Heavier than my Northgate Omnikey Ultra. Like it's more adept as an improvised weapon as much as any keyboard ever was.
- Didn't come with all black enter and escape caps (they were red orange), requiring purchasing an expensive complete replacement set.
Minor areas for improvement:
~ Battery life could be better.
~ Charging takes a long time and I'm unsure if there's a charge finished indicator.
~ Would be nice to have an offline flash update & macro programmer to not depend on cloud-based software that will eventually evaporate like everything else.
I do like:
+ Replaceability of switches as I've tried a bunch, settling on Kailh Box White V2.
+ RGB effects can be turned off completely or show a solid color at low brightness.
+ Native USB proprietary wireless dongle, BT with 3 profiles, or wired.
+ Wired or wireless connection while charging.
+ PC vs. Mac layout as a physical switch.
I'm sorry, I hate to be that guy, but while STEP files are often used as the final export to the contract manufacturer to cut the molds, or for some level of fit checking, they're not used for anything else. The real engineering that you can actually learn from is in the SolidWorks (or equivalent) part files, and you'll note that they're not offering those.
Then, on my newer K6 the battery turned into what reddit affectionately calls a "spicy pillow." The keys warped convex around the bulged battery and equivalently bulged out the back plastic. That's why you can't put metal back there. I quickly brought it to my nearest battery recycling center. I could've just removed the battery, but I also enjoy having my face in one piece
These projects get shared on HN sometimes and it doesn't fit with the hacker ethos overall. Everyone wants to yell the cool part aloud, but mutter the asterisks and license language that takes power away from a would be tinkerer underneath their breath.
It could actually be marketed in a decent way, like saying if our company ever goes under you'll have these designs and the license to do anything you want with them. Even a conditional license like that would have more value.
As it stands this is a neat thing that some people can use and disregard the license that wants to hamstring you into doing free research and development for a company that produces a product that they tell you not to make.