[timothyheil]

Hi,

I've been developing CNC CAM software in Python, producing G-Code for my 3-axis CNC. I think there must be other folks in hobbyist community out there doing similar things. Is anyone aware of communities dedicated to open-source development for CNCs?

[joeavaerage]

Hi,

I've been developing CNC CAM software in Python, producing G-Code for my 3-axis CNC.

Why? There are entirely enough CAD/CAM programs and conversational Gcode programmers as it is. What is the impetus to create another?

Most CNCers fall into one of two camps, namely people whom want to produce parts for some other project, really CNC is only a means to making those parts. They are not really interested in CNC,
either the machine nor the programming of it, only as it relates to the parts they want to make.

There is another camp whom are interested in the design and building of a CNC machine. They may well be inclined to program the machine, or at least more so than the first group.....but their focus
is on producing a usable machine, not so much a CAM program.

I myself am sort of in between, I use and need my machine to make parts for business, but it is a machine I designed and built myself. I am inclined to program the behaviour of the machine, and in particular
the various microprocessor modules that support the machine proper, like tool changer, spindle controller etc. I do not bother trying to program CAM. For that I use Fusion and Fusion Machining Extensions as my main
CAD/CAM program and Mill-Wizard as a conversational Gcode programmer while at the the machine. The main focus of my machine is making parts, the design and programming are the 'hobby' component.

I would suggest there may only be limited interest in writing CAM code, its sort of 're-inventing the wheel', which raises the question 'Why?'.

Craig

[peteeng]

Hi Tim - get involved with linux cnc. Then you can contribute to an open source that has been operating for years and you can forward that effort. It takes over 10 years to get somewhere in CAM from the beginning. If your up for it fine, but there are many many good systems out there and to put some of your life into a system it will need to be something special or offer something special... or as they say these days its a passion project and you won't get any glory. Peter

[deadlykitten]

Hi,

I've been developing CNC CAM software in Python, producing G-Code for my 3-axis CNC. I think there must be other folks in hobbyist community out there doing similar things. Is anyone aware of communities dedicated to open-source development for CNCs?

Hy, i am on phone now, so cant type well.

Will reply tomorow

[deadlykitten]

Hy Tim, please, do u have an e-mail ? Kindly

[blinkenlight]

Hi,
Why? There are entirely enough CAD/CAM programs and conversational Gcode programmers as it is. What is the impetus to create another?

Oh, is that so? Could you kindly name a few free and open source CAD-to-CAM programs, for our edification, other than FreeCAD's CAM module (and a few other programs specifically meant for PCB isolation milling)...?

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
free and open source....no. If there were a good CAD/CAM both free and open source then would not it be used so widely that its name would be well known?
All the existing CAD/CAM manufacturers would go out of business....and yet they do not, and indeed seem to thrive. Does not that suggest that there is a market for what they sell?

As I posted; I use Fusion, and I pay the annual subscription, however I did use it free initially. There are a number of commercial CAD/CAM software that are either free or very cheap
to new users, but are not ultimately free nor are they open source.

Even the most modest of those software have CAM features that represent thousands or tens of thousands of man hours to program. Could an individual, or even a group of individuals
write CAM software to match? No doubt its possible with enough effort....but begs the question WHY???? All that effort for something that you can buy cheaply that likely exceeds the performance
of the home-brew software?

In my earlier post I suggested that there are a couple of groups of CNCers. The largest is that group whom want or need to make parts.....they are not interested in programming, only in so far as
what it takes to make those parts. I don't mind programming myself......but I see it as a waste of time trying to code my own CAM when I actually need to make parts for work.

Craig

[blinkenlight]

Hi,
free and open source....no.

Which was my entire point. Your arguments have their merit, just not in a sub-forum called "Open Source Software". This is like a guy in a pub asking "do you have any alcohol-free beer?" and getting the reply "no but our beer tastes sooooo good, just drink that!"

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
OK, I get your drift. Apologies if it seems out of place. But then I asked a perfectly reasonable and valid question 'why?'
Do you have a cogent answer?

If this were for a specific operation, say grinding or sawing for which conventional CAM software is absent or poor.....then yes.....investing time to automate Gcode production makes sense to me,
but not really otherwise. Have I missed something?

Craig

[blinkenlight]

Oh, no worries, no offense taken. As for the reasons, yes I do, but chances are they would not make sense for someone not sharing the circumstances, concerns and convictions they are based upon. Fondness of open source cannot really be rationally conveyed - you either share it or you don't, and probably never will.

As someone who has been a "maker" long before that term became a buzzword, I find it unacceptable to not be able to freely open up my tools, inspect them, tinker with them, mod or repair them any time the need arises or I simply feel curious - when I started, electric appliances used to come with SCHEMATICS as standard at the end of the owner's manual. With software, that means being able to look at how it works and, within my admittedly modest ability, being able to tweak how it works, fixing a bug or adding a feature I need; both with closed and open source SW, if you try waiting for the devs to scratch an itch you have chances are you'll be waiting forever - but with OS at least I have the option to do something about it, and not only that, but fix that problem for anyone else who shares it as well.

This applies even more so if a need I have remains almost completely uncatered for by SW. How many others might share that need or how others might go about addressing it is of no concern to me - I was never one with much love for the "path well trodden". In this specific case, I don't really care about how others solve their CNC CAD/CAM needs - mine were and are to this day wholly and adequately covered by GCAM SE; I wouldn't bother with it otherwise.

As someone who accumulated experience with software ever since it used to be stored on compact cassettes (and got to get bitten by every possible way it can fail you, plenty of times), I find it unacceptable to waste even a single moment more of my time learning to use or locking up work behind SW that someone else can, at any time, pull out from under me either by starting to require a subscription, deciding to sunset a service, deciding to disable my account without any justification, or simply failing to keep up with breaking changes in tech that force me to abandon its use.

OS SW (and the open file formats it tends to use) can never truly be taken away from me; someone can always fork and carry forward a piece of software when the original devs stop doing so or just get funny ideas "monetizing" it, or at the very least write a conversion tool to carry existing work into another SW instead of being left with years of work lost inside a piece of SW I can no longer use for whatever reason; if push comes to shove that someone can always be me, or at worst someone else I convince or pay to do so for me.

As someone with strong opinions concerning such things, I find it absolutely unacceptable to paywall ANY non-rivalrous good such as software - that can be created once at a fixed cost but then used unlimited times benefiting any number of people at zero additional cost - instead requiring payment from every one of those people to access those benefits just because you can and it benefits YOU. I find it equally unacceptable to be unable to freely share a piece of SW with a friend if his needs align with mine, without being labeled a murderer of the high seas.

For all of these reasons and many others I can't think of right now I find it a deeply, almost physically unpleasant experience to use closed-source commercial software and am willing to go to ridiculous lengths to avoid that if I can help it, even using far less capable software as long as it's OS and adequate for the task. But again, this is no place for evangelism, and I don't really feel like debating the merits and flaws of OS/CS, now or ever, with anyone. Regardless of what I say it will not change your mind - and you will not change mine. Truly "understanding" other people is not possible as nobody can experience being someone else - you can only be you and I can only be me. Let's leave it at that, and just stay within the intended purpose of this particular place...

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
Ok you've stated why....and that was my question.

I have no problem with open source, and would be entirely happy contributing to a worthwhile project. What I will not support is a project for which
there is a perfectly adequate existing solution.

I understand that you don't like paying for software and even worse dislike the idea of a subscription. You would therefore describe my Fusion subscription as 'inadequate'
whereas I'm quite happy with it.

That we have different views is hardly startling, but neither is it a problem. I 'understand' even if I don't agree.

Craig

[joeavaerage]

Hi Blinkenlight,
I am not trying to be argumentative but I'd love to ask a couple of questions related to your position.

It all comes down to intellectual property.

For instance I design, build and program automotive instruments. If a customer requires an electronic driver for a gauge because for example the original and matched sender is not available
any more, then I will design and program a driver. The program is written specifically for that customer, but I do not give the customer that program. Aside from anything else he'd require
a Jtag programming tool to use it, so the vast majority of customers could not use it anyway. None-the-less you might say that I regard that software, really seldom more than a hundred lines of C code, to be my intellectual property
which I do not share with anyone else. This is my business and sole source of living income.

Would you agree that is 'my property to protect' or that I should provide free to anyone whom wants it......and thus miss out on making a living income?

Craig

[blinkenlight]

Hi Joe,
This is a discussion I really don't want to have especially not on the internet outside the confines of a pub. And I don't think there are easy answers for most of the hard questions in the world.

But just to humor you - I'm not against recovering the cost of creating a particular piece of software in some way. Which, clearly, needs to be passed on to a very small number of people - potentially one - when the job is a particularly custom and specific one. The way to recover the cost of any generally-useful software is much less clear - there are any number of ways for better or worse including certain types of crowdfunding, but I don't claim to this to be a solved problem. What I'm having an issue with is continuing to withhold a piece of software after its creation costs have been covered, simply because that way it continues to generate further income. Future will have to decide what's a morally acceptable way to assemble the cost of bringing something new into existence, but I believe it should be free for all to access after that point has been passed. In that sense, yes, once the original contract has been fulfilled and paid for, I do believe even custom jobs should become freely available.

But I quite aware my socioeconomic ideas are distinctly not mainstream today. And honestly I don't care - nor do I care, as I have already stated, to debate whether or not they are viable, moral, or anything else about them: I'm not some social influencer revolutionary ideologist with wide reach having to defend his doctrine, just a bloke on the internets with funny ideas. And that's as far as I'm prepared to continue this discussion - I'm flattered by your interest in the subject and the serious consideration you're giving it, but I'm really not willing to have a debate on the matter. All further inquiries will, with all due respect, be ignored.

[joeavaerage]

Hi blikenlight,
all that you have said is fair enough, not that I neccessarily agree.

With respect to a customer whom pays me for a device such as I explained above, which must cover, at least partially, the software that was written for him I follow
the notion of 'Fair Use'. You may have heard of it.

The essential idea is that a customer whom pays me is entitled to use the software to which he has contributed.....but may use it only for the 'purposes' for which he paid. For instance if he edited the
software to better suit his application, that would be fine a 'fair use'. If however he turned around and made another five gauges by copying mine, then I'd not call that 'fair use'. This is
contentious I agree....but that is my feeling on the matter. If he made more gauges and then sold them to other people, then that is definitely not 'fair use'. This is not so contentious as most
legal jurisdictions agree that selling copies of someone else's work is not 'fair use' but infringes on the creators intellectual property.

To date I've never had a customer push me for the source code....but think that I would probably refuse to supply it. I would however provide the object code so he could repair his own device.
I suppose its not impossible that even the object code could be used in the manufacture replicas.....but then I would not describe that as 'fair use'

The majority of the code I write has certain commonalities with many if not all devices I make. Thus if I were to given someone the source code for their particular device I would in effect be
compromising the code that I use to make a living. As I created the code and the ideas that underpins it so that I might make and sell devices to customers inclines me to regard it as 'my' code,
not available for free distribution, but is available for 'fair use' only.

Craig

[deadlykitten]

hy all sorry, my time is a bit limited, i only read diagonally what have been discused

many cam softwares share common algoritms, with full / partial acces, just like how many cnc's use fanuc; source code developers mostly do their work intense in a short time frame, then they are no longer needed to operate at that level, but mainly superficial to implement some small change, and in most cases, their costs are no longer justified after initial core had been coded, so original team must do something else .. a change will pop up soon, at some level, and things will go in a different direction

there is a cycle in this cam market, for various reasons; dumping may happen, extra costs associated with useless system requirments, useless subscriptions, etc ...

when you develop code, mostly, is not needed a source, but an idea ... because is easier to start from zero, rather than discover the arhitecture of an allready existing code ( which may be build from a different perspective than your allready existing one, considering you have only one ... ), especially if you can not get in touch with the original programmer, so to quick answer your questions ( imagine some codes are hundreds of thousands lines, or more, and that is normal size for some applications ) also there is the source language compatibility stuff; most cam specific algorithms have been solved before 1990

some people have a passion for such stuff, and can cover a wider area, from source code to machining; some developers just look at how something "new" works ( like a new process from competition software or cnc option ), and may decide to change a thing here or there, or just skip ... kindly

ps : more and more products are not designed for client benefit

[deadlykitten]

Hi Joe,

va rog, daca aveti timp, sa vorbim v-am dat mesaj, sanatate