Welcome to the SeeMeCNC Community

I got back a lame reply from S3D, to paraphrase "the EULA is viewable inside the About menu option, I am not a practicing lawyer so I won't interpret it."

I wrote back asking if s/he could escalate this and to verify what the INTENT of the license is. This seems like a rather important thing since a lot of folks post gcode files to solicit help and I do on occasion send gcode files to new users who just want to print something or test my settings on their machines.

I assume they wouldn't worry about the occasional gcode generation,,,,, However it does probably prohibit a makerspace from having a single copy.
I attached a copy of their eula.

I'm not seeing any mention of gcode in the EULA. Am I missing it somewhere?

KAS, neither did I and that is why I contacted them directly. I am getting the run around now. The latest response said:

I invite you to section 17 of the EULA. For inquiries about usage and the agreement the contact information for our Legal department is listed.

Invitation accepted...

I was once a fan of S3D. That ended about 10 minutes ago when I read this post. I will still use it for now but will revisit the free slicers again to see how they have improved in the last 2 years since I "upgraded to S3D".

mhackney wrote:Thanks John!

Pleasure

By the way, what filament materials do you use for the green 'spool' (your user icon) ? I mean the translucent one. Also the transparent one - what is it?

They are both PLA. The green is called Sea Green - I get it on eBay. The clear is just transparent PLA I also get on eBay.

mhackney wrote:They are both PLA. The green is called Sea Green - I get it on eBay. The clear is just transparent PLA I also get on eBay.

Thanks for the info mhackney appreciated.

geneb wrote:I think you're confusing Simplify3D with MatterControl. I've heard of S3D actively censoring issues regarding the Smoothieboard and tiny moves and nothing about MatterControl.

You're right. I got them mixed up. Sorry for the confusion. I have corrected the post.

mhackney wrote:I got back a lame reply from S3D, to paraphrase "the EULA is viewable inside the About menu option, I am not a practicing lawyer so I won't interpret it."

In my opinion, yuck.

All emphasis mine:

"You shall not allow others TO USE or have access to the Software, either directly or indirectly [...]"
Ah, so I can't let my friend use the slicer even if it's on my computer? He has to buy his own copy, uninstall mine, install his, and then uninstall it again when he's done? And then I install mine again, and this whole game of musical chairs is all happening on the same computer?

That really puts the Simplify into S3D, doesn't it?

"You shall notify Simplify3D of any unauthorized use, copying or disclosure of the Software known to You."
Dear S3D, my friend used the slicer on my machine. It wasn't pirated or anything, but he's not, you know, me. How much should I pay you for this egregious, unforgivable piracy?

"You agree not to systematically retrieve data or other content from this Software for any purpose including, but not limited to, creating a collection, compilation, database, or directory without Simplify3D’s written permission."
Couldn't saving the output G-code constitute systematically retrieving data or other content from the Software? Am I a software pirate if I screenshot the UI and post it on a forum to help someone understand how to use it? Do I have to send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to S3D every time I want to save the G-code, and then wait to hear back?

"All copies of the Software made by You as well as any output generated by the Software shall bear the proprietary markings (be they patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret) of Simplify3D borne by the copies transmitted or provided by Simplify3D or third party to You and in the same form and location as the original."
So if I remove their identifying strings from the G-code, I'm in the wrong? I can't take a few lines of it to demonstrate an issue (retraction, for example) without including their masthead?

"You agree that the contents of the Software including, but not limited to, graphics, media files, text, editorial content, notices, software and other material contain proprietary information and are protected by applicable United States and foreign intellectual property and other laws, including but not limited to trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, and patents. You may not seek by any means to obtain any materials or information through the Software not intentionally made available to You through the Software."
This makes the "systematically retrieve" paragraph above not only redundant, but very strange. Why would they protect their IP in a Draconian way, and then again in a normal way?

"Simplify3D hereby grants to You a non-exclusive, non-transferable limited license to install and utilize the Software on a concurrent user basis for the Term. You may install the software on multiple computers that You own equal to the number of User Seats purchased by You."
...But you just said above: "You shall not allow others TO USE or have access to the Software, either directly or indirectly [...]" - Which of these two mutually exclusive clauses has control? I hate to say this, but did an actual, licensed lawyer write this? It seems to me like it wasn't proofread.

"You are expressly prohibited from sublicensing, selling, renting, leasing, acting as a service bureau for the production of instructions or intermediate output of the Software (but not for the production of physical end products derived from the Software)"
This appears to imply that you can't charge to produce G-code by itself - it has to be for a printed product. I suppose they have some fantasy that people are going to pay them to produce G-code in the cloud, and this fantasy includes a scenario in which a court upholds this clause against someone who might want to compete in this unfathomably useless market segment.

"Simplify3D is under no obligation, whatsoever, to provide patches, bug fixes or other updates to the Software."
Oh. Cool. Thanks.

"You acknowledge that the unauthorized use, transfer or disclosure of the Software and Documentation or copies thereof will: (1) substantially diminish the value to Simplify3D of the trade secrets and other proprietary interests that are the subject of this Agreement; (2) render Simplify3D's remedy at law for such unauthorized use, disclosure or transfer inadequate; and (3) cause irreparable injury in a short period of time."
In what way would letting my friend use your slicer on my computer, or giving someone the G-code (perhaps with your masthead removed), cause the slightest injury to Simplify3D?

Take a hike, S3D. A hike to the programming school, where you can learn to fix the horrendous bug in your G-code output. And then another hike to business school, so you can learn what goodwill is, and why it's a bad idea to censor your own users. Nobody wants to do business with a company that tries to run some shady game behind the customers' backs, which is, in my opinion, exactly the case.

Well...damn. I have a copy of S3D, and I've really enjoyed using some of its unique features (setting different settings for certain sections of the print, editable support material, etc), but their legal BS is noxious.

Not being allowed to share GCode of your own designs is like not allowing anyone to speak English because all those words are already in a dictionary under copyright... Spread the word, They shot their selves in their foot (freely translated from a Dutch Speakword (proverb, freely translated from Dutch again))...

It has now been several business days and a weekend since I emailed their legal dept. for clarification and I have not heard a word back.

mhackney wrote:It has now been several business days and a weekend since I emailed their legal dept. for clarification and I have not heard a word back.

You will probably find out that this so called Company is being run from someone's house and that same "someone" paid an attorney to write all of the legal jibberish
that doesn't stand a chance of standing up in a court of law.
The "someone" does not have a trial copy of their "software"
The "someone" claims to own the output of their "software"- this is laughable, notepad owns all the output which has the extension .txt, yeah right.
The forum is cleaned of all messages that "someone" does not agree with - most of you have found this to be true.

The fact that people continue to use this "software" after knowing about how "someone" owns all of the output gcode boggles my mind which admittedly is not
hard to do. Have fun. ROTFLMAO

The laughter is toward the "software", not the users who purchased it.

Oddly (or not) there is not a single mention on the S3D forum about the licensing issue reported last week. I'm half tempted to make a post myself. I have 3 alias accounts that they have pre-approved because I made a few innocent posts. So much for censorship!

And of course, still not a single word from S3D "legal". I was not getting much utility form S3D anyway (at least 1 significant path layout bug which I reported on their forum and directly to them) still exists that makes it useless for my commercially printed fly reels. I've now uninstalled the product and will no longer use it. Since the license is non transferable I can't offer to give it to anyone so don't ask.

As a quick question, what slicer are you mainly using nowadays Michael? Still KISS?

Yes, KISS. Still the only one that produces respectable paths.

I've been looking around at new slicers, and was thinking of simplify3d. Glad I stumbled on this post. I'll stick with Kiss. Too bad development seems to be happening at a glacial pace.

I agree. I've contacted Jonathon a few times with several offers to acquire the product or help him advance it. The longer he waits, the less valuable the asset becomes. I'd hate to see it lose out. I don't think the real competition will come from S3D or one of the open source slicers but rather from some new startup that "gets it". The market may need to mature a bit more to make it a viable opportunity though (2+ years) so in the meantime we're gated by slicers.

That's the problem with the software industry, there's always someone out thinking you, and always someone ready to eat your lunch.

What about hiring a couple of programmers and guiding the development of an all new slicer? Are you interested in putting out a commercial product? You appear to know what we need, I don't know what your coding skills are like but those can be hired. It's the vision and industry leadership that appear to be a bit of an issue.

Coding is reasonably cheap and easy. Vision, experience, leadership and subject matter knowledge are really hard.

edit: words are hard

I've been trying to get a slicer project off the ground for over a year. Unfortunately, I am not in a financial position to fund it and I have way too much experience with the VC community to want to go down that path. I have a spec pretty much written for a next generation slicer unlike anything available. I am in high-tech, primarily software, and have started over 8 software companies in the Boston high tech corridor. I know I could build the product for about $75k with local engineering resources. Coding is actually not cheap, monkeys coding in a cube are cheap but knowledgeable engineers with domain experience who "get it" are much harder to come by. I actually have a very close friend who is exactly this and he's been working off and on but has a family to feed himself. The longer it goes, the more determined I get to actually do something about it.

mhackney wrote:I've been trying to get a slicer project off the ground for over a year. Unfortunately, I am not in a financial position to fund it and I have way too much experience with the VC community to want to go down that path. I have a spec pretty much written for a next generation slicer unlike anything available. I am in high-tech, primarily software, and have started over 8 software companies in the Boston high tech corridor. I know I could build the product for about $75k with local engineering resources. Coding is actually not cheap, monkeys coding in a cube are cheap but knowledgeable engineers with domain experience who "get it" are much harder to come by. I actually have a very close friend who is exactly this and he's been working off and on but has a family to feed himself. The longer it goes, the more determined I get to actually do something about it.

I would be very interested in providing substantial capital if such a project were to develop.

mhackney & others, you might want to reach out to SeeMeCNC and see if they're interested.

g.

I've done that in the past. They actually provided an RMax for the project too.

Dont know what your plans are, but I'd be interested in helping with development if possible.