Find all your DIY electronics in the MakerShed. 3D Printing, Kits, Arduino, Raspberry Pi, Books & more!

The Inebriator is a sweet Arduino-powered cocktail machine. Cool, right? Interestingly, there is a twist where the creators are declining to reveal a BOM or source code, and there’s a minor fracas on the site in comments. This is certainly their right, but it seems an oddity in this era of open source hardware. Or maybe I’ve just drunk too much MAKE-ade? Leave a comment with your thoughts.

John Baichtal

My interests include writing, electronics, RPGs, scifi, hackers & hackerspaces, 3D printing, building sets & toys. @johnbaichtal nerdage.net


Related

Comments

  1. DeveloperDan says:

    I love makezine. Been a follower for close to 6 years, but this one point on open sources is the fundamental problem I have with MAKE. The inference that because something is made of open source anything, that it, should in turn be rendered open source to the public. Ok, by that same end, Make’s site uses bootstrap.css, should the contents of makezine, it’s databases, server architecture and the rest of O’Reilly be then further dismantled and exposed to the public?! Absolutely not. How then, could the argument be substantiated that this device be rendered public knowledge in all of its glory. I saw this same tactic applied by a former Make editor to the pinguino forums about a year ago calling out the project owners for poor wiki documentation on a new project. Bad form MAKE, bad form.

    Otherwise, keep up the good work ;)

  2. As someone mentioned on the Inebriator site, there may be conflicts with them NOT releasing code on the open source Arduino platform. Even if there isn’t I don’t doubt that anyone interested enough in making one of these wouldn’t have that much trouble duplicating the concept and even improving it. I find that folks who are ardently selfish often do things to get in their own way, negating any reason for me to take them to task for it. I hope it works out for them either way.

    1. GeekDadof4 says:

      Unless they modify core Java arduino source, they are under no obligation to release THEIR program source code. The C/C++ Micro controller libraries are LGPL (and must be since they took in much of the ATMEL LGPL source), which means they can even modify those directly without releasing. The only thing they would need to release would be if they choose to create an actual arduino derivative board due to the CC license on the hardware. “. I find that folks who are ardently selfish often do things to get in their own way” I’m also not sure what the point of this comment is. There is nothing “ardently selfish” here, except maybe the people that are whining they want everything released so they can make their own. They obviously are considering commercializing this. If you wrote a killer app for android you planned to sell, would you then just release your entire source code?

  3. DIYolo says:

    OH MY GOODNESS that is beyond awesome hahaha

  4. HW guru says:

    Opensource does not always mean free, but in general people assume it should be as such. For example, the GPL makes sure the software that runs on Makerbot is available for free, and if modified (and specifically sold for money) must be made public.

    This does not force people to publish if they wish to support their own group’s work, or avoid supporting other peoples spin on their work.

    I do purchase v0.1a items and donate once in awhile to support people’s projects, and that is because I value their work.

    Sometimes, people are unable to publish for several reasons:
    * Copyright/patent restrictions opening liability (even on “free” items)
    * Institutional publication restrictions
    * People who simply plagiarise work for profit
    * People who manufacture defective low-end clones than send the disgruntled hobbyists to your site for support.

    Respect their chosen licence, or you become a disrespectful communist with a sense of entitlement to other peoples dreams.

    I would build a better version if I wanted one… with lasers and a disco ball to boot.
    =)

  5. GeekDadof4 says:

    while it has a little more “flash”, I think I like the Lazydrinker.com model better.

  6. Inner says:

    Yes Mr. Baichtal, too much MAKE-ade. It is perfectly cromulent to not open source.

  7. Jerry Tremble says:

    This is awesome! I had the exact same idea about 20 years ago, but no money with which to pursue it. I think I may soon have one of my own! As far as the openness of the source, who cares? Take the idea and run with it!

  8. Bosstiger says:

    Reblogged this on Gigable – Tech Blog.

  9. Bosstiger says:

    Reblogged this on Gigable – Tech Blog.

  10. Fred says:

    Why not stop being lazy asking for code and do it yourself? Simples.