Contribute Filamentmap »

3D printer manufacturer comparison chart

	GPL-compliant firmware	Open source hardware	Consistent printer model versions
Thingibox (ION)	Yes	Yes	Yes, according to Iván on webshop chat
Open-Electronics (3Drag)	Yes	Yes	Yes, according to Boris on webshop chat
LulzBot	Yes	Yes	Insufficient data
Prusa3D	Yes	Yes	No (according to someone on the support chat on their webshop)
Velleman (Vertex)	Yes	No. But does provide some CAD exports for some of their models	Insufficient data
Dagoma	Yes	No. But provides CAD exports for some parts	Insufficient data
Ultimaker	Yes	No	Insufficient data
MakerGear	Yes	No	Insufficient data
Zonestar	Insufficient data, some source provided but unclear if it's the source for all models/which models they belong to	No	Insufficient data
Wanhao	Insufficient data, a lot of source released, but does this cover all models that use copyleft firmware?	No	Insufficient data
Malyan	Insufficient data. Some source released but doesn't cover all models. According to a reddit comment the M200's firmware is a heavily modified version of grbl, for which they then violate the license (GPLv3+)	No	Insufficient data
M3D	Insufficient data. Provides a variant of Duet's RepRapFirmware fork, but it's unclear whether that is what their printers run	No	Insufficient data
Tiertime	Insufficient data	No	No
Geeetech	Insufficient data. Marlin for A10, A10M, A10D, A20, A20M, Geeetech's own free software/open source Smartto for A30, E180, Rostock 301, but what about the M201? A Marlin bugreport comment seems to indicate that M201 also runs Smartto. However Smartto is based on grbl and Sprinter but appears to omit copyright notices from the original, which also violates the GPL	No. Blanket-markets products with "open source" but only parts of some seem to be.	Insufficient data
Tevo	No. While source for Tornado, Michelangelo, Tarantula, and Black Widow is available, source for Flash and Little Monster is still in missing	No	Insufficient data
Anycubic	No, uses a derivative of Marlin (GPLv3+) for 'i3 MEGA' but doesn't provide source. A github repository exists, but it is neither referenced nor matching the hexdump they provide.	No	Insufficient data
FLSUN	No. 3DPrinterGplOffenders.com claims they are compliant with a link that is no longer valid. There appears to be no source anywhere.	No	Insufficient data
Anet	No. Seems to be using a derivative of Repetier firmware (GPLv3+), no source.	No	Insufficient data
FlashForge	No. Uses a derivative of Sailfish (GPLv3+), no source provided	No	Insufficient data
Monoprice	No. Seems to be using a derivative of Marlin (GPLv3+), no source.	No	No
Creality	Provides source for the firmware on most of their printers, but missing Ender 5	No. Markets Ender 3 as "fully open source", but many of the source files are broken/corrupted or outdated, some parts have been reverse-engineered by the community and contributed to the repository	No
Qidi Technology	No. Uses the GPLv3+ licensed Sailfish firmware, provides no source	No, presents being closed source as a supposed benefit	No

This list is incomplete. You can help by clicking "Contribute" in the menu and filling in the blanks.

GPL-compliant firmware

Most popular 3D printer firmwares are released under the GPL license, which demands that in exchange for all the freedoms you're given (you get to use it free of charge in your product, you get to modify it, you get to distribute the modified version), you pass along those same freedoms (including access to sourcecode) to people who receive your versions of it (customers who buy the printers). This includes both added features (like Creality's powerloss recovery) and hardware support for new boards
Solution for manufacturers: if you use GPL-licensed firmware (or other copyleft), just provide the sourcecode modifications you make to it.

Open source hardware

Open source hardware increases the ability to understand, repair, and improve devices. But there is more to it than declaring "We're open source!", the actual source files corresponding to the product (and the revision) must be provided in full and undamaged, to the customer.
Solution for manufacturers: just provide the source files, or don't claim to be open source if you're not (as long as the design is your own and not derived from someone else's GPL/copyleft licensed work)

Consistent printer model versions

There appears to be a trend in the 3D printer industry to release different printers under the same model/version name, and this causes problems because reviewers get one variant, while people who buy a printer from reviewers' recommendations will get a different variant. It turns buying a 3D printer into a gamble.
Solution for manufacturers: just mark the differences, add a little "revision <n>" to the model name (replace <n> with whichever revision number you're currently selling, even better if you can also make note somewhere of what's changed between the revisions, to fill in the gaps between what we hear about earlier revisions)

None of the above solutions are significantly costly, or at least shouldn't be (I believe there have been instances where manufacturers hire a second company to do the coding, but who refuse to comply with the GPL, this can be costly to resolve, but doesn't justify non-compliance)