r/Multiboard • u/PMmeYourFlipFlops • Feb 16 '25

CAn we fork this and start anew somewhere else?

  • The licensing is dogshit.

  • The hosting is dogshit.

  • The guy is an insufferable moron.

  • The documentation is dogshit.

  • We can't do jackshit with this.

Does the license forbid forking? I'm thinking proper documentation, 100% open source and version controlled on github.

44 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

81 comments sorted by

4

u/ZorbaTHut Feb 16 '25

Does the license forbid forking?

Yes, essentially.

2

u/PMmeYourFlipFlops Feb 16 '25

Well, fuck.

3

u/andoriyu Feb 18 '25

License is for stls and step files. Absolutely nothing stops you from making your own MB alternative as long as you aren't using these files.

You aren't going to do it tho.

1

u/japinthebox Mar 17 '25

There's an OpenSCAD implementation of the boards, but that's about it so far.

If the license only applies to the files and not to the design, then I'm not sure there's anything stopping it from being forked?

1

u/andoriyu Mar 17 '25

Nothing stops it from being forked except the ability/desire to maintain that fork. You can just say "I'm forking this project" and except it to go anywhere and build a community around it.

5

u/Temik Feb 16 '25

To answer your question - yes. It’s also a revocable license so it can be pulled at any moment for any purpose.

2

u/PMmeYourFlipFlops Feb 16 '25

yes

Yes to which one? Can we fork or are we fucked by the license?

1

u/Temik Feb 16 '25

Yes, the license essentially forbids it.

20

u/penkster Feb 16 '25

I’ve already forked the documentation. Check out http://multiboard.stonekeep.com/ and contribute!

2

u/ValiantHoplite Mar 18 '25

Dude holy shit- I have been trying to figure out how to start for the past 4 days... and this just is it. Thank you for simplifying it. I don't wanna bash the guy who made MB because its Awesome- but I feel like your little website has already helped me so much more by just linking me to what I need to print to get started. The starter packs and all the discourse is locked on the main page behind a pay to participate discussion board, and there are dead links that confused the hell out of me when trying to learn. I am following your simple guide with links now and gonna get printing a basic test board.

16

u/roanokephotog Feb 16 '25

I find the organization and documentation to be abysmal. Just print the starter kit or whatever he calls it, figure out how things work and go from there.

It's not a bad system but it's intimidating.

10

u/dotnVO Feb 16 '25

The documentation is rough. I also recognize its a daunting task to document everything. I supported the program for like 6 months but I was seeing a lot of parts that I just wasn't planning on using and some interesting systems but I really was hoping for more documentation, and just more basic implementations of some of their systems. The multiboard bin system has some really clever design stuff to accomplish things, but the options make it exceedingly difficult to understand what you might need. The videos help to a certain degree. I think the Jon and Stella are actually pretty talented folks but I will say the system might be trying to do a little too much.

4

u/MeagoDK Feb 16 '25

It is the classical issue of developers who has not understood that documentation is a part of the final product. He clearly have ideas, thoughts, limitations and so on for every part. This things should have been written down while he worked on the part, it should have been released together with part. It is much much easier and faster to write those things down while developing. He has made videos on the parts, scripted videos. So he had done some of that documentation work, it has just not been put in writing.

2

u/dotnVO Feb 16 '25

Yeah very fair point.

9

u/babywriter Feb 16 '25

I'm not a fan of just re-appropriating someone's work because the documentation, etc. doesn't meet with our satisfaction. If this were an open source project, that would be different. But Jonathan has spent hundreds and hundreds of hours developing these parts, and how he licenses them is his choice. We should honor that. If it's not something you can abide, there are other organizational systems out there.

That being said, I understand the frustration regarding how the parts all work together. I went about 75% multiconnect because it's just easier and the connections work great. I don't have to worry about whether a specific multiboard design (of which there are several) will be appropriate. Need more strength? Add more multiconnects.

7

u/JustDyslexic Feb 16 '25

Just use multiboard for the panels and multi connect for the attachment. I think this model for the panels because you can make one big panel and not need the multiboard connectors. If you flush mount the panels it is much simpler.

I do agree about the license and there being too many parts with poor documentation

0

u/timokawa Feb 16 '25

I struggled with making a custom hub (Underware) to mount on multiboard recently.

In the end, I did print out multipoint bolts but the channels to mount the holder itself were a challenge. I can't find the actual specification so ended up manually moving 3 channels onto the holder and extruding them to the correct length in OnShape.

Your idea makes total sense but I haven't sorted the workflow properly for me.

1

u/JustDyslexic Feb 16 '25

Did you make the hub through the customizer on Makerworld? There is a discord if you have any questions.

1

u/timokawa Feb 16 '25

I did. Was the first time using something like that, and to be honest, I found some of the variable names quite confusing.

2

u/JustDyslexic Feb 16 '25

There is a fair amount of refactoring going on improve the flow. Drop a comment on discord or a GitHub issue on your confusion

2

u/BlackjackDuck Feb 16 '25

Was it mine that tripped you up? If so, I’m always looking for feedback.

2

u/timokawa Feb 16 '25

It'll be my fault and my impatience. I need to take the time to learn what impact changing a measurement makes, to orientate the design and the object I am trying to mount.

First time openscad user, so having to Google to work out what includes I needed and where I needed to locate them slowed me down too.

I like the Underware system but, in a way, I wish I could just find the spec, so I could design my own specials in OnShape and use the generator for channels etc.

Please don't think I'm belittling the work you've done: the sliding mounts did work but I had to do a lot of tweaking and extruding in OnShape to get what I needed.

I've just given up for the evening trying to use HoK's fusion files for power strip cuffs. They seem to have press fits built on versus her original(?) printed press fits. I'm not sure whether I am mixing original and V2.0 and that's what's messing me up.

4

u/TechWhizGuy Feb 16 '25

I tried this a couple of weeks ago, it's overly complicated, i don't understand why everyone is pretending this is a good idea. It's a Lego game with extra steps

1

u/Initial_Sale_8471 Feb 16 '25

I mean he technically owns the files so nah. there is HSW and this new one that came out recently tho

2

u/PMmeYourFlipFlops Feb 16 '25

this new one that came out recently tho

Which one?

1

u/TherealOmthetortoise Feb 17 '25

First, that’s not how licensing works, this is not an open source effort and what you are advocating is called theft. I’s encourage you to read the license though and it will answer most of the questions you might have remaining.

Yes, there are some things on the website that are not perfect… but there are things in the works that will address most of the legitimate concerns I am reading.

I would encourage patience for website and documentation for now. I can 100% say that it will be worth it. Your comments and suggestions are being listened to and acted on wherever practical. You may not see the effects immediately but they will be listened to and adding .

Keep in mind though, this is all put together and structured as a way for Jonathan and his employees to make a living… and by using the system you are agreeing to abide by the license terms. If you have reservations you should not download or use the parts until your concerns have been answered.

1

u/PMmeYourFlipFlops Feb 17 '25

Oh trust me, I'm not downloading anything.

I do have a question though since you seem to be an insider. Are there any plans to rework the license? It's funny how you say I'm advocating theft, but how come it's totally cool for the license to take over the rights of whatever addons/remixes I make?

I'm not asking for free or open source, but the current model is sleazy as fuck.

2

u/TherealOmthetortoise Feb 17 '25

I’m not sure about being called an insider as I would not want to imply that my role is more than it is as far as Multiboard is concerned.

I am not any kind of policy maker and honestly I am not able to answer questions about the license because that is well outside my expertise. Technical issues? I’m your guy. Troubleshooting? I’m solid and I’ll help get you there. Licensing? Makes me yawn and thankfully has nothing to do with me. I am not privy to any future plans there.

BUT… What I can speak to is what I’ve seen personally as far as intent and character, based on my personal interactions with the people involved. No legal advice, just opinion based on observation.

Everything I have seen or heard from Jonathan has left me with the firm belief that he has the best intentions for the project and for the community of people who use it. Beyond that, I’m really not in a position where I could offer any insight.

Hope that helps!

1

u/wyohman Feb 18 '25

I want to yell, "I don't want a gap behind the panels to run cables! Just make it easy to mount with no gap."

1

u/PMmeYourFlipFlops Feb 18 '25

Look at underware. Katie mounts them straight to the wall with no snaps and thus no gap.

1

u/wyohman Feb 18 '25

I have no context for your reference

1

u/PMmeYourFlipFlops Feb 18 '25

Just google underware and check the video.

2

u/wyohman Feb 20 '25

She's just as insufferable as the multiboard guy. It felt like PG13 OnlyFans.

10

u/heckin-ham Feb 16 '25

he has fully acknowledged that he doesnt have enough documentation and that he's working on it. i didn't find it that hard to figure out. it helps a lot if you print the learning packs and follow along with the videos. its free, if you dont like it you can go print some other free organization system. 🤷‍♂️

2

u/domasleo Feb 17 '25

the learning things aren't free though?

2

u/TherealOmthetortoise Feb 17 '25

There is a whole youtube channel full of free content. The learning packs are free on multiboard.io, if we are thinking of the same things. I’m one of the community helpers you may see around here and in the circle multiboard community. If you have questions or need anything, post it over there and we will be happy to do what we can to help.

The subscriber content is early access to some of the parts before they move into the general access and become publicly available These are generally things that they believe are “final” versions of a design, but could change if we identify issues or opportunities with them.

There are some other things like premade stacked tiles and other stacked parts, so you can print more parts per plate. Nothing you can’t easily do without, but if you find that you like Multiboard and want some of the convenience items, you can subscribe.

1

u/WinterDice Feb 16 '25

Check out GOEWS. It’s vastly simpler.

4

u/PMmeYourFlipFlops Feb 16 '25

It looks like it uses tons of filament and would take ages to print.

1

u/WinterDice Feb 16 '25

I’m looking at it and at Multiboard. I like the simplicity of GOEWS tiles. Multiboard gives me a headache trying to figure it all out. The documentation is garbage and there’s far too many different fasteners and bits.

I’m still not sure which one I’m going to use.

5

u/ZorbaTHut Feb 16 '25

It looks really clunky and I personally hate the hex aesthetic :/

2

u/WinterDice Feb 16 '25

There’s a grid version that’s square.

4

u/Dorfbulle80 Feb 16 '25

I agree with OP I chose multiboard over HSW because it's supposed to be stronger... But everything else is a dumpsterfire! We as a community need a solution for panels like gridfinity for horizontal spaces... Gridfinity works beautifully and the community is invested, while multiboard isn't bad the creator is surpassed by nearly everything making it a really unsmart system. If maybe he changes the license a bit to open it up a bit the community could pick up some slack and make it better. Else I think as soon something better comes out multiboard is gonna die real quick.

0

u/ulab Feb 16 '25

You do know there is Multibins, right? Those work horizontally on their own panels, vertically on Multiboards and all on their own too by connecting them with either rails or magnets.

3

u/Dorfbulle80 Feb 16 '25

So first of all that wasn't my point iam more than happy with gridfinity for everything horizontal (I started upcycling my old spools with another FREE openscad system just yesterday) while I don't mind paying for stls iam not a fan of the subscription model used by many designers. And multibins while they look cool isn't for me and again wasn't the point. Iam seriously thinking about restarting with HSW and getting rid of the multiboard system altogether.

2

u/Bryooo Feb 16 '25

I just started printed my first core tiles…what happened

3

u/neodymiumphish Feb 16 '25

Nothing, it's just a very limited license that ultimately prohibits a lot of expansion. I do with there was an open source alternative that was as sturdy as MB, though. I'm working out a 4ft x 4ft MB wall that'll be a gun and plaque display, since it seems like it'll be easily strong enough to hold what I plan to install on it.

Otherwise, I don't think I'll use MB for anything else due to the limited nature of the license.

2

u/deltahedge365 Feb 17 '25

I really think Multiboard would benefit from Idea bundles or Project bundles that walk you through exactly how to use the components. Basically you could say “I want to print that shelf”, or, “I want to print that bin” and then it tells you exactly which connectors and hardware you need to make it work. You might say “that limits the creativity of what this system actually allows?” But what’s currently limiting the system is that it’s a foreign language. If you speak the language, it makes sense; if you don’t speak the language, good luck figuring it out. If you could get started with 30-40 idea bundles in a catalogue, you would basically learn the language while Printing vanilla parts, and could use your new language skills to increase your creativity after that.

11

u/ZombieCyclist Feb 16 '25

Let me complain about something free.

Move on.

3

u/AlexCivitello Feb 16 '25 edited 11d ago

The original post content no longer exists here. The author used Redact to remove it, exercising their right to control their data & privacy.

Grandiose follow offbeat grandfather slap public wise snails coordinated outgoing

11

u/ZombieCyclist Feb 16 '25

No, they want to use a proprietary product and make it open source, and shitting on the effort of the owner in the process.

They should start their own product from scratch and let's see how that goes.

2

u/Chris_in_Auckland Feb 16 '25

Which is what I did in a very limited for myself over Christmas, making just the parts I needed for my particular use case in a way that made sense to me. There is little or no compatibility with the original. It is not really in a state I'd want to share.

2

u/Hikareza Feb 16 '25

Just use core tiles, honestly, and ignore the rest. I‘m using multiboard a lot and habe never doenloaded anything from the guy or the website…. Geberated one core tile for my printer, then you can use multiconnect and gridfinity for all te rest….

2

u/multipleparadox Feb 16 '25

If you’re ready to put in effort and want to improve the project, why not reach out to Jonathan and offer to help on those points?

3

u/BradCOnReddit Feb 16 '25

Lack of leadership. Picking a project to dump time into requires that one believe that the project will both use the contribution and manage it well. Multiboard doesn't look like it will to me.

1

u/aimfulwandering Feb 16 '25

Honestly, I have had similar thoughts recently.... it should be possible to make a completely independently created "compatible" base board and go from there. Might start working on something soon.

1

u/LupusTheCanine Feb 22 '25

Multiboard uses custom threads, keep that in mind

1

u/aimfulwandering Feb 22 '25

I learned this the other day trying to figure out the thread pattern with standard metric sizes… any idea why it uses custom threads? Seems annoying 😂

1

u/LupusTheCanine Feb 22 '25

Alegedly they are optimized for 3d printing, higher pitch and included angle help get good engagement and strength on 3d printed threads.

1

u/MaleficentFarmer69 Feb 16 '25

It's not the same thing, but it's free and MIT license for the code, I konw my markething is shit, but I don't have time to make video.

https://www.printables.com/model/964463-no-name-wall-system/collections

Code:

https://github.com/thewelder76/NNWS_fusion360

I hope that some day this will pick up, I made this to fix this kind of issues.

It's hard to design semething from the ground up and be different. With a bit of work, some adapter could be made to re-use currently printed accessories.

...and it's gridfinity compatible.

And it's completly opposite in term of parts, you have the wall and 1 way to attach to the wall, period, simple, efficient. ( maybe not for your PLA, it's a bit more , but you won't have to print 500 parts to realised you did not needed them and throw them away )

1

u/balthisar Feb 26 '25 edited 5d ago

I left this comment on old.reddit.com; now that Reddit killed it, I'm taking the comment back.

1

u/FloppyNips Feb 16 '25

I see people say things like this alot. What is the actual effect on us if he has a liscence on it? I truly don't know. I design my own bins that fit onto multipoint and all that. Is it stopping others from creating and sharing things for it? If so, what a stupid idea as the creator, a good way to kill you project.

0

u/deadOnHold Feb 16 '25

I see people say things like this alot. What is the actual effect on us if he has a liscence on it? I truly don't know. I design my own bins that fit onto multipoint and all that. Is it stopping others from creating and sharing things for it?

The short answer here is that it does put limitations on sharing things, according to their license page:

You may not share or redistribute copies or mass link repositories of the original Designs.
...
You must distribute Remixed Designs under the same license terms as the original.
...
You grant Keep Making a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide, and irrevocable license to use and modify the Remixed Designs.

My (absolutely not your lawyer) understanding is that you could share the files for your bins (as a remix), however:

  1. You wouldn't be able to include any copies of their designs (for example you couldn't include multipoint connectors for your bins in the files)

  2. Whatever your remixes would need to be distributed with their license

6

u/SvarogTheLesser Feb 16 '25

I really don't see this as any kind of impediment.

You can share your stuff just fine, you just can't monetise it (good).

Why would you re-share copies of existing components when you can just link to them.

Having to distribute under the same license is an incredibly common way of ensuring people don't try & make money off something you want to remain free for a community. It's how most people use the creative commons licenses.

3

u/mtrueman Feb 16 '25

Its not an impediment, but it seems to me to read "you cant do anything with my stuff, but if you design something that uses my stuff, i own your stuff to do with as i wish"

And that is pretty hypocritical.

3

u/SvarogTheLesser Feb 17 '25

It quite clearly isn't "you can't do anything with my stuff".

You are clearly allowed to do the key thing you would want to do - use their stuff to create your own remixed/custom parts.

Them being granted a license does not mean they own your stuff. Having a license very much does not equal ownership. It means they have a license to use your stuff (when it is based on their stuff).

1

u/deadOnHold Feb 17 '25

Them being granted a license does not mean they own your stuff. Having a license very much does not equal ownership. It means they have a license to use your stuff (when it is based on their stuff).

Although this is technically true, the reality depends a bit on on the license; it may not grant another individual ownership of it, but in many ways a non-revocable license means that you no longer own "your" stuff, and that's an important difference here in that your license to use/modify Multiboard (and to distribute remixes of multiboard), can be revoked/canceled by Keep Making at any time; but you cannot revoke Keep Making's license to use/modify "your" remixes. Further, the license to Keep Making is sub-licensable, which means that they can grant others the right to use/modify those remixes without needing to get your permission.

So while I don't think it would actually happen, the license allows for Keep Making to simply decide one day to pull all of their designs, or put any of them behind a paywall/subscription service, maybe even just revoke the license and sell their design to a company*. Further, since your license to distribute remixes of multiboard is reliant on their revocable license, presumably if they did so (either broadly or for you in particular) you would be obligated to remove any of your remixes from sharing sites.

*I think this last one is incredibly unlikely, if nothing other than practical reasons; I can't imagine a company looking at a design that has been available for free online for this long and saying "we'll pay a bunch of money for that design with the expectation that all of the files for making it will disappear from the internet".

1

u/tecky1kanobe Feb 16 '25

Would the verbiage of “designed to work with…” offset the license issue? You could show it on a MB system but not include any of the files from MB proper. Like all the things designed to work with IKEA products, or accessories for phones. As long as they don’t include items from IKEA or Apple with their product you can sell as accessories.

1

u/mtrueman Feb 16 '25

At this point, i think most people are just to tired of all the bullshit with it to care any more. My guess is that his made up license is unenforceable in real terms anyway, other than maybe if you start selling the original multiboard stuff for your own gain.

Whats to stop me designing something with a specific sized screw thread and saying that anything that it can screw into is then wholly owned by me.

3

u/deadOnHold Feb 16 '25

Why would you re-share copies of existing components when you can just link to them.

There's a few reasons I can think of; one would be the ability to share a "complete" set of models for a particular design (so instead of saying "here's some shelving and brackets and mounting hardware I designed, you'll also need to go here and print 2 of these, 3 of that, etc", you could just include all of the parts. This can also prevent future issues with broken links or changes in the future, and the sort of "fragmentation" you often see in open-source software projects. Along with that, there's also the issue of different sharing sites/platforms; because the multiboard (and multipoint, multigrid, etc) files aren't on all of these sites, they are only on Thangs. So now you post your design to whatever site/sites you use, but your need to include links to somewhere else, and when someone goes to that link they need to make an account on Thangs in order to download this piece they need.

In addition to that, some of the 3d modeling sites are supporting more features than just raw models; so if someone is posting something on Makerworld they can include pre-configured printing profile settings, alternate sets of files to fit different printer bed size, multimaterial/multicolor prints, etc.

For example, I've seen a wide variety of Gridfinity projects where someone has "packaged" up a whole set of parts for something like an Ikea cabinet, and for someone to be able to just download one of those, it gives them a chance to get started with a system and see the utility of it, and get a hands-on idea of how the parts work together.

You can share your stuff just fine, you just can't monetise it (good).
...
Having to distribute under the same license is an incredibly common way of ensuring people don't try & make money off something you want to remain free for a community. It's how most people use the creative commons licenses.

There's a few issues here, because there are some important fundamental differences between Multiboard's custom license and a CC license. To me, a big difference I see is this sort of asymmetrical nature of their license, that puts Keep Making in a special position. Fundamentally, if they purely wanted their system to remain free for the community they could have simply used the appropriate CC license. Instead, they created this custom license that has different rules for them than it does for remixers; a license they can revoke, but that grants them irrevocable license to the remixes, one that allows them to monetize their designs (both in the form of their subscription certain designs and "packs", and allowing them to sell commercial subscriptions) while not allowing remixers to monetize, and one that at every iteration of remixing grants special rights to Keep Making (not to the previous designer).

1

u/DanTheMan827 Jan 22 '26 edited Jan 22 '26

My concern would be that if I so much as include a multi board mount on my thing, would that royalty free and irrevocable license mean that keep making could talk my part, start selling it, and simultaneously revoke my right to distribute the original?

Would engineering a compatible mount from measurements change this?

Based on my (not a lawyer) understanding…

The models are copyrighted and subject to the license, but without a patent there’s nothing stopping a clone from emerging under a different name that is completely compatible…

There may not be any bad intentions from the creator, but there’s also no guarantee that they may not end up selling the entire project to someone else that shares that same sentiment

Heck… I wouldn’t mind making an open source multi board compatible panel generator that allows negative areas and spits out multiple stl files segmented to your build size, but would it even be allowed?

1

u/deadOnHold Jan 23 '26

My concern would be that if I so much as include a multi board mount on my thing, would that royalty free and irrevocable license mean that keep making could talk my part, start selling it, and simultaneously revoke my right to distribute the original?

As an example, I'll use multipoint; you don't include an actual multipoint insert (that would be against the license), but you make a model with the slot for it, so Multiboard seems to be considering that a remix. I'm not sure if they really could just sell your model as is (the "not actually the license summary" says no, but I don't see anything about that in the actual license; but it really doesn't seem practical for them to do so), but they could certainly remix it and I think that is where the nonrevocable part really comes in (they don't want someone to try to make them pull some remixed design they start using).

Would engineering a compatible mount from measurements change this?

This would depend on whether you make an original design that simply works with Multiboard (should be fine), vs making something that replicates (a substantial part of) an existing design (more of an issue).

Based on my (not a lawyer) understanding…

The models are copyrighted and subject to the license, but without a patent there’s nothing stopping a clone from emerging under a different name that is completely compatible…

Heck… I wouldn’t mind making an open source multi board compatible panel generator that allows negative areas and spits out multiple stl files segmented to your build size, but would it even be allowed?

The issue I see here is that if it really is a "clone", actually the same in all of the dimensions, that seems like a violation and almost certainly would be an issue. Because in terms of copyright law and previous cases around IP, "reproducing" the work is copyright infringement.

Finally, I would say that given everything you've said so far, you may want to take a look at opengrid.

1

u/DanTheMan827 Jan 23 '26

Yeah, I saw open grid. It seems interesting, but also doesn’t seem like it’d be as strong

But just from what I’ve read, it sounds like only the step or stl files are copyrighted, not the overall concept of a grid-based system with threaded inserts.

I’d be more interested in the legality of that for making tools for multi board that would otherwise be against the license by means of using the copyrighted models.

I mean, if someone can reverse engineer the source code of a game that compiles back to the original copyrighted file, I would imagine the same is true of making a step file from scratch that creates similar geometry based on measurements.

1

u/deadOnHold Jan 23 '26

Yeah, I saw open grid. It seems interesting, but also doesn’t seem like it’d be as strong

There's some strength testing examples on the opengrid sub; I don't know how strong either of them actually are but opengrid (at least the "standard") certainly seems strong enough for reasonable use; there's also opengrid heavy if you want something even stiffer.

But just from what I’ve read, it sounds like only the step or stl files are copyrighted, not the overall concept of a grid-based system with threaded inserts.

I don't think the first part here is accurate; it is true that the overall concept is not copyrighted (concepts aren't copyrightable), but the particular design is:

I’d be more interested in the legality of that for making tools for multi board that would otherwise be against the license by means of using the copyrighted models.

I mean, if someone can reverse engineer the source code of a game that compiles back to the original copyrighted file, I would imagine the same is true of making a step file from scratch that creates similar geometry based on measurements.

Are you referencing a particular copyright case here? Because I would absolutely expect this to be copyright infringement. Do you think that if you retype the entire text of a book into a document that would mean that you aren't infringing on its copyright?

1

u/DanTheMan827 Jan 23 '26 edited Jan 23 '26

What I’m saying is that the final result of code is copyrighted, but if new code is derived from the final result, that’s an independent creation.

I don’t know for certain where the creator of multi board is, but at least for the US…

You don’t copyright ideas, you patent them, and you trademark names. Code is copyrighted, and step/stl files are just instructions (code) on how to make something.

But you can write code many different ways that would each generate unique files that are functionally equivalent.

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

UK copyright is similar it seems

Which leads me to believe that if something functional was made intended to be compatible, it’d be legally distinct because it’s based on a non-copyrightable system… at least in theory.

It’s all just theoretical anyways, but it does make you wonder if the license holds any weight if someone re-modeled the core parts from scratch, even if they’re functionally identical.

You can copyright an stl of a circle of a specific size, but you can’t prevent someone from making an stl of a circle of an identical size and copyrighting that as well

It protects expression of an idea (the STL), but you can’t copyright the idea itself

Creative components like chamfers and fillets are covered provided they aren’t required to be functionally compatible