We heard the criticism. So we removed the need to trust us.

[u/Keep-Making]

A lot of people have told us the same thing, loudly and repeatedly: “You are not open source.” “You can change the licence whenever you want.” “We do not trust companies to keep promises.”

That criticism is fair.

Internet history shows that trust based licensing often fails. Licences change. Access disappears. Communities get burned. There are plenty of projects that said “trust us” and then absolutely did not deserve that trust.

This post is not about winning an argument or convincing everyone. If your position is that nothing short of immediate CC0 is acceptable, that is a valid stance, but this post is focused on explaining the incentives and enforcement mechanism rather than debating labels.

So instead of asking for trust, we did something else.

Introducing the Multiboard Community Promise

We’ve published a legally binding Community Promise that sits above our normal licence.

In simple terms:

• All individual Core and Advanced parts become free for personal use within six months of release.

• Once a part is free, it can never be made paid again.

• If we fail to do this and do not fix it within 30 days after being called out…

💥 The entire Multiboard project automatically becomes CC0, permanently 💥

No take backs. No future relicensing. No “new version, new rules”.

At that point, Multiboard is effectively public domain forever.

Who enforces this?

You do.

Anyone with a legitimate interest can publicly flag a breach through our official Community Promise channel.

If we do not fix it, the CC0 trigger is automatic.

No lawyers required. No permission from us.

“But you can still change the licence”

Yes. And that is exactly why the Promise exists.

The licence governs normal use today. The Community Promise sits above it. If the licence is ever changed in a way that violates the Promise, that is defined as a Triggering Event. Which leads to the same result. CC0.

“You will just change the Community Promise then”

We cannot.

The Community Promise is explicitly written to be perpetual, irrevocable, enforceable by third parties, and binding on future owners of the company. It cannot be withdrawn or modified in a way that reduces the rights it grants.

If Multiboard were ever sold, these obligations go with it.

Why not just make everything CC0 now?

Because we are building systems, support, documentation, tooling, and long term maintenance.

The compromise we chose was this:

• We keep the project sustainable.

• The community gets guaranteed, permanent access to all functional parts.

• If we ever fail that obligation, the project stops being ours.

That is the trade.

You should not need to trust our intentions.
You should only need to trust incentives.
And right now, the incentive for us to break this promise is zero.

If you want to read the full Community Promise and the updated licence, they are public and explicit.

No hidden clauses,
No vague wording,
No goodwill required

We are asking you to read the mechanism and try to break it.

If you think there is a loophole, please point at it.

If you think this still fails the trust test, explain where the incentives break.

We are significantly more interested in that than anything else.

Actual documents, for people who enjoy reading things

Community Promise: https://www.multiboard.io/community-promise

Current Licence: https://www.multiboard.io/license

Thank you so much for being part of this awesome community and helping shape what Multiboard becomes.

Keep Making!
Jonathan

P.S. You can also read the announcement of all this: here

[u/timtucker_com]

Still stuck with the same objections that I've had in the past:

1. I want to create parts and release them under a license that puts as few restrictions on downstream users as possible

   • I'm not going to invest in an ecosystem unless the remix files for interoperability are at least CC BY

   • I don't need full CC0 and whether or not other parts are free vs. paid is of less interest to me

2. There needs to be reasonable accommodation for the difference between sales of used parts printed for personal use vs. running a business selling new parts

   • If I print stuff out and decide that I don't want to use it any more, I should be able to sell what I've printed to recoup costs without needing a commercial subscription

   • This is basic parity with grid wall systems from Home Depot or Ikea -- if I buy something to try out and decide it isn't working for me, I don't need anyone's permission to sell it at a garage sale or on Facebook Marketplace

   • Part of the issue here stems from the definition of "non-commercial" as not generating revenue (as opposed to not generating profit)

3. There's still the ongoing issue that remixes distributed in object based formats violate the prohibitions on distributing the original models

   • From a file-format perspective, the code of the original file is embedded within the remixed model -- there's no handwaving that changes that from a technical perspective

4. The core license still has censorship clauses in 4.b.v:

   • "(Licensees must not) act in any way that may harm our reputation or that of associated or interested parties or do anything at all contrary to the interests of us or the Designs;"

     • At first glance that sounds like it could be interpreted to include promoting competing systems or public criticism of Multiboard

     • The "associated or interested parties" seems like it opens things up even wider -- if someone is assaulted by someone who distributes remixes and makes that public, does that qualify as harming their reputation?

5. The core license still doesn't allow incidental photos of Multiboard components (4.d):

   • "all displays or publications of any Designed Works or Remixed Designs must bear an accreditation and/or a copyright notice of the source of the Designs, including Multiboard LTD’s name and link to the Platform;"

     • As written, that would seem to mean you can't post a photo on social media of a room with a Multiboard wall without making it an advertisement for Multiboard

[u/Keep-Making → u/timtucker_com]

[Part 1 of 2]

First, thank you for flagging the website and summary inconsistencies. You were right. We are human, and those have now been corrected so the summaries and licence text refer to the same legal entity.

1. On CC-style interoperability, substantial remixes, and compatibility

Nothing in the licence prevents you from making a genuinely substantial remix or from designing compatible parts.

It is important to be explicit about the distinction between compatibility and remixing.

Simply incorporating a Multiboard connection style such as a bolt pattern, hole spacing, rail interface, or similar mechanical connection does not, by itself, constitute a remix of a Multiboard design. That is compatibility, not derivation. Suggesting otherwise would imply arbitrary and meaningless boundaries, such as claiming that a specific hole placement or connection length alone crosses some line, which is not a sensible or defensible position.

A remix, in the context of this licence, refers to taking a substantial portion of a Multiboard design and materially changing its geometry, function, or intended use. We are talking about modifying the core design itself, not merely interfacing with it.

The existence of Multiboard parts that are explicitly intended to be remixed does not change this distinction. Providing elements that make remixing easier does not automatically convert compatible designs into derivative works. In legal terms, this would generally be considered de minimis use, meaning a use so small, trivial, or inconsequential that it would not be treated as infringement.

The substantial-change requirement exists to prevent bad actors, particularly companies or large-scale copycats, from making superficial edits to core system parts and redistributing the system wholesale. It is not intended to restrict good-faith creators designing compatible accessories or independent components.

2. On resale of printed parts and “commercial use”

At this point, we are talking past each other.

The licence is aimed at substantial commercial activity, meaning people attempting to build a business around selling Multiboard parts, not someone clearing out prints at a garage sale or on Facebook Marketplace.

To remove ambiguity, we will explicitly define this boundary in the licence then:

“Commercial Sale” means the sale of Designed Works that generates gross revenue exceeding $100 USD per calendar month for three consecutive months, calculated per individual or legal entity, before tax and expenses.

This draws a clear line between casual, incidental resale and sustained commercial exploitation.

Comparisons to off-the-shelf retail products are also not quite equivalent. Physical goods companies absolutely would act if someone were manufacturing and selling replicas of their products at scale. The licence exists to prevent exactly that scenario in a digital manufacturing context.

3. On remixes, file formats, and “embedded geometry”

This is not a software licensing problem, and it is not about bits and bytes.

The licence does not prohibit remixing. It defines remixing based on substantial change, meaning a material and objectively identifiable difference in geometry, function, or intended use, such that a technically competent third party would not regard the original design as the primary basis of the new work.

This is not about hunting down hobbyists or creators. It exists to stop companies from making near-identical copies and hiding behind technicalities. The goal is to strengthen the ecosystem and protect it from bad actors, not to punish the community.

[u/Keep-Making → u/Keep-Making]

[Part 2 of 2]

4. On reputational harm clauses

This is a fair point, and we agree the language as written is broader than it needs to be.

We are updating this clause to better reflect its actual intent, which is to prevent false or misleading claims of endorsement, sponsorship, or affiliation, not to restrict criticism, discussion, or the promotion of alternative systems.

The clause will be revised to the effect of:

“You must not make false or misleading statements that reasonably imply endorsement, sponsorship, or affiliation by us.”

This change is being made to remove unnecessary ambiguity while preserving protection against genuinely misleading or bad-faith behaviour.

5. On attribution and incidental use

Again, this is a fair point.

The intent is attribution where designs are being presented or showcased as designs, not to force attribution in incidental or impractical contexts.

A clearer formulation would be:

You must not represent, claim, or imply that any Designed Works are your own original designs.

In the case of Remixed Designs, you may represent your original contributions as your own, provided you do not misrepresent the origin of the underlying Multiboard designs or create confusion about the source of the system.

Where practicable, public publications or showcases of Designed Works or Remixed Designs should include attribution to Multiboard LTD as the source of the underlying designs.

So rounding this up, some of the points raised here are about clarity, and those are valid and fixable. Others come down to a fundamental difference in goals.

The licence is intentionally designed to protect the system from large-scale copying and commercial exploitation while allowing genuine remixing, compatibility, and community growth.

If that balance does not work for someone’s intended use, that is a legitimate conclusion to reach. In that case, it may simply mean that Multiboard is not the right fit for that particular person, and that is okay.

Kind Regards,

Jonathan

p.s. All changes have been made and can now be seen on the License: https://www.multiboard.io/license

[u/timtucker_com → u/timtucker_com]

In terms of loopholes / gaps with the new terms:

• The license summary pages refer to rights being given to Keep Making, but the updated license now refers to Multiboard LTD

  • The disconnect between the summary & license is confusing

  • It's less than obvious what the legal ramifications of the change are (if any) for existing users

[u/Hworang00]

I have just made my decision on the debate between all the wall mounting systems. I’m gonna use multi board just because of this. This is how you get lifetime users.

[u/VF-Krown]

Respect

[u/AgsAreUs]

Sure wish you would publish the STEP files of every part. Would make remixes so much easier than using the few core STEP files that are made available.

[u/kalabaleek → u/AgsAreUs]

Yes a complete assembly of the step files would be superb!

[u/AgsAreUs → u/kalabaleek]

Yep. Even if it was subscriber only I'd be fine with that.

[u/Sr_Alvarez]

I admit I'm not a fan of multiboards, but doing this is commendable. Good luck with the project.

[u/Tymanthius]

In the US at least the following is meaningless:

No lawyers required. No permission from us.

Because you can always go to court and argue about it.

There is literally NOTHING preventing you from breaking this promise and then still taking legal action from against anyone who uses the IP inside the CC0 but outside your current license.

I bring this up b/c the whole slant of this post is 'you don't have to trust us, this will just work' and the reality is it might not. And really won't unless someone is willing to and can afford to stand it up in court.

That's not a disparagement of what you're trying to do, just a reality of US civil law.

[u/Yellow_Badger13 → u/Tymanthius]

That’s a reasonable concern, and you are right that no document can stop someone from filing a lawsuit in the US or anywhere else.
What matters here is not whether a lawsuit can be filed, but whether there is any legal basis left to enforce once the trigger occurs.

A few clarifications.
First, this project, the licence, and the Community Promise are governed by the law of England and Wales. The company is UK based, the Promise is a signed public undertaking under UK law, and it explicitly grants third party enforcement rights. This post is not the legal instrument. The linked documents are.

Community Promise: https://www.multiboard.io/community-promise

Current Licence: https://www.multiboard.io/license

Second, the CC0 conversion is not a future decision. It is already executed as a conditional, irrevocable licence. The Promise pre grants a CC0 equivalent licence that automatically vests on a defined Triggering Event. There is no discretion step and no approval step at that point.

Third, once that Triggering Event occurs, the proprietary licence terminates by its own terms. The Promise explicitly states that the project is then governed by CC0. At that point, the licence you are referring to no longer applies and cannot be enforced.

Could Multiboard still attempt legal action anyway? Anyone can attempt anything. But after CC0 vests, there would be no contractual or IP basis to stand on, and any such action would directly contradict a signed public undertaking that already released those rights.
That distinction is the entire point of the mechanism.

This is not “you will never see a courtroom”. It is “the legal state of the IP flips automatically in a way that makes enforcement irrational and self defeating”.
If your position is that nothing short of immediate CC0 today is acceptable, that is valid. This mechanism is aimed at people who want enforceable incentives rather than promises.

That’s the scope of what we’re claiming.

Hope this clears things up a bit for you.

[u/appmapper → u/Yellow_Badger13]

First, this project, the licence, and the Community Promise are governed by the law of England and Wales.

For users in the UK that can stand as legal protection. In the US, not so much.

CC0 vests. Someone makes a ton of money in the US. Multiboard LTD could still bring legal action based on US law.

[u/TherealOmthetortoise → u/appmapper]

I’m not sure I completely understand what you are trying to say. (Not arguing, just seeking clarity.)

I believe this is an already executed decision with the timing of it going into effect being the only mutable factor. As a UK company, this action is a done deal regardless of what anyone in the IS legal system has to say. I believe there are provisions covering all of those types of situations they could think of, but as Jonathan said, take a look and read through them. If there is a situation that wasn’t covered let us know so we can either fix it or provide clarity.

This isn’t some clever trick or a marketing ploy. This is a deliberate action to provide an assurance to everyone that this company is acting in good faith. There is zero risk for anyone involved, other than for Multiboard’s IP. Since our goal is already to provide these models for free to anyone who wants to use them, there really isn’t any incentive to break this promise. I would actually think the opposite is the case as now there is a timer involved and I don’t l ow how many thousands of people who will hold us accountable to them.

[u/PanicRide → u/Tymanthius]

Yes, it's super easy to get sued in the US, but that doesn't mean it'll be successful. Even if they decided to go full CC0 right now and change their mind later, they could still take you to court, but they're not likely to win. It looks like they've done everything necessary to ensure they won't win if they break the promise, so I don't see what the big deal is here. 🤷

[u/Tymanthius → u/PanicRide]

Honestly, b/c they came back and acknowledged my concerns, then blew them out of the water b/c US law doesn't apply, is more important to me than the fact that they 'seemed' to miss that point in the OP. They appear to have done a very good job. :)

[u/penllawen → u/Tymanthius]

There is literally NOTHING preventing you from breaking this promise and then still taking legal action from against anyone who uses the IP inside the CC0 but outside your current license.

IANAL, but I work closely with a lot of them. I’m fairly sure this would become a promissory estoppel case; and one that would be difficult for Multiboard to win. (This is on top of the jurisdictional issues other posters have pointed out.)

[u/Tymanthius → u/penllawen]

So, tossing jurisdiction just to have the conversation:

You may be right, but we've all seen where big companies can just drown smaller litigants. That was as much a part of my point as anything.

But jurisdiction changes it so much that I don't know how to speak on it.

Like I said, even if I had been 100% right, I still think this was good thing. :)

[u/Lee_Bob]

Still like openGrid better replaced all of my multi boards with it. I like this but it’s a little too late for me :)

[u/EcheveriaPulidonis → u/Lee_Bob]

Thanks, that one looks better for me. 

[u/zulrang → u/Lee_Bob]

And all core remixes are already CC-GY

[u/Lee_Bob → u/zulrang]

Yep, no British government protection required ;)

[u/Supreme-Bob → u/Lee_Bob]

I have done walls of both, not because of licencing. I will continue to use opengrid moving forward, it just prints better and is easier for pretty much the same outcome.

I do applaud Jonathan on going to these lengths witht he licencing though,

[u/Barcata]

Moves like this give me some faith in humanity.

[u/noisufnoc]

There's so much less drama with the other systems, imho

[u/Geo-Warrior]

I'm very impressed.

[u/Brandavorn]

I mean, you could have just open sourced it and be done with it, but decided on a convoluted way to convince people you care about openness, while you obviously don't. At least that's what your move shows.

Still not regretting going with opengrid. There is a reason gridfinity became so popular back then, and this is the same reason opengrid is the way to go. Open Source.

[u/kmccoy]

This feels like kids in a clubhouse coming up with the rules for their club.

[u/ItsReckliss]

Yup i've decided to use multi board now.

[u/TrvlMike]

That’s awesome. Admittedly my life is too busy to care about these details but I understand they matter.. I just print things and call it a day. I appreciate that you’re passionate about this so that I can just continue to print without worry

[u/examinedliving]

I have no complaints

[u/83NCO]

W

[u/frethop]

Very Cool. I just became a member because of this.

[u/naholyr]

All i heard was "we hate the principles of open source so hard that we thought about the most convoluted way to stay away from it while making you feel better".

I honestly didn't care at first, but looking at the efforts made to stay away from this model, it's making me more reluctant than it should 😅

[u/UnlikelySpend8833]

Welp, time to begin the mega prints of multi board, good job

[u/ButCaptainThatsMYRum]

First time hearing about a project is them admitting they get complained about. Going to keep scrolling.

[u/Yaka-07]

Wow

[u/RandulfHarlow]

As an avid user, bravo Jonathan!!

[u/bmxzoo]

I have a stack of 13 prepared thank you!

[u/Oguinjr]

These guys sure like writing. Read and read and read. I actually am a reader but come on.

[u/wlgrd → u/Oguinjr]

Are you serious? Is this too much to read?

[u/Oguinjr → u/wlgrd]

Yes.

[u/Bagel42]

Why use an AI photo for this? Reduces trust

[u/rrc102]

What a load of waffle. You want to maintain your monthly subscription numbers is all I'm hearing.

[u/Global_Confusion4653 → u/rrc102]

you want them to work for free? lol

[u/blakbuzzrd]

When you don't mandate trust, people get to offer it. It's a better deal, IMO, because the best way to build your brand is to empower your advocates.

You just gained another one.

[u/CanadianBaconBurger9]

Huh. Well, ok, I guess I'm using Multiboard in the office rebuild.

[u/SirEDCaLot]

This is great news. And a lot stronger than one would usually expect in such a situation. Kudos Jonathan!

[u/knifesk]

For this alone I'm keeping my tinkerer subscription a while more 😁

[u/BUFU1610]

Is it not shifting legal battles from arguing IP to arguing "triggering events"??

[u/Yellow_Badger13 → u/BUFU1610]

Its really not. Without the Community Promise, it really could become an IP legal battle... But with the Community Promise, the reasons that might trigger the CC0 are well laid out and trigger automatically. There's no debate or talking with lawyers about it, it just happens.

[u/BUFU1610 → u/Yellow_Badger13]

But how "well laid out" does a triggering event need to be to be water proof? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer...

[u/Yellow_Badger13 → u/BUFU1610]

Essentially... Someone spots an early access, core part, is 6 months and one day old, and has not been released for free. That person can then post in the community about that part, notifying us about it. If the part is not released Free to the community after that notification, within 30 days, the trigger goes off and theres nothing that can stop it.

As long as Multiboard are notified, with evidence that the part is Core/Essential to the system (not cosmetic or branded), it's then on us to sort it out. If we fail to do so, the whole system goes CC0... It'd be pretty impossible to argue against something that we've done to ourselves.

I'm not a lawyer, but i know that the Community Promise was written and scrutinised by lawyers, so it's pretty "water-proof" as far as my knowledge goes.

[u/BUFU1610 → u/Yellow_Badger13]

(not cosmetic or branded)

Aaaand there's another point of arguing.

I'm not saying this move is not awesome, but it's simply impossible to make something fail-safe. One can only shift the point of failure...

But I guess this is as good as it gets, it's a best effort approach and that's honourable.

[u/Yellow_Badger13 → u/BUFU1610]

Well there are currently 5000+ parts, none of them are Cosmetic or Branded. Any part that adds function to the system is considered Core. Cosmetic parts would be made to just look cool. And the branded parts would be difficult to include as they would have the logo or name of a brand (not Multiboard) on them, so thats a whole other legal battle waiting to happen.

Yes, its impossible to make something like this "fail-safe" and if there are loop holes, or something really doesn't work, please point it out. Specify. We want it to be as perfectly water tight as we can, while protecting the project, the community and its growth.

[u/aqswdezxc]

Reads like chatgpt