Five months ago, we released the CORE One CAD files under the Open Community License. Since then, thousands of projects have been published under OCL, now including Research groups at UC Berkeley and MIT. We’ve also gotten a lot of feedback from creators, businesses, legal, as well as other universities who wish to release their projects and research under OCL.
Today, we’re releasing OCL version 1.1 that incorporates the suggested improvements. The new license is live on GitHub and you can select to use it on Printables for your projects. Here’s everything that’s new.
TL;DR: What’s New in v1.1
- A modular plugin system: customize your license with add-on conditions for attribution, revenue thresholds, or R&D restrictions
- Tighter copyleft: derivatives must stay under OCL (no more license fragmentation)
- Core license refined: broader business-use rights, clearer IP scope, and explicit respect for existing law
- New good practice examples: including scenarios for the plugins and multi-plugin combinations
The Plugin System
This is the biggest change in v1.1, and the one we’re most excited about.
The problem: different creators need different things. A hobbyist sharing a fan shroud on Printables has different concerns than a university sharing years of their research, and that is different from a company releasing commercial CAD files. With OCL v1.0, it was one-size-fits-all. With v1.1, the core license stays short (still fits on one page), and you bolt on the plugins you need.
Four plugins ship today.
General Attribution (GAtt v1)
When someone shares a derivative of your work, they must credit you. Simple as that. We also addressed a question that came up a lot: “How do you credit someone on a 4cm plastic bracket with no packaging?” Answer: an attached tag, a card, a QR code. The latest GAtt text acknowledges physical-object limitations and provides guidance.
What about long attribution chains? This came up internally too, if your design is based on someone’s remix of someone else’s adaptation of the original, who do you credit? GAtt has a practical minimum: you must credit at least the original creator and the creator of the last derivative your work is based on. You’re encouraged to credit everyone in the chain, but the minimum keeps things manageable.
Software Attribution (SWAtt v1)
Like GAtt, but specifically for software. Requires visible attribution in the user interface and in the source code.
Micro Business (Micro v1)
A revenue threshold plugin. If your annual gross revenue (rolling 12-month window, including affiliates) is under the value of one million euros, you can use the licensed item for internal business purposes without needing a separate business license.
Some concrete examples:
- Solo designer on Printables with a side income – no license needed
- Startup doing €600K/year – covered, keep building
- A subsidiary of a €50M group – the parent’s revenue counts (affiliates are aggregated) – business license needed with the original creator
This is designed so that small businesses aren’t burdened while they’re getting started. The threshold kicks in at a size where a licensing conversation is reasonable.
Research & Development (RnD v1)
Restricts business use to R&D only. This plugin was specifically requested by universities. You can experiment, prototype, and develop your own creations based on the licensed intellectual property. Manufacturing requires a separate agreement. Perfect for entities that want to learn from open designs without mass-producing copies.
How Plugins Work Together
Plugins are cumulative. A licensor selects “OCL v1.1 + General Attribution + Micro Business” and each plugin adds its conditions independently. The core stays clean, the system scales, and every combination is valid.
What Else Changed in the Core License
A few important updates beyond the plugin system:
Copyleft is now OCL-specific. In v1.0, derivatives could be shared under “OCL or any non-commercial, share-alike license.” In practice, almost no other license qualified. So we simplified: if you distribute derivatives, you do it under OCL. One standard, no fragmentation.
Business use was broadened. “Internal production use” became “internal business use (including internal production).” If you run a business and use OCL-licensed tools or designs in your daily operations, not just manufacturing but repair, prototyping, optimization, training, you’re covered.
Applicable law is explicitly respected. We added: “OCL does not override imperative exceptions and limitations under applicable law.” If you bought a physical product, your rights under local law stand. If your jurisdiction has exhaustion or first-sale rules, those apply. This was always the intent, now the text says it.
IP scope is clearer. Instead of the vague “design,” we now specify “registered design or design patent, and (utility) patent.” You know exactly which IP categories are covered and community-opened.
We’ve now released the printable parts of the INDX upgrade for the CORE One+ under OCL, alongside the CORE One and CORE One L CAD files.
OCL adoption has been growing beyond Printables creators. Including an innovative volumetric printer from a UC Berkeley research group. It works sort of like a CT scan, but in reverse. Images get projected on a rotating vial of resin, the whole part forms all at once, in just minutes. There are no layers, no supports. Truly pushing 3D printing forward!
Your Questions Answered
Since the original release, certain questions have come up again and again, in GitHub issues, Reddit threads, emails, and internal conversations. Let’s clear them up.
“I designed something that fits a product licensed under OCL. Am I bound by the license?”
This is probably the single most common question we’ve gotten. Generally speaking – the answer is no.
The license itself says: “This does not concern your creations and modifications that are not derived from the [licensed] product and/or its components.”
Designing an accessory that attaches to a CORE One doesn’t make it a derivative. OCL aims to prevent vendor lock-in and that means compatible accessories and aftermarket parts are a feature, not a threat.
So when is it a derivative? When the original licensed geometry ended up inside yours (e.g. editing the licensed part). Opening the file to read dimensions and match a the fit is fine.
“I’m a business. Can I use OCL-licensed tools and machines to make my own products?”
Yes. This is explicitly allowed. OCL grants business users the right to “use the product and modify it to your use case solely for your internal business use.” If you use an OCL-licensed 3D printer, CNC machine, or software tool to manufacture your own products, headphones, jigs, brackets, whatever, that’s internal business use. You’re not copying the OCL-licensed design. You’re using it as a tool.
“If I modify something licensed under OCL, do I have to share my modifications?”
You don’t have to share anything. The requirement kicks in only if you choose to distribute: if you share your modifications publicly, you must do so under OCL. If you keep them to yourself, no obligation. This is actually the same principle behind e.g. Creative Commons No-Derivatives, which many people misunderstand. No Derivatives doesn’t mean you can’t modify a model, it means you just can’t distribute the modified version.
Using OCL on Printables (and CERN OHL-S v2)
OCL v1.1 is available right now as a license option on Printables. When you upload a model, you can select OCL v1.1 with or without plugins. Printables shows a clear summary of what the license means, with a link to the full text.
If you’ve previously published models under OCL v1.0, those stay under v1.0. You can edit the project to use OCL v1.1 , but there’s no obligation and since the license applies at the time of distribution, everyone who got the project before will still be bound by the original license.
We’ve also added another license to Printables – CERN OHL-S v2. Think of it as the GPL, but for hardware: anyone can manufacture and sell your design, or use it to train AI models, as long as their derivatives stay open under the same terms.
So both OCL v1.1 and CERN OHL-S 2.0 are now available as license options on Printables alongside the existing choices. If they fit your project, they’re there. If another license works better for you, use that.
The Soozafone Update
Our patent attorneys have filed a request for reexamination with the USPTO to invalidate the design patent on Soozafone’s Lucky 13, based on documented prior art. On March 11, 2026 the USPTO issued an action confirming that the design patent should not have been granted as it was not new and rejected the patent claim. This is exactly the kind of fight that shows why structural solutions matter – one legal battle at a time is expensive and slow. OCL gives creators standing from day one, with the patent grant and breach-of-contract provisions creating multiple enforcement paths that Creative Commons alone didn’t offer.
What’s Next
We’re publishing the real-world scenarios we’ve tested against and inviting the community to stress-test with us. OCL lives on GitHub – open issues, tell us what works and what doesn’t. We already have several ideas for further improvements and we’ll incorporate them in future revisions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.