They also want to ban "nearly exact 1:1 clones", which I feel is going to be impossible to define. How many changes is going to be enough to no longer be near?

I think the intent is, like patents, to prevent someone else from undercutting your price and reaping reward for your investment in innovation but at the same time saying if you make a significant contribution to the greater good then you can immediately apply it to the current state of the art.

You can benefit from our innovation but only if it's in addition to your own innovation.

I kind of like that because unlike patents which stifle innovation, it encourages acceleration of innovation.

Patents encourage publication of inventions, either as part of an application for a patent or as a defensive publication to prevent others from getting a patent. They allow (UK, not sure about other jurisdictions) research, can always be licensed. So is it just the monopoly length that is stifling?

The main alternative regime seems to be industrial secrets, are they less stifling?

Industrial secrets might be less stifling, because reverse engineering is usually faster than waiting 20 years for a patent to expire.

Then of course there is the option of embracing open source across industry by recognizing as a culture that widespread innovation grows the economy faster than restricted innovation.

You can buy Prusa MK3 kits from Aliexpress for half the price of the original. I bought a kit from Prusa and one knockoff from Aliexpress. Parts wise they are 100% the same and perform the exact same way. Do I feel bad about it? Kind of. The Chinese seller certainly did not put R&D into any of it. And being in China makes sourcing much easier.

Yeah, I've bought a knockoff on Aliexpress too, but mine was not a 100% clone. I bought a kit that came with the Bear upgrade and didn't come with the parts that would be replaced during the Bear upgrade. Those are the ones I think are hard to define without being vague. My worry is that by adding vague and all-encompassing restrictions, the license will no longer be free.

It wasn't clear at first that the concern is hardware licensing. The GPL isn't great for hardware, but I can't tell if they're objecting to it for software.

Either way, bringing back advertising clauses is a bad idea.

I’m torn because I believe in IP rights but I also remember all the 3d printing “new paradigm” gurus telling me about the new world they were ushering in where 3d printers would replicate themselves. In a sense that is happening but via detour through a Chinese factory.

The thing is, there is a solid community-positive reason to allow 1:1 clones. Or there should be.

What it should be encouraging is the formation of new companies whose only product is the clone; they don't have the product development overhead when they're setting out their stall. Those companies can then use the cloned design as a cashflow springboard for their own designs as a second phase. There is nothing wrong with that as a business model.

However, that's not what we see. What we see is clones being denigrated as valueless rip-offs, so people who might otherwise get into business by that route are dissuaded from doing so.

That attitude is absolutely reinforced by blog posts like this. Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.