Matt Strong invented a 3-D printer called TangiBot. More precisely, he built an exact replica of the MakerBot Replicator and is attempting to raise $500,000 on Kickstarter to fund its production.

In most cases, he would be met with a swift cease-and-desist letter, but the MakerBot Replicator is open source, meaning anyone can copy it and sell it. While legal, the TangiBot has raised the ethical hackles of many in the maker community.

Strong is unapologetic about the TangiBot's lack of originality, saying, "I want to bring a low-cost machine to market that people can trust. The Replicator is the best and completely open source. I discussed the licenses with lawyers, and it's totally legit."

What TangiBot lacks in design innovation it makes up for in cost. The entry-level TangiBot will cost $1,199 compared to $1,799 for a MakerBot Replicator. The secret to the Groupon-level discount? TangiBot will be manufactured in China, while MakerBots are built in Brooklyn.

Strong, a mechanical engineer by training, is a supply-chain specialist. Before TangiBot, he spent four years working at Provo Craft, shipping millions of Cricut paper cutters. By leveraging the supply chain he set up at his former post, he's delivering economies of scale and, he argues, making 3-D printing more affordable.

Strongs says his company, 3DTangible, isn't driven by economics alone. His daughter faced severe health challenges early in life and he points to the video of a disabled girl using a 3-D printed exoskeleton as an example of the innovation he wants to help foster.

"I want more people getting involved, designing their own tools at home, but so few people get a chance to experience 3-D printing," he says. "For more people to do it, the prices have to come down."

Despite his good intentions and impressive track record, Strong is getting a lot of flak from the 3-D printing community. Many object to the notion of using open source plans to undercut the original inventor on price without improving upon the design at all. Strong responds that MakerBot's technology is nothing new. "We used the same technology when I was in college. The big difference was that those printers cost $50,000." TangiBot, he says, is doing its part to accelerate adoption of the printers by making the machines cheaper, and eventually better.

The decision to manufacture in China has also raised eyebrows. Will TangiBots be produced in a Foxconn-like factory with unfair labor practices just to cut the price? "These factories pass Disney audits," Strong counters.

Phillip Torrone, the creative director at AdaFruit Industries and Senior Editor at Make magazine, was one of the big names who weighed in on the TangiBot Kickstarter page. "Being able to copy or 'clone' open source and open source hardware (OSHW) is not only OK, it's celebrated," Torrone told Wired Design. "OSHW has a goal of not only having good designs shared, but the desire to add value to the world when it's shared and improvements are made."

>"Kickstarter would likely not allow any of us to get funding for a self-described iPhone clone or knock-off, ask for $500K, and then assure everyone it will be just as good..." – Phillip Torrone

Torrone's primary frustration was the over-reliance on the MakerBot trademark – the one way open source projects can protect their brand – and the good will that is associated with it. He says, "The TangiBot Kickstarter page used the MakerBot name dozens of times and assured quality because it's a 'clone' and in TangiBot's words a 'knock-off.' [Editor's note: Strong has since removed much of the "MakerBot" language from the Kickstarter page.] That's banking really hard on MakerBot's name, quality, and reputation in hopes of getting $500,000. Just because it's a 'clone' does not mean it will work or perform the same. What I suggested to Matt was to showcase the improvements, how he'd make it lower cost, how he'll support the TangiBots."

Torrone wonders whether Kickstarter would tolerate such clones of more mainstream products: "Kickstarter would likely not allow any of us to get funding for a self-described iPhone clone or knock-off, ask for $500K, and then assure everyone it will be just as good because it's an iPhone clone/knock off."

Another open source advocate, Terrence Tam, joined the peanut gallery on the TangiBot Kickstarter page: "I'm disappointed that you've chose to knock off/copy a respected industry leader, and undercutting them, therefore starting a race to the bottom." Tam, the creator of the OpenBeam construction kit, was funded to the tune of six figures in his Kickstarter campaign.

Strong isn't surprised by the backlash, but believes 3-D printing is going this direction whether he succeeds or not. "There's a lifecycle in product development," he says. "Consumers don't get the benefit from open source projects until you get multiple manufacturers involved so they start thinking about how to lower costs while improving quality." It's hard to argue with his point that someone will eventually repackage the MakerBot and play Samsung to MakerBot's Apple.

And not everyone is crying foul. A statement on Hack A Day offers a precedent for Strong's cost engineering:

"There is a difference between engineering and inventing," says commenter stucknguay. "Matt has done engineering to decrease the cost while providing, theoretically, a product that performs equally. Those who say that what he did was not inventing are probably right. To say that isn't a significant contribution is just wrong. Remember, Henry Ford did not invent the assembly line or the automobile but his contributions to the industry weren't insignificant. Cost is a very real engineering concern."

With 15 days to go and only $24,010 raised of his $500,000 goal, it seems unlikely that Strong's TangiBot will get its kick-off on Kickstarter. But whether or not the campaign succeeds, the project may serve as a turning point for open source hardware.

We may see the open source hardware community split into two: One faction that celebrates design achievements and interesting hacks, with another focused on the unsexy world of supply-chain management and logistics. The latter aren't as sexy as designing a new microcontroller platform, but they can unlock a tremendous amount of value.

Just ask Walmart.