They have no rights to prevent people modifying and using AGPL software however they want.
They should have no rights to control how people use hardware they bought. ToS for hardware should simply be unenforceable.
People should have full rights to adversarial interoperability, even if it means modifying proprietary software or hardware.
It always surprises me when people (on this site particularly) are more interested in the law as it stands than how things could or should be.
I wonder whether tech has become so exploitative partly because so many of us have lost track of (or never understood) how important civil disobedience has always been in the process of democracy and securing our rights.
As an individual you really don’t have to follow the terms of service! You certainly don’t have to support the [ab]use of ToS, DRM and related tech to screw you at every opportunity!
> They have no rights to prevent people modifying and using AGPL software however they want.
AGPL software can be used and modified within the limits of what the AGPL permits. People can do that with their Bambu software running on their own hardware.
That does not extend to using their proprietary BambuNetwork cloud service (somebody else's computer). The AGPL specifically mentions this scenario in section 6. There are open source alternatives to that like the third-party Bambu-Farm and bambuddy that people can self host instead.
Interestingly, Bambu's own initial approach to the AGPL was more in line with "modifying and using AGPL software however they want" (and potentially violating their section 6 obligations), until customer backlash forced them to adhere to the terms of the licence.
Id Louis Rossman's YouTube rant is correct, nobody involved here modified the AGPLK software. They just used a version of the AGPL software from before Bambu Labs changed the auth code.
While I agree that the AGPL does not grant users any rights to Bambu's cloud service, sending DCMA nastygrams to people hosting copies on old versions of their software isn't the right (or even legal) way to enforce that. And since Bambu choose to build their products and software stack on pre existing AGPL code, they've backed themselves into a corner a bit with other options. They can add new auth to new versions of the code (which is stringer than just hardcoded useragent-like strings in the code) but they'll then have to release the source code to their new version - exactly like the original authors who chose the AGPL intended.
> many prefer to break their license agreement because They Really Want It
By "many" do you mean Bambu Lab themselves who are violating the AGPL license of Prusa slicer & predecessors with their non-AGPL, proprietary networking plugin?
They're choosing to violate the license because they don't think anyone will actually dare to sue them, and they're probably right. Ascribing some sort of moral righteousness to Bambu's actions and accusing users of breaking their license is hysterical.
Maybe legally, but morally “you have permanent physical access to this but don’t ’own’ it” and anti-circumvention are debatable.
There’s a small benefit of anti-circumvention where businesses sell hardware for cheaper with restrictions and a TOS that prevents bypassing them. But even that doesn’t apply here because Bambu changed the software after purchase.
This reminds me of RMS and GPLv3. Now I personally don't use GPLv3, but this here is literally a case-in-point, and it is not even only limited to the "cloud-only". Because this now includes a company threatening to sue a developer. If they sue one developer, they, by proxy, sue all of them in principle. So RMS was kind of right.
> If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS
How does the TOS get involved here? I don't use their TOS. Why would or should they be able to enforce it? Note that it also depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, Microsoft's EULA never had any legal bearings in the EU.
> it's their right to enact that restriction on their software
The issue here is less "they put in a restriction" and more "they are trying to bankrupt/imprison consumers for daring to modify the property they purchased."
> Bambu is trying to bankrupt/imprison their customers? Big if true!
I could interpret this three ways:
1. It's a reflexive double-down "nuh uh" denial, with no deeper cause.
2. You jumped in without knowing the risks that people (regular non-rich ones, anyway) face from lawsuits or CFAA charges, and you assumed the OrcaSlicer maintainer abandoned their project just to be polite.
3. You're whining that Bambu lawyers were "forced" to make disproportionate threats with nonsense logic. (Which isn't a huge step up, because it means they're still telling threatening lies for their own benefit.)
Have they threatened financial pressure? The answer to this question is: yes.
Legal representation typically has a cost associated to the individual,
unless you have the state put down a lawyer for you. You could
assume that bankrupting may not be the primary goal by Bambu Lab, but it
most assuredly can be an associated outcome, in particular if your
income is comparatively low. I don't think sarcasm is appropriate
here.
They have no rights to prevent people modifying and using AGPL software however they want.
They should have no rights to control how people use hardware they bought. ToS for hardware should simply be unenforceable.
People should have full rights to adversarial interoperability, even if it means modifying proprietary software or hardware.
It always surprises me when people (on this site particularly) are more interested in the law as it stands than how things could or should be.
I wonder whether tech has become so exploitative partly because so many of us have lost track of (or never understood) how important civil disobedience has always been in the process of democracy and securing our rights.
As an individual you really don’t have to follow the terms of service! You certainly don’t have to support the [ab]use of ToS, DRM and related tech to screw you at every opportunity!
> They have no rights to prevent people modifying and using AGPL software however they want.
AGPL software can be used and modified within the limits of what the AGPL permits. People can do that with their Bambu software running on their own hardware.
That does not extend to using their proprietary BambuNetwork cloud service (somebody else's computer). The AGPL specifically mentions this scenario in section 6. There are open source alternatives to that like the third-party Bambu-Farm and bambuddy that people can self host instead.
Interestingly, Bambu's own initial approach to the AGPL was more in line with "modifying and using AGPL software however they want" (and potentially violating their section 6 obligations), until customer backlash forced them to adhere to the terms of the licence.
Id Louis Rossman's YouTube rant is correct, nobody involved here modified the AGPLK software. They just used a version of the AGPL software from before Bambu Labs changed the auth code.
While I agree that the AGPL does not grant users any rights to Bambu's cloud service, sending DCMA nastygrams to people hosting copies on old versions of their software isn't the right (or even legal) way to enforce that. And since Bambu choose to build their products and software stack on pre existing AGPL code, they've backed themselves into a corner a bit with other options. They can add new auth to new versions of the code (which is stringer than just hardcoded useragent-like strings in the code) but they'll then have to release the source code to their new version - exactly like the original authors who chose the AGPL intended.
> many prefer to break their license agreement because They Really Want It
By "many" do you mean Bambu Lab themselves who are violating the AGPL license of Prusa slicer & predecessors with their non-AGPL, proprietary networking plugin?
They're choosing to violate the license because they don't think anyone will actually dare to sue them, and they're probably right. Ascribing some sort of moral righteousness to Bambu's actions and accusing users of breaking their license is hysterical.
A comment defending abusive software terms on a website called HackerNews. Something amusing about that.
If we go a little meta, there's a lot of comments doing the same thing, on plethora of submissions. It's amusing and sad at the same time.
The AGPL covers the line of code that includes the user agent, the only "security" bambu uses.
By attempting to stop users from using their AGPL code they are behaving illegally.
This is HP’s current philosophy towards consumer desktop inkjet and laser printing, and customers universally hate it. No thanks!
It is my right to do with my printer whatever I want.
The hardware yes. Bambu's software, not quite. If you want to flash it with 3rd party firmware & use 3rd party slicers, have at it.
If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS, OK you wouldn't be alone in that, but there's no moral high ground in it.
Sure there is. When purchased, it was able to do something. Due to an update, the customer has now been misled, because a feature was removed.
In most countries, that would violate consumer rights. There's an ethics argument here.
20 replies →
Its the people's software though, used under AGPL by Bambu. It never was Bambu's software.
Maybe legally, but morally “you have permanent physical access to this but don’t ’own’ it” and anti-circumvention are debatable.
There’s a small benefit of anti-circumvention where businesses sell hardware for cheaper with restrictions and a TOS that prevents bypassing them. But even that doesn’t apply here because Bambu changed the software after purchase.
Isn't their software based on AGPL'd code?
If so, then yes, the software too
> If specific terms in a contract are unfair, they are not binding on you and the trader may not rely on them.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...
There's absolutely a moral high ground in it. That's the point.
Nobody is arguing against Bambu's legal right to be arseholes.
This reminds me of RMS and GPLv3. Now I personally don't use GPLv3, but this here is literally a case-in-point, and it is not even only limited to the "cloud-only". Because this now includes a company threatening to sue a developer. If they sue one developer, they, by proxy, sue all of them in principle. So RMS was kind of right.
> If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS
How does the TOS get involved here? I don't use their TOS. Why would or should they be able to enforce it? Note that it also depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, Microsoft's EULA never had any legal bearings in the EU.
ESL? look up the definition of the word moral
> it's their right to enact that restriction on their software
The issue here is less "they put in a restriction" and more "they are trying to bankrupt/imprison consumers for daring to modify the property they purchased."
[flagged]
> Bambu is trying to bankrupt/imprison their customers? Big if true!
I could interpret this three ways:
1. It's a reflexive double-down "nuh uh" denial, with no deeper cause.
2. You jumped in without knowing the risks that people (regular non-rich ones, anyway) face from lawsuits or CFAA charges, and you assumed the OrcaSlicer maintainer abandoned their project just to be polite.
3. You're whining that Bambu lawyers were "forced" to make disproportionate threats with nonsense logic. (Which isn't a huge step up, because it means they're still telling threatening lies for their own benefit.)
Have they threatened financial pressure? The answer to this question is: yes.
Legal representation typically has a cost associated to the individual, unless you have the state put down a lawyer for you. You could assume that bankrupting may not be the primary goal by Bambu Lab, but it most assuredly can be an associated outcome, in particular if your income is comparatively low. I don't think sarcasm is appropriate here.
They're certainly threatening to: https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/louis-rossmann-tell...