That's a highly creative interpretation of events. The software license agreement usually upfront covers what can or cannot not change. It is pretty rare in most countries to see successful legal action for changed features, but best of luck.
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.
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.
[flagged]
That's a highly creative interpretation of events. The software license agreement usually upfront covers what can or cannot not change. It is pretty rare in most countries to see successful legal action for changed features, but best of luck.
18 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