(Premise: I don’t have a 3D Printer, have next to zero experience using one and never heard of this controversy before. I’m just asking out of curiosity)
I’m in favor of people using open-source software to use better the stuff they bought, but putting aside my bias that seems pretty clearly an illegal thing, can someone ELI5 how could they not lose if they’re sued?
What I understood is that Bambu Lab sold those printers advertising cloud access to their proprietary servers through their “official means”, but a lot of people used unofficial open-source software to access it, because it worked better. Then at a certain point, the company disabled access to apps that weren’t their proprietary one, but people kept using them. Which prompted the company to sue.
It’s an ass move to do, but the open-source software wasn’t officially supported even before, right? And now it’s still used to access their company cloud, not a separate one, right?
From my understanding they didn’t remove any functionality that was officially advertised, and people are now using unauthorized software to access the company’s proprietary cloud, did I misunderstand something?
Bambu Lab’s software is forked from software that used the AGPL license. Then they made their code closed source, which is expressly forbidden by AGPL.
Bambu Labs are the ones who have been in the wrong this entire time, it’s just that nobody has seriously called them out on it before
I see. Then wouldn’t suing them over this have worked better than “daring” them to sue for this? Or can they use the AGPL argument to win in court even if the case is related to cloud access?
EDIT: actually, is the case over cloud access? Another commenter said it’s DMCA takedowns, is that what they’re using?
Bambu is trying to stop people from using their AGPL code using DMCA takedowns. The AGPL clearly says anyone can use the code. Seems simple to me. If they didnt want people to use their code, they shouldnt have used the AGPL.
Their slicer is forked from Prusa slicer, which is forked from Slic3r which is AGPL.
Unless they write their own slicer from scratch, they are stuck with the AGPL license. They tried to mitigate that by adding poorly implemented user authentication code.
The dev used their AGPL code to create the Orca Slicer fork and now, Bambu Lab is mad because it exposed their shitty security and poor attempt at closing their ecosystem.
…oh. The article only mentions a cease and desist, I didn’t think they were using DMCA takedowns. So the issue (according to Bambu Labs) is that they’re using “their” code, not that they’re accessing their cloud?
Fighting a cease and desist takes money. Lots of it. Especially when the company you’re fighting is making billions of dollars on their product. And the guy who created the fork doesn’t have that kind of dough. So he opted to not fight it.
Therefore it is left up to others fight those battles.
(Premise: I don’t have a 3D Printer, have next to zero experience using one and never heard of this controversy before. I’m just asking out of curiosity)
I’m in favor of people using open-source software to use better the stuff they bought, but putting aside my bias that seems pretty clearly an illegal thing, can someone ELI5 how could they not lose if they’re sued?
What I understood is that Bambu Lab sold those printers advertising cloud access to their proprietary servers through their “official means”, but a lot of people used unofficial open-source software to access it, because it worked better. Then at a certain point, the company disabled access to apps that weren’t their proprietary one, but people kept using them. Which prompted the company to sue.
It’s an ass move to do, but the open-source software wasn’t officially supported even before, right? And now it’s still used to access their company cloud, not a separate one, right?
From my understanding they didn’t remove any functionality that was officially advertised, and people are now using unauthorized software to access the company’s proprietary cloud, did I misunderstand something?
Bambu Lab’s software is forked from software that used the AGPL license. Then they made their code closed source, which is expressly forbidden by AGPL.
Bambu Labs are the ones who have been in the wrong this entire time, it’s just that nobody has seriously called them out on it before
Oh, wow. Yes, that’s illegal.
I see. Then wouldn’t suing them over this have worked better than “daring” them to sue for this? Or can they use the AGPL argument to win in court even if the case is related to cloud access?
EDIT: actually, is the case over cloud access? Another commenter said it’s DMCA takedowns, is that what they’re using?
You gonna pay the lawyers?
So you can sue for lawyer fees, etc.
Bambu is trying to stop people from using their AGPL code using DMCA takedowns. The AGPL clearly says anyone can use the code. Seems simple to me. If they didnt want people to use their code, they shouldnt have used the AGPL.
Their slicer is forked from Prusa slicer, which is forked from Slic3r which is AGPL.
Unless they write their own slicer from scratch, they are stuck with the AGPL license. They tried to mitigate that by adding poorly implemented user authentication code.
The dev used their AGPL code to create the Orca Slicer fork and now, Bambu Lab is mad because it exposed their shitty security and poor attempt at closing their ecosystem.
Create an Orca slicer fork,
…oh. The article only mentions a cease and desist, I didn’t think they were using DMCA takedowns. So the issue (according to Bambu Labs) is that they’re using “their” code, not that they’re accessing their cloud?
Fighting a cease and desist takes money. Lots of it. Especially when the company you’re fighting is making billions of dollars on their product. And the guy who created the fork doesn’t have that kind of dough. So he opted to not fight it.
Therefore it is left up to others fight those battles.