[xeromal]

I own a H2C and have been a huge fan of bambu for a few years, full disclosure.

I don't really see why everyone is up in arms about this. You are able to print in LAN mode or directly through USB drives without going through bambus servers.

Their slicer is open source but it downloads a plugin once you launch it if you choose to which is closed sourced that interacts with their APIs.

Someone reverse engineered the plug-in and put it into orca slicer and then claimed that the plugin should have been GPLed to begin with which I find dubious. I don't really see it being much different than downloading closed drivers on Ubuntu but I'm also not a open source lawyer.

To me, the problem with all of this is that it seems strange to want the plugin when bambu will just shut off their resources to unsigned versions of the network plugin if the orca slicer dev got their way.

I'm open to being convinced but I just don't think the cross-section of people who want this would actually want prints going through bambus cloud so this effort really feels vain.

It also feels like bad framing as well because every post I see about this thing really tries to blur the line and claim this plugin and orca slicer are one and the same.

[CarVac]

The plugin wasn't reverse engineered. The interface with the plugin was AGPL so you can freely use it in any other AGPL software.

[whimblepop]

IANAL

> Someone reverse engineered the plug-in and put it into orca slicer and then claimed that the plugin should have been GPLed to begin with which I find dubious. I don't really see it being much different than downloading closed drivers on Ubuntu but I'm also not a open source lawyer.

The GPLv3 specifically was written to address a problem called "TiVo-ization", which is when a hardware vendor uses some trick (DRM, proprietary blobs, whatever) to prevent users from actually running modified versions of the software.

The AGPL, the license of this particular software, extends the GPLv3 with protections for users of network services:

> Simply put, the AGPLv3 is effectively the GPLv3, but with an additional licensing term that ensures that users who interact over a network with modified versions of the program can receive the source code for that program. In both licenses, sections four through six provide the terms that give users the right to receive the source code of a program.

https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-t...

And on TiVo-ization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

The Linux and proprietary drivers situation is more complicated, but proprietary drivers on Linux are generally restricted to interfaces that Linux chooses to expose to them for that purpose. But the Linux kernel seems to take a narrower view of what constitutes a derivative work than was likely intended by the FSF in writing the GPL. Under a "traditional" reading of the GPL, those proprietary drivers are meant to be illegal. Whether some or all of the linking done by proprietary drivers in the Linux kernel is really allowed by the GPL or not is somewhat untested, I think.

[freedomben]

> The Linux and proprietary drivers situation is more complicated, but proprietary drivers on Linux are generally restricted to interfaces that Linux chooses to expose to them for that purpose. But the Linux kernel seems to take a narrower view of what constitutes a derivative work than was likely intended by the FSF in writing the GPL. Under a "traditional" reading of the GPL, those proprietary drivers are meant to be illegal. Whether some or all of the linking done by proprietary drivers in the Linux kernel is really allowed by the GPL or not is somewhat untested, I think.

Is that why Linux sticks with GPLv2 instead of GPLv3?

[whimblepop]

The FSF's purpose in writing the GPL is the protection of end-user freedom, including the freedom to inspect and modify the code (or paying someone else to do so) of whatever software people use.

Linus' purpose in adopting the GPLv2 was something like "to avoid free-riders on his kernel code; if you make improvements upon the Linux kernel for some product, you have to share them with the users of your product".

The GPLv3 addressed a gap in the protections GPLv2 guarantees to end-users, namely that if a vendor locks down other parts of the stack (in the case of the Linux kernel and TiVo-ization, at least the bootloader), inspecting the and modifying the software can be useless for them in terms of the real freedom it grants those users— the device can just refuse to run the modified software.

For Linus, moving to GPLv3 would extend the domain of the GPL beyond the code of his project to the broader context in which it is used, namely the situation of the user. He sees this as inappropriate, in a way. He doesn't care about the broader context in which Linux is deployed or if some devices only allow you to run vendor-approved kernels. He sees the GPLv3 as changing what "GPL" means in a way that offends him.

For the FSF, the point has always been to use licensing as a mechanism to protect and promote the freedom of people using computers. The FSF's primary concern has never been the rights or conveniences of maintainers at all. It's not about "no freeriders with downstream forks who hide their patches", though that was an incidental effect of the GPLv2. The purpose is to use copyright licensing as a mechanism to inch towards a world where users who do computing— on their laptop, on their mobile phone, or on their TV's set-top box— can transparently inspect and modify all of the devices they compute on. For them, the GPLv2 had a vulnerability that made its function of protecting user freedom easily bypassable, and they patched it in the GPLv3.

But the question of whether linking against the kernel's public interfaces constitutes a derivative work is outside the scope of GPLv2 vs GPLv3 and not yet fully tested/settled by the courts.

Hopefully this context does make clearer, at least, the spirit of the license of the software Bambu inherited when they forked it from others. It's very much about letting users actually modify/replace the software running on their devices without restriction.

[syntaxing]

You have LAN mode only because everyone was up in arms the first time. LAN mode was not part of the plan at first and Bambulab was forced to offer after “listening to their customer”.

[harrall]

But they complied?

Correction is much harder than starting off on the right side.

[scottbez1]

Correction is one of many signals, and it’s better than ignoring pushback, but it’s still usually worse than not needing the correction in the first place.

Sure, a manufacturer that didn’t need to course correct yet doesn’t mean they won’t change their stance in the future, but the same is true for one that already course-corrected.

We see this with privacy eroding laws continually - legislators will “listen” and course correct if there’s pushback, only to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session, repeatedly, until it gets passed.

I’d prefer the one that hasn’t yet signaled a desire to do something negative in the past to one that has, even if they walked it back later.

[harrall]

I actually disagree.

Someone who isn’t racist because they grew up in a progressive family just means they were lucky. They often have never been tested under pressure.

On the other hand, someone who grew up in a racist family and ends up not racist means their beliefs are battle tested. This is a real test of character — it also tells me how they process information.

What you’re describing is a third case where someone pretends to correct but has no intention to, which I do not think Bambu’s original act of opening of LAN access qualifies.

Now I think the other dimension here is that people are expecting Bambu to believe in open source. They might not actually, which is their own opinion to have, but that’s a different problem altogether. I believe in local access but not necessarily open sourcing of everything so from my PoV, Bambu’s stance is perfectly consistent.

[scottbez1]

You are conflating two things: appeasement and actual change in principles. Externally it can be hard to distinguish these, but it is easier to get a sense of it with more signals.

From Bambu’s historical and continued actions, specifically including the orca slicer actions that this blog post was about, there is additional signal that LAN mode backpedaling was more likely an appeasement action than a shift in principles to embrace a more open ecosystem.

[kennywinker]

Sure, but the op is saying “i don’t get why everyone is up in arms”. Without the up in arms you don’t get the correction. Which is why people are up in arms - to get them to further correct.

[ordu]

> It also feels like bad framing as well because every post I see about this thing really tries to blur the line and claim this plugin and orca slicer are one and the same.

Doesn't it sounds weird to you? I mean, what the reason they have to blur the line? Are they just clueless? Or maybe they fight for some political reason, like an anti-corporate stance, and Bambu is just a convenient target for them?

I'm asking, what you think of them, because I can't understand you. Your take on the conflict is incompatible with behavior of the people opposing Bambu. Or rather it leaves no good explanations for their behavior. When I notice it, I start digging, because if the situation doesn't have a good explanation, it means I do not understand the situation. But you just accept your understanding, so you have some good explanation for people's behavior?

[blacklion]

> Their slicer is open source but it downloads a plugin once you launch it if you choose to which is closed sourced that interacts with their APIs.

It is very dubious way to subvert GPL, even GPL2, not to mention [A]GPL3.

It was discussed many times that you cannot have close-sourced plugin for GPL host program, as loading plugin is linkage and it is covered by full GPL (only LGPL has linkage exclusion).

[binarin]

Everyone is up in arms because this is not the first shady thing bambulab does (like patenting prior art). And probably not the last.

[colechristensen]

Regardless of the license if they only want their own software interacting with their cloud API, I don't really care because USB and LAN are there. That is ample ability to interact with the machine.

Plenty of situations would make me feel differently, but I'm fine with their restrictions in this case.

[jwr]

> I don't really see why everyone is up in arms about this. You are able to print in LAN mode or directly through USB drives without going through bambus servers.

This is in no way equivalent. You can't sync filaments, you can't monitor printers in your slicer, you can't monitor prints from your phone. This is like going backwards at least 5 years.

I find this shallow take really annoying, as it tends to derail most discussions ("you have LAN mode, so what are you complaining about").