[Ajedi32]

They're essentially saying "yes, the code is open source, but you're not allowed to modify it or we'll ban you and threaten you with legal action", which is completely antithetical to the whole idea behind open source (especially the GPL which literally says in the license text itself that it was created to protect your right to run modified software). "Violation of the open source social contract" is a good way to describe it.

You're correct of course that this is an entirely distinct argument from what Bambu's legally allowed to do under existing law.

[joshuaissac]

You can run modified software per the GPL but that does not include the right to connect to Bambu's servers with your modified software. That is entirely reasonable (especially since this is not some social/messaging application). If I release a client as open source, that doesn't mean it's OK for modified clients to connect to my server. I expect you to use it offline or set up your own server to connect to.

I don't know if that is what is happening here because the article is talking about a fork that is bypassing Bambu's servers entirely (which is permitted under the AGPL) and Bambu is not happy.

Edit: On re-reading, it seems to me the fork is still calling Bambu's servers. It's just bypassing some things.

[abigail95]

You must put authorization on your server if you don't want others connecting to it.

While the right of access is not granted by AGPL - it is not reasonable to run a public service with an AGPL client and say you shouldn't be connecting to it.

They are doing a lot of work to create implied consent under CFAA.

If you want to control access you must do something to control access - it must reach a threshold, it cannot just be a public user agent string.

[kube-system]

> You must put authorization on your server if you don't want others connecting to it.

Unfortunately, the CFAA doesn't necessarily require that authorization is implemented through technical means, and it definitely doesn't require any authorization to be technically robust.

[lukeschlather]

The point is that they distributed AGPL licensed software which legally speaking puts them on very thin ice if they say "actually you're not allowed to modify that software we gave you and explicitly told you you could modify to do whatever you want."

This is a direct quote from the Affero GPL:

> When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.

The thing Bambu is doing is very much against the spirit of the AGPL, which is the license they chose for the Bambu printer software. And the AGPL has such broadly written language it's hard to believe what they are doing complies with the letter.

[kube-system]

You're certainly allowed to modify the software, but that doesn't necessarily give you the right to connect it to hardware owned by other people. And AGPL does not provide for any right to services -- only a right to use and modify the covered work.

For example, AGPL doesn't prevent you from being banned from a Mastodon server.

The key part of the sentence you quoted is "... to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work" -- meaning, you can't use anti-circumvention to prevent people from using or modifying the copyrighted code.

[Ajedi32]

Again, legally that's correct. But it goes completely against the spirit of open source and especially the GPL which says in the license itself that "our General Public Licenses are intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program". If you can't run a modified version of a program without getting sued, you practically speaking do not have the freedom to modify it.

Elsewhere, the GNU explains why this is important[1]:

> With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.

> [...]

> Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on your having control over the program. You deserve to have control over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for something important in your life.

Telling your users they can't run modified versions of your open source client goes against this principle.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying Bambu isn't within their legal rights to do this, I'm just saying it's a jerk move.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor...