Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by vfvthunter 40 days ago
Please explain how they are abusing the AGPL
2 comments

They threatened legal action against the author of a fork of their AGPL'd software merely for distributing said fork.
That they are. However, that's abusing the developer, not the AGPL.
I disagree. They’re redistributing software under the AGPL while trying to prevent others from using the same freedoms they’ve been granted by the license.
The fact that Pawel was able to copy their source code and paste it into an Orca fork is direct proof from Pawel himself that they are honoring the AGPL.

The C&D presumably wanted him to remove the ID/version string or at least stop distributing it, i.e., they only want real BambuStudio on their cloud and that was the laziest way to achieve that

AGPL does not have a "don't be an asshole" clause

"Abusing" is not synonymous with "violating."

If we sign a contract that says you're allowed to park in my driveway in exchange for $10, then I threaten to sue you for parking in my driveway, technically I'm not violating our contract. It's not an issue until I actually sue. But I'm still abusing our contract by threatening you for doing something I explicitly allowed you to do.

Likewise, Bambu was able to benefit by forking and distributing AGPL software in exchange for giving everyone a license to do the same for their fork. Then they turned around and threatened legal action against someone for doing what they previously said was allowed. This may not technically be a violation but it's definitely abuse.

Pawel still has access to the Bambu-modified software, which is what the AGPL covers. There is no violation there.

Bambu's issue is with him taking a fork of Orca and spoofing some data (from THEIR FREELY AVAILABLE SOURCE CODE) to appear as Bambustudio to their servers.

A contract that says you can park in my driveway doesn't give you permission to access my garage and use all my tools.

Absolutely a dick move but not really not abuse of a contract.

The AGPL does not just say he has to have access to the modified software. It also says he has to be granted permission to redistribute it, or derived works, under the same terms.

He redistributed a derived work under the same terms and got hit with the threat of legal action.

I don't know what "access my garage and use all my tools" is supposed to be an analogy for in this situation.

Proprietary plugins in [A]GPL software are always contentious. It's the old linking argument and it's especially strong here, given how useless Bambu Studio is without the networking plugin.