Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by selectively 35 days ago
Generated by AI + no one cares about AGPL license compliance (and they aren't violating the AGPL anyway - your AI model is confusing the AGPL for actual GPL).
1 comments

This is nonsense. AGPLv3 is GPLv3 with an added term that extends it to SaaS/network hosted software as well as software distributed in binary or source form. What are you suggesting the AGPL allows that GPL does not?

AI-generated text is worth skepticism, but humans can be idiots and spout nonsense too.

> AI-generated text is worth skepticism, but humans can be idiots and spout nonsense too.

Sure, but anyone posting chains of incredibly long LLM generated tweets can safely be ignored as an utter moron.

I understand that filter, I think, but unfortunately your filter is failing you here.

The original post was replaced by Hacker News, and was originally a long post on Github - https://github.com/jarczakpawel/OrcaSlicer-bambulab/blob/mai... - detailing how tightly integrated Bambu's networking plugin is with their "forked from the community, long standing AGPLv3" Bambu Studio. That Github post is from the creator at the center of the current debacle, who is probably the foremost expert on Bambu's networking plugin that exists outside of Bambu at the moment since he reimplemented it from scratch.

There were no long LLM generated tweets in the original post. I agree that Prusa's tweets seem like a weak and conspiratorial argument about Bambu being a Chinese company and so something. They seem like a distraction and it's a shame HN changed the original post. Surprising they can even do that.

The AGPLv3 violations here are pretty clear. Bambu's networking plugin is a tightly integrated closed-source carve out of AGPLv3 code they forked from the open-source community.

The information contained within might be accurate, but the information clearly wasn’t important enough for the person posting it to actually bother communicating it like a normal human being.

That’s pretty telling!

You're drawing an absolutely invalid conclusion due to your bias. I read the original and found the information important, and the poster also wouldn't have provided it if they didn't think it was. Stop being blinded by beef with the messenger and evaluate the message on its own.