5 ms·
> This isn't actually possible This is only true due to a firmware they pushed last year. It's an artificial limit. There's no reason at all a local client co
by oliwarner 5mo ago
> This isn't actually possible
This is only true due to a firmware they pushed last year. It's an artificial limit.
There's no reason at all a local client couldn't just talk to a local printer without any cloud.
Every problem BambuLabs have here is self-inflicted. They could allow simultaneous cloud and local queue management with or without authentication.
- parasubvert 5mo ago[flagged]
- hamandcheese 5mo agoIt is my right to do with my printer whatever I want.
- parasubvert 5mo agoThe hardware yes. Bambu's software, not quite. If you want to flash it with 3rd party firmware & use 3rd party slicers, have at it. If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS, OK you wouldn't be alone in that, but there's no moral high ground in it.
- shakna 5mo agoSure there is. When purchased, it was able to do something. Due to an update, the customer has now been misled, because a feature was removed. In most countries, that would violate consumer rights. There's an ethics argument here.
- parasubvert 5mo agoThat's a highly creative interpretation of events. The software license agreement usually upfront covers what can or cannot not change. It is pretty rare in most countries to see successful legal action for changed features, but best of luck.
- josephg 5mo agoTaking functionality away from a product after you bought it is a scum move. If the law lets them get away with it, the law should be changed. When I buy a product, I look at reviews and make my purchasing decision on the features and functionality at the time of sale. If a software update later ruins that, I want the option to get my money back.
- parasubvert 5mo ago[flagged]
- mystraline 5mo agoThe "agreement" is at best coerced, and under blackmail of hardware you bought and paid for. At worst, its a fraudulent indefinite rental masquerading as a 'sale'. And lets discuss 'updates that fuck over your hardware'. In dwcent countries, thats hacking, and a serious criminal charge. But lol, companies are somehow exempt.
- parasubvert 5mo ago[flagged]
- mttpwll 5mo agoNo, it’s not creative at all, it’s what happened — I have first hand experience to corroborate this. Regardless, at least in the US, not only are software-based ToS becoming unenforceable, but there’s a large upswing towards “right to repair” legislation, which, I think, is what you’re arguing against here… and I really think you’re going to be on the wrong side of history with your current line of thinking (despite what Bambu Labs does).
- parasubvert 5mo ago[flagged]
- bcjdjsndon 5mo ago[flagged]
- armchairhacker 5mo agoMaybe legally, but morally “you have permanent physical access to this but don’t ’own’ it” and anti-circumvention are debatable. There’s a small benefit of anti-circumvention where businesses sell hardware for cheaper with restrictions and a TOS that prevents bypassing them. But even that doesn’t apply here because Bambu changed the software after purchase.
- shevy-java 5mo agoThis reminds me of RMS and GPLv3. Now I personally don't use GPLv3, but this here is literally a case-in-point, and it is not even only limited to the "cloud-only". Because this now includes a company threatening to sue a developer. If they sue one developer, they, by proxy, sue all of them in principle. So RMS was kind of right. > If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS How does the TOS get involved here? I don't use their TOS. Why would or should they be able to enforce it? Note that it also depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, Microsoft's EULA never had any legal bearings in the EU.
- tannertech 5mo agoIts the people's software though, used under AGPL by Bambu. It never was Bambu's software.
- vrganj 5mo ago> If specific terms in a contract are unfair, they are not binding on you and the trader may not rely on them. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...
- IshKebab 5mo agoThere's absolutely a moral high ground in it. That's the point. Nobody is arguing against Bambu's legal right to be arseholes.
- marcus_holmes 5mo agoIsn't their software based on AGPL'd code? If so, then yes, the software too
- dirasieb 5mo agoESL? look up the definition of the word moral
- nwallin 5mo ago"Bambu's software" is forked from an AGPL project and is therefore itself AGPL. I have a right to fork, modify, and use it how I wish subject to the terms of the AGPL. Bambu's TOS is irrelevant. Their TOS is superceded by the terms of the AGPL.
- gcr 5mo agoThis is HP’s current philosophy towards consumer desktop inkjet and laser printing, and customers universally hate it. No thanks!
- Chaosvex 5mo agoA comment defending abusive software terms on a website called HackerNews. Something amusing about that.
- bayindirh 5mo agoIf we go a little meta, there's a lot of comments doing the same thing, on plethora of submissions. It's amusing and sad at the same time.
- parasubvert 5mo agoThe term "Hacker" means many things.
- Terr_ 5mo ago> it's their right to enact that restriction on their software The issue here is less "they put in a restriction" and more "they are trying to bankrupt/imprison consumers for daring to modify the property they purchased."
- parasubvert 5mo ago[flagged]
- Terr_ 5mo ago> Bambu is trying to bankrupt/imprison their customers? Big if true! I could interpret this three ways: 1. It's a reflexive double-down "nuh uh" denial, with no deeper cause. 2. You jumped in without knowing the risks that people (regular non-rich ones, anyway) face from lawsuits or CFAA charges, and you assumed the OrcaSlicer maintainer abandoned their project just to be polite. 3. You're whining that Bambu lawyers were "forced" to make disproportionate threats with nonsense logic. (Which isn't a huge step up, because it means they're still telling threatening lies for their own benefit.)
- KPGv2 5mo agoThey're certainly threatening to: https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/louis-rossmann-tells-3d-printer-maker-bambu-lab-to-go-bleep-yourself-over-its-lawsuit-against-enthusiast-right-to-repair-advocate-offers-to-pay-the-legal-fees-for-a-threatened-orcaslicer-developer https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/louis-rossmann-tell...
- shevy-java 5mo agoHave they threatened financial pressure? The answer to this question is: yes. Legal representation typically has a cost associated to the individual, unless you have the state put down a lawyer for you. You could assume that bankrupting may not be the primary goal by Bambu Lab, but it most assuredly can be an associated outcome, in particular if your income is comparatively low. I don't think sarcasm is appropriate here.
- RobotToaster 5mo agoThe AGPL covers the line of code that includes the user agent, the only "security" bambu uses. By attempting to stop users from using their AGPL code they are behaving illegally.
- dns_snek 5mo ago> many prefer to break their license agreement because They Really Want It By "many" do you mean Bambu Lab themselves who are violating the AGPL license of Prusa slicer & predecessors with their non-AGPL, proprietary networking plugin? They're choosing to violate the license because they don't think anyone will actually dare to sue them, and they're probably right. Ascribing some sort of moral righteousness to Bambu's actions and accusing users of breaking their license is hysterical.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- barnabee 5mo agoThey have no rights to prevent people modifying and using AGPL software however they want. They should have no rights to control how people use hardware they bought. ToS for hardware should simply be unenforceable. People should have full rights to adversarial interoperability, even if it means modifying proprietary software or hardware. It always surprises me when people (on this site particularly) are more interested in the law as it stands than how things could or should be. I wonder whether tech has become so exploitative partly because so many of us have lost track of (or never understood) how important civil disobedience has always been in the process of democracy and securing our rights. As an individual you really don’t have to follow the terms of service! You certainly don’t have to support the [ab]use of ToS, DRM and related tech to screw you at every opportunity!
- joshuaissac 5mo ago> They have no rights to prevent people modifying and using AGPL software however they want. AGPL software can be used and modified within the limits of what the AGPL permits. People can do that with their Bambu software running on their own hardware. That does not extend to using their proprietary BambuNetwork cloud service (somebody else's computer). The AGPL specifically mentions this scenario in section 6. There are open source alternatives to that like the third-party Bambu-Farm and bambuddy that people can self host instead. Interestingly, Bambu's own initial approach to the AGPL was more in line with "modifying and using AGPL software however they want" (and potentially violating their section 6 obligations), until customer backlash forced them to adhere to the terms of the licence.
- bigiain 5mo agoId Louis Rossman's YouTube rant is correct, nobody involved here modified the AGPLK software. They just used a version of the AGPL software from before Bambu Labs changed the auth code. While I agree that the AGPL does not grant users any rights to Bambu's cloud service, sending DCMA nastygrams to people hosting copies on old versions of their software isn't the right (or even legal) way to enforce that. And since Bambu choose to build their products and software stack on pre existing AGPL code, they've backed themselves into a corner a bit with other options. They can add new auth to new versions of the code (which is stringer than just hardcoded useragent-like strings in the code) but they'll then have to release the source code to their new version - exactly like the original authors who chose the AGPL intended.
- anakaine 5mo agoI dont understand what the issue is. Theres not really any benefit in having cloud enabled if local is working fine. I have my bambu printer set to local only, and dont miss the cloud offer one bit.
- xattt 5mo agoThere abusing the AGPL. At this point, it’s on principle.
- vfvthunter 5mo agoPlease explain how they are abusing the AGPL
- wat10000 5mo agoThey threatened legal action against the author of a fork of their AGPL'd software merely for distributing said fork.
- vfvthunter 5mo agoThat they are. However, that's abusing the developer, not the AGPL.
- wat10000 5mo agoI 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.
- vfvthunter 5mo agoThe 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
- Perseids 5mo agoAll of their issues are self-inflicted. What benefit is there to their cloud backend except getting around the home NAT? If you want to build your IoT product privacy-friendly, your cloud offering can be reduced to a STUN/rendezvous server and a proxy server as fallback [1]. Ship your devices with individual tokens to rate limit the proxy, have the STUN/rendezvous/proxy server address configurable and publish their source code for users to not be dependent on your continuous operation. You can even go so far and have a public sub domain for each devices ( serialnumber.manufacturer.com ) which you only operate as a dumb proxy so that even the TLS certificates are negotiated end-to-end between the IoT device and Let's Encrypt. (The devices connect to your backend via Wireguard and you rate limit with their device individual key, whose public key you read out during the end-of-line production step.) Hell, with today's browser heavy applications you can even run the whole slicer in the browser. Let the app be distributed via CDN so the code does not need to go through the proxy. [1] In the case of non-battery operated and always or mostly on devices, like 3d printers at least.
- odo1242 5mo agoHonestly, a lot of devices that use cloud apps for things could be improved both for the customer and manufacturer by using a "STUN/TURN" style proxy for the cloud service rather than forcing all data to go through a cloud service (to add to the other advantages, you don't need as many developers on the cloud side). But nobody in the engineering departments of these companies seem to be willing to touch WebRTC with a nine-foot pole lol