6 ms·

It's maddening that quite a few people are jumping to defend Bambu here. Principally if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify tha

It's maddening that quite a few people are jumping to defend Bambu here. Principally if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. It does not matter the slightest bit whether you break into someone's house to physically alter the device or whether you remotely install a malicious software update to do that. But what's even more insane here is that some people are claiming that BambooLabs would somehow have the right to do this, because while BambooLab might not have the right to limit the hardware they already sold (which they did and these people just pretend did not happen) they have the right to limit their printer client software under the license conditions they impose on it from the beginning, when their printer client is literally a modification of AGPL licensed software. The entire point of the GPL is to prevent people like BambooLabs from doing exactly this. The AGPL is literally the single license with the most restrictions on BambooLabs to ensure that the users of the software — the customers — do not have any restrictions in what they can do with it. Some people are seeing this situation and just decide to side with the company against their customers on imposing restrictions on an already sold product after the sale and they are literally making shit up to justify it. Edit: For people who do not know what this is about: Someone modified AGPL software to reenable features of these 3D printers that BambooLabs stole after the sale and BambooLabs sent a legal threat to them to stop distributing the software.

amelius 5mo ago
I always put printers (2d and 3d) behind a firewall so they cannot reach the internet. This prevents auto-updates and surprises like disappearing functionality.
- jamesnorden 5mo ago
  I've been bitten by an HP printer auto updating and my aftermarket ink suddenly not being acceptable. Never buying HP again after that.
  - 9cb14c1ec0 5mo ago
    I once updated my Epson, and it started rejecting aftermarket ink. Fortunately there is a way to downgrade the firmware. Never buying a cartridge based inkjet printer again.
    - bayindirh 5mo ago
      If you don't care about ink quality, then aftermarket ink is fine. However, if you want your pictures to last 10+ years under the sun, or being able to read what you have printed after some time, getting the genuine ink is the way. People think ink is simple. It is not. Anybody thinking otherwise, some points of pondering: - Why Xerox and HP run their own toner/ink labs to formulate their own ink down to molecule level? - Look at your standard disposable pens. Gel, liquid, dye, pigment, alcohol/water/oil based, UV resistant or not... It's a hard chemical problem. - Similarly even something bland like fountain pen ink has hundreds of different formulations. Not colors, formulations. Washable to cellulose reactive and everything in between... It's not dyed drinking water. Lastly, I'm not against people using 3rd party ink at any level. I just want to point out that not every ink cartridge is created equal.
      - dspillett 5mo ago
        > then aftermarket ink is fine Then why don't they allow it, perhaps with warnings? They don't block after market ink because of quality concerns, though they might claim so, they block it because they want to make more money from you themselves through ink sales. The common response here is “but they make a loss on selling the hardware!”, to which my response is “their bad pricing decision is not my problem”.
        bayindirh 5mo ago
        I agree that "making loss on the hardware and using ink to offset that" is a very bad business decision. I have an 10+ year old HP Deskjet 4515 Ink Advantage which had a high initial price but cheap refills (black ink is pigment, but color cartridge is dye, but is UV resistant if printed on good photo paper), and that thing never created any problems for me hardware or software wise. I can still use any print I got from it even after a decade. Ink's that stable on these. From my perspective, 3rd party ink or toner is a support nightmare, esp. if it's bottom of the barrel. Again, from my perspective you should be able to take the responsibility and use these if you really want, but any ink or toner related damage might be out of warranty then (HP's genuine cartridges come with their own guarantees). So, I can speculate that makers both offset the price and don't want to handle support tickets related to 3rd party ink damage for lower end devices, and buyers of higher end models are either using 1st party ink, or fine with paying the repair costs if their 3rd party installations go haywire. Also, it's possible that kits for higher end inkjet systems (large format/plotter systems) tend to be higher quality since these models cater to professional shops which needs high quality supplies. Lastly, I talked with someone who said that they buy the cheapest paper and cheapest ink because the printouts are disposable for them, and I find that point entirely fair, too. My main point was underlining the fact that ink is not something simple in formulation. I don't defend banning 3rd party ink, but just pointing out some facts. I believe everybody can carry out their own fafo procedure.
- p0w3n3d 5mo ago
  that's what I had in my mind - I want to switch back to HP printer because the Brother I bought has inferior picture printing quality, but I am scared of any software update, so I guess I'll connect it to old linux machine and serve via CUPS
  - chopin 5mo ago
    I just don't allow outbound connections for our HP printer.
- 15155 5mo ago
  Which means the controversy in question would not apply to you whatsoever.
- fanatic2pope 5mo ago
  In the case of Bambu you'd want to do this to prevent surprises like your printer from randomly starting to print due to a "cloud error". https://www.techradar.com/pro/did-your-3d-printer-start-printing-all-on-its-own-this-could-be-why https://www.techradar.com/pro/did-your-3d-printer-start-prin...
- account42 5mo ago
  I refuse to even put them on a network - just direct USB to a host where I fully control the software.
navane 5mo ago
Is this the reverse "you wouldn't download a car"?
- basilikum 5mo ago
  You wouldn't download [and print] a 3D printer.
- estimator7292 5mo ago
  [dead]
p0w3n3d 5mo ago
> later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. I've always been told it's called business. But I fully agree with you. Just wanted to note that this is the current business model both with hardware and software
- basilikum 5mo ago
  Crime is unfortunately legal.
  - account42 5mo ago
    At least when it's profitable for stockholders.
- MSFT_Edging 5mo ago
  This is why the fight/loss for open computing is so important. Without the ability to run your own code, this will be everywhere and everything. Without some counter force of open source pushing back and offering alternatives, we'll be putting tokens in a machine to check your email. Reading email will cost 4 tokens and you'll only be able to buy them in groups of 7.
- Gormo 5mo ago
  > I've always been told it's called business. The "business" ended when the sale transaction concluded. The fact that you were the seller in that past transaction doesn't entitle you to vandalize goods that now belong to someone else. This is just crime trying to disguise itself as legitimate business, as scams often do.
  - p0w3n3d 5mo ago
    I've been treated this way numerous times. First example: FlightRadar - I bought the app, they sunsetted it and created "new one" with monthly payments
  - dspillett 5mo ago
    > The "business" ended when the sale transaction concluded. Actually not, though not in a way that makes the rest of your post incorrect. Various laws and regulations state that the seller has responsibilities to the buyer after the initial transaction has completed, one of which Bambu might¹ be transgressing by removing features that people we lead to believe were part of the product, and could reasonably expect to remain part of the product, at the time of the sale. -------- [1] This has not been tested in court, and I'm no lawyer, take my idea of what is the case with a requisite serving of condiment.
xyzal 5mo ago
You are on a venture capital run forum. A lot of people here would approve of this business model, as long as it brings in monies ...
dspillett 5mo ago
> if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. It could be argued that it is not theft by various devious uses of legalise¹. Personally I'd go with calling it, at best, deceptive sales practices (on the assumption that they knew they'd be moving this way long before they did), or possibly outright fraud if I'm in a less generous mood. [FYI: Bambu A1 user for nearly two years, also have a Snapmaker U1, if I buy anything else it won't be Bambu unless their attitudes change. The A1/A1mini are still two of the best budget beginner printers IMO, though some clones come close, and I do recommend them if asked but with caveats around potential lock-in later and not believing promises due to a history of changed online posts, deliberately excluded from the WayBackMachine, and what to my understanding is an AGPL breach] -------- [1] “There is a way to use the feature, so it isn't an attempt to permanently deprive”, or “you agreed to the possibility of such changes in the EULA”, and so on.
- basilikum 5mo ago
  The fact that theft is legal does not change the fact that it is theft. Crime is legal. That should not stop us from calling it out as crime.
- brookst 5mo ago
  Yeah I’m so tired of rhetorical games people play. It’s a shitty business practice, it is deceptive and possibly false advertising, it may be violation of a contract and / consumer production laws, but removal of a software feature is not “theft”. And many of these same people probably (and rightfully) laughed at music and movie people casting piracy as “theft”.
  - basilikum 5mo ago
    When you sell something and then after the sell you take away the very thing you sold — that you no longer own — from the person who now owns it, that is called theft. You are taking something away from someone that they own. Piracy is not theft because you do not take anything away from anyone, you copy it and do not pay for it, but the original is still there. No one lost anything. It is irrelevant whether the thing or feature you took away is implemented in hardware or software. Notably it is often hardware functionality but the thief uses software to restrict it. You could perhaps argue that another property crime might better describe it such as criminal mischief or in some cases fraud. But in any case it is a crime against someone else's property.
FatCat1979 5mo ago
There's a class of person who's so fundamentally incapable of ignoring authority figures that they'll defend even the most pathetic positions possible.
bdcravens 5mo ago
The issue isn't access to the printers, it's access to Bambu Lab's cloud.
- InTheArena 5mo ago
  That's not true - that's a canary that Bambu through out there to distract from the thing that they absolutely took steps to force everyone into their ecosystem (which just happens to only sell their product, and to monetize prints directly for them).
divers1776 5mo ago
Was it in the T&C's? I only ask because I feel like it fits the pattern of every tech company in the US to do this.
vfvthunter 5mo ago
So the C&D was stupid, and so is how their network works apparently. Fundamentally, what Bambu are saying is that they have a right to restrict what software accesses their network. The C&D was allegedly sent to stop distribution of software that was written to access their network in an unauthorized fashion (Allegedly according to their ToS). AGPL covers source code. It does not cover who can access what network with AGPL'ed software. Thus Bambu - like it or not - have a right to limit what software accesses their cloud. You are still free to do whatever you want with Bambu's AGPL'ed software. But they don't have to let you on their network if they don't want to. With that out of the way, sending a C&D is a pretty regarded way to accomplish this. The correct way would be to sniff out which clients are using 'real' Bambu Studio and which aren't. However according to Bambu, Pawel specifically modified BambuStudio (ya know, because they haven't violated the AGPL, because he is free to do that) to make it look like Studio. I can only assume that actually locking down their network for real would require every Bambu printer to have a firmware update that would add some sort of signed encryption to access the cloud features. The C&D appears to be a shitty action prior to a huge undertaking. I do wonder exactly how secure their super spendy "Enterprise" X1E printer could possibly be given how easily Pawel was able to make a fork work on their cloud. As to your second paragraph about functionality and theft, 1) I can still print from Bambu's cloud with my Bambu printer so I don't think they've changed any functionality, and I can still use Orca in LAN mode. and 2) designed obsolescence exists. I disagree with your assertion that because forks were able to access cloud functionality previously, that Bambu must maintain that functionality ad infinitum. My opinion would change if anyone showed me where previously they were promoting how any third party apps could access their cloud.
- wpm 5mo ago
  I think the really important part of this is that Pawel modified OrcaSlicer to look like BambuStudio by looking at the AGPL licensed source code of BambuStudio and copying it over. And the function he copied over just set the UserAgent string to some hard coded values also available in the AGPL source code of BambuStudio. He didn't reverse engineer anything. Just went and looked at public code that's free to use for any purpose. BambuLabs is probably just big mad that their "security" argument for their walled garden, weak as it was, just got publicly pantsed. I've never heard of a fucking dumber way of "securing" a service than a plaintext client-side assertion "I'm allowed to send you print jobs uwu :3" The entire debacle is incredibly embarrassing for Bambu.
lobo_tuerto 5mo ago
Then maybe this video _explaining_ what this is really about is in order: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td2OQpLD9ik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td2OQpLD9ik From Louis Rossmann himself.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
Aurornis 5mo ago
> It's maddening that quite a few people are jumping to defend Bambu here. I haven’t read each of the hundreds of comments, but I haven’t seen anyone defending Bambu really. What I have seen is a lot of comments trying to correct all of the bad information, which might look like defending Bambu labs to those who came into this thread not understanding what the problem was. Many of the angry comments think that this is a fork to enable LAN mode or remove a cloud requirement, but this is actually the opposite. It’s code to splice the Bambu cloud code from official Linux slicer into OrcaSlicer, which is a fork of the Bambu slicer. This is allowed and should be defended. Bambu was wrong to try to threaten it because, as I understand it, this was a matter of merging some of their AGPL code into a fork of their AGPL code. Fair game. I do think the angry mob of people who don’t own Bambu printers who have jumped on this issue is starting to become their own worst enemy, though. There are a lot of confused Bambu printer owners in this thread trying to understand what’s going on and getting the wrong explanations delivered by people who I would guess have no understanding of the situation other than being brought here by some YouTube videos that didn’t really explain the matter well either. There’s also apparent a foundation getting involved which has a vibecode AI slop website that doesn’t explain anything but it getting shared as an explanation, and this GitHub repo was also uploaded by someone who doesn’t understand git or GitHub because they uploaded a copy of the forked code as a single commit instead of keeping git history or introducing it as a real fork. I suggest that this repo not be used by anyone because it’s not good practice to run a fork without verifying the provenance and checking the changes, which cannot be done when the repo is nothing more than an upload of a copy of some source with no link to the base repo and no history of changes. There are several other actual copies of the fork on GitHub and linked throughout this thread that would be better sources.
- rspeed 5mo ago
  Thank you! This is why I have a very mixed opinion of Louis Rossmann. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he provides extremely slanted view of reality.
kube-system 5mo ago
> Principally if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. Factually, it is not. Maybe you think it should be prohibited -- as I also do. But the proper legalese here is likely a consumer protection regulation.

amelius 5mo ago

I always put printers (2d and 3d) behind a firewall so they cannot reach the internet. This prevents auto-updates and surprises like disappearing functionality.

jamesnorden 5mo ago
I've been bitten by an HP printer auto updating and my aftermarket ink suddenly not being acceptable. Never buying HP again after that.
- 9cb14c1ec0 5mo ago
  I once updated my Epson, and it started rejecting aftermarket ink. Fortunately there is a way to downgrade the firmware. Never buying a cartridge based inkjet printer again.
  - bayindirh 5mo ago
    If you don't care about ink quality, then aftermarket ink is fine. However, if you want your pictures to last 10+ years under the sun, or being able to read what you have printed after some time, getting the genuine ink is the way. People think ink is simple. It is not. Anybody thinking otherwise, some points of pondering: - Why Xerox and HP run their own toner/ink labs to formulate their own ink down to molecule level? - Look at your standard disposable pens. Gel, liquid, dye, pigment, alcohol/water/oil based, UV resistant or not... It's a hard chemical problem. - Similarly even something bland like fountain pen ink has hundreds of different formulations. Not colors, formulations. Washable to cellulose reactive and everything in between... It's not dyed drinking water. Lastly, I'm not against people using 3rd party ink at any level. I just want to point out that not every ink cartridge is created equal.
    - dspillett 5mo ago
      > then aftermarket ink is fine Then why don't they allow it, perhaps with warnings? They don't block after market ink because of quality concerns, though they might claim so, they block it because they want to make more money from you themselves through ink sales. The common response here is “but they make a loss on selling the hardware!”, to which my response is “their bad pricing decision is not my problem”.
      - bayindirh 5mo ago
        I agree that "making loss on the hardware and using ink to offset that" is a very bad business decision. I have an 10+ year old HP Deskjet 4515 Ink Advantage which had a high initial price but cheap refills (black ink is pigment, but color cartridge is dye, but is UV resistant if printed on good photo paper), and that thing never created any problems for me hardware or software wise. I can still use any print I got from it even after a decade. Ink's that stable on these. From my perspective, 3rd party ink or toner is a support nightmare, esp. if it's bottom of the barrel. Again, from my perspective you should be able to take the responsibility and use these if you really want, but any ink or toner related damage might be out of warranty then (HP's genuine cartridges come with their own guarantees). So, I can speculate that makers both offset the price and don't want to handle support tickets related to 3rd party ink damage for lower end devices, and buyers of higher end models are either using 1st party ink, or fine with paying the repair costs if their 3rd party installations go haywire. Also, it's possible that kits for higher end inkjet systems (large format/plotter systems) tend to be higher quality since these models cater to professional shops which needs high quality supplies. Lastly, I talked with someone who said that they buy the cheapest paper and cheapest ink because the printouts are disposable for them, and I find that point entirely fair, too. My main point was underlining the fact that ink is not something simple in formulation. I don't defend banning 3rd party ink, but just pointing out some facts. I believe everybody can carry out their own fafo procedure.
p0w3n3d 5mo ago
that's what I had in my mind - I want to switch back to HP printer because the Brother I bought has inferior picture printing quality, but I am scared of any software update, so I guess I'll connect it to old linux machine and serve via CUPS
- chopin 5mo ago
  I just don't allow outbound connections for our HP printer.
15155 5mo ago
Which means the controversy in question would not apply to you whatsoever.
fanatic2pope 5mo ago
In the case of Bambu you'd want to do this to prevent surprises like your printer from randomly starting to print due to a "cloud error". https://www.techradar.com/pro/did-your-3d-printer-start-printing-all-on-its-own-this-could-be-why https://www.techradar.com/pro/did-your-3d-printer-start-prin...
account42 5mo ago
I refuse to even put them on a network - just direct USB to a host where I fully control the software.

navane 5mo ago

Is this the reverse "you wouldn't download a car"?

basilikum 5mo ago
You wouldn't download [and print] a 3D printer.
estimator7292 5mo ago
[dead]

p0w3n3d 5mo ago

> later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. I've always been told it's called business. But I fully agree with you. Just wanted to note that this is the current business model both with hardware and software

basilikum 5mo ago
Crime is unfortunately legal.
- account42 5mo ago
  At least when it's profitable for stockholders.
MSFT_Edging 5mo ago
This is why the fight/loss for open computing is so important. Without the ability to run your own code, this will be everywhere and everything. Without some counter force of open source pushing back and offering alternatives, we'll be putting tokens in a machine to check your email. Reading email will cost 4 tokens and you'll only be able to buy them in groups of 7.
Gormo 5mo ago
> I've always been told it's called business. The "business" ended when the sale transaction concluded. The fact that you were the seller in that past transaction doesn't entitle you to vandalize goods that now belong to someone else. This is just crime trying to disguise itself as legitimate business, as scams often do.
- p0w3n3d 5mo ago
  I've been treated this way numerous times. First example: FlightRadar - I bought the app, they sunsetted it and created "new one" with monthly payments
- dspillett 5mo ago
  > The "business" ended when the sale transaction concluded. Actually not, though not in a way that makes the rest of your post incorrect. Various laws and regulations state that the seller has responsibilities to the buyer after the initial transaction has completed, one of which Bambu might¹ be transgressing by removing features that people we lead to believe were part of the product, and could reasonably expect to remain part of the product, at the time of the sale. -------- [1] This has not been tested in court, and I'm no lawyer, take my idea of what is the case with a requisite serving of condiment.

xyzal 5mo ago

You are on a venture capital run forum. A lot of people here would approve of this business model, as long as it brings in monies ...

dspillett 5mo ago

> if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. It could be argued that it is not theft by various devious uses of legalise¹. Personally I'd go with calling it, at best, deceptive sales practices (on the assumption that they knew they'd be moving this way long before they did), or possibly outright fraud if I'm in a less generous mood. [FYI: Bambu A1 user for nearly two years, also have a Snapmaker U1, if I buy anything else it won't be Bambu unless their attitudes change. The A1/A1mini are still two of the best budget beginner printers IMO, though some clones come close, and I do recommend them if asked but with caveats around potential lock-in later and not believing promises due to a history of changed online posts, deliberately excluded from the WayBackMachine, and what to my understanding is an AGPL breach] -------- [1] “There is a way to use the feature, so it isn't an attempt to permanently deprive”, or “you agreed to the possibility of such changes in the EULA”, and so on.

basilikum 5mo ago
The fact that theft is legal does not change the fact that it is theft. Crime is legal. That should not stop us from calling it out as crime.
brookst 5mo ago
Yeah I’m so tired of rhetorical games people play. It’s a shitty business practice, it is deceptive and possibly false advertising, it may be violation of a contract and / consumer production laws, but removal of a software feature is not “theft”. And many of these same people probably (and rightfully) laughed at music and movie people casting piracy as “theft”.
- basilikum 5mo ago
  When you sell something and then after the sell you take away the very thing you sold — that you no longer own — from the person who now owns it, that is called theft. You are taking something away from someone that they own. Piracy is not theft because you do not take anything away from anyone, you copy it and do not pay for it, but the original is still there. No one lost anything. It is irrelevant whether the thing or feature you took away is implemented in hardware or software. Notably it is often hardware functionality but the thief uses software to restrict it. You could perhaps argue that another property crime might better describe it such as criminal mischief or in some cases fraud. But in any case it is a crime against someone else's property.

FatCat1979 5mo ago

There's a class of person who's so fundamentally incapable of ignoring authority figures that they'll defend even the most pathetic positions possible.

bdcravens 5mo ago

The issue isn't access to the printers, it's access to Bambu Lab's cloud.

InTheArena 5mo ago
That's not true - that's a canary that Bambu through out there to distract from the thing that they absolutely took steps to force everyone into their ecosystem (which just happens to only sell their product, and to monetize prints directly for them).

divers1776 5mo ago

Was it in the T&C's? I only ask because I feel like it fits the pattern of every tech company in the US to do this.

vfvthunter 5mo ago

So the C&D was stupid, and so is how their network works apparently. Fundamentally, what Bambu are saying is that they have a right to restrict what software accesses their network. The C&D was allegedly sent to stop distribution of software that was written to access their network in an unauthorized fashion (Allegedly according to their ToS). AGPL covers source code. It does not cover who can access what network with AGPL'ed software. Thus Bambu - like it or not - have a right to limit what software accesses their cloud. You are still free to do whatever you want with Bambu's AGPL'ed software. But they don't have to let you on their network if they don't want to. With that out of the way, sending a C&D is a pretty regarded way to accomplish this. The correct way would be to sniff out which clients are using 'real' Bambu Studio and which aren't. However according to Bambu, Pawel specifically modified BambuStudio (ya know, because they haven't violated the AGPL, because he is free to do that) to make it look like Studio. I can only assume that actually locking down their network for real would require every Bambu printer to have a firmware update that would add some sort of signed encryption to access the cloud features. The C&D appears to be a shitty action prior to a huge undertaking. I do wonder exactly how secure their super spendy "Enterprise" X1E printer could possibly be given how easily Pawel was able to make a fork work on their cloud. As to your second paragraph about functionality and theft, 1) I can still print from Bambu's cloud with my Bambu printer so I don't think they've changed any functionality, and I can still use Orca in LAN mode. and 2) designed obsolescence exists. I disagree with your assertion that because forks were able to access cloud functionality previously, that Bambu must maintain that functionality ad infinitum. My opinion would change if anyone showed me where previously they were promoting how any third party apps could access their cloud.

wpm 5mo ago
I think the really important part of this is that Pawel modified OrcaSlicer to look like BambuStudio by looking at the AGPL licensed source code of BambuStudio and copying it over. And the function he copied over just set the UserAgent string to some hard coded values also available in the AGPL source code of BambuStudio. He didn't reverse engineer anything. Just went and looked at public code that's free to use for any purpose. BambuLabs is probably just big mad that their "security" argument for their walled garden, weak as it was, just got publicly pantsed. I've never heard of a fucking dumber way of "securing" a service than a plaintext client-side assertion "I'm allowed to send you print jobs uwu :3" The entire debacle is incredibly embarrassing for Bambu.

lobo_tuerto 5mo ago

Then maybe this video _explaining_ what this is really about is in order: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td2OQpLD9ik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td2OQpLD9ik From Louis Rossmann himself.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

Aurornis 5mo ago

> It's maddening that quite a few people are jumping to defend Bambu here. I haven’t read each of the hundreds of comments, but I haven’t seen anyone defending Bambu really. What I have seen is a lot of comments trying to correct all of the bad information, which might look like defending Bambu labs to those who came into this thread not understanding what the problem was. Many of the angry comments think that this is a fork to enable LAN mode or remove a cloud requirement, but this is actually the opposite. It’s code to splice the Bambu cloud code from official Linux slicer into OrcaSlicer, which is a fork of the Bambu slicer. This is allowed and should be defended. Bambu was wrong to try to threaten it because, as I understand it, this was a matter of merging some of their AGPL code into a fork of their AGPL code. Fair game. I do think the angry mob of people who don’t own Bambu printers who have jumped on this issue is starting to become their own worst enemy, though. There are a lot of confused Bambu printer owners in this thread trying to understand what’s going on and getting the wrong explanations delivered by people who I would guess have no understanding of the situation other than being brought here by some YouTube videos that didn’t really explain the matter well either. There’s also apparent a foundation getting involved which has a vibecode AI slop website that doesn’t explain anything but it getting shared as an explanation, and this GitHub repo was also uploaded by someone who doesn’t understand git or GitHub because they uploaded a copy of the forked code as a single commit instead of keeping git history or introducing it as a real fork. I suggest that this repo not be used by anyone because it’s not good practice to run a fork without verifying the provenance and checking the changes, which cannot be done when the repo is nothing more than an upload of a copy of some source with no link to the base repo and no history of changes. There are several other actual copies of the fork on GitHub and linked throughout this thread that would be better sources.

rspeed 5mo ago
Thank you! This is why I have a very mixed opinion of Louis Rossmann. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he provides extremely slanted view of reality.

kube-system 5mo ago

> Principally if you sell a device with a certain functionality and you later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft. Factually, it is not. Maybe you think it should be prohibited -- as I also do. But the proper legalese here is likely a consumer protection regulation.