It’s the same as it’s always been, and it’s been explained many times. Closed-source plugins are not allowed. There’s no question about it - that’s a fact. This has also been confirmed by Prusa - after all, Bambu used their copyleft license - and has also been confirmed via AGPL.
You can read about it for yourself. Let’s ask the question the other way around: Where in the AGPL or Pursa copyleft license does it say that this is allowed? Post it, and you can prove that you’re right.
AGPL does not allow closed‑source plugins if they are considered part of the same program. Any plugin that forms a derivative work or is linked to an AGPL program must itself be released under the AGPL.
I challenge you to quote the passage of the license that allows it. Please also keep in mind that Bambu uses the Prusa copyleft license.
I don’t understand how you can even argue this at this stage.
As already stated by several people with citations explicitly stating that network plugin is not a separate piece of software according to the AGPL licence.
Also confirmed by lawyer and pointed out by Josef Prusa.
There’s no reason to start all over again at the very beginning - at the first page of the discussion - when all the facts are already now on the table.
Now it’s just a matter of whether a court will rule on it or not.
Not yet - it would be too early for that anyway; things like this don’t happen overnight. Besides, the question is who will take the other to court first - If it ever comes to that.
Let a court rule on it then. Maybe we will have an answer in 2 years.
Of course I am not a lawyer, no one here is. I personally think that the license does not cover the plug-in. Thats my interpretation. Ive read over the license, the quote that you included does not cover networking.
This is not a question of the slicing capabilities.
Anyways, in a court setting, there are numerous cases of precident to justify the actions that Bambu is taking.
The fact of the case is an individual was attempting to unlawfully break into Bambu’s cloud. I don’t know what hollow you come from, but here in the big world, people who break into other people’s servers are considered criminals. The result is often a squad of heavily armored law enforcement officers raiding one’s home and office, confiscating all their equipment, with a nice perp walk out to a waiting police car with cameras from local news channels rolling. It rather tarnishes your arguments, in that they are an apology for a criminal act.
That’s not how the legal system works - it’s not a simple on/off switch, it’s not binary. First of all, you have to consider which country we’re talking about. Europe? America? China? Look at the date - it hasn’t even been a week. Have you ever had anything to do with the courts before? Just filing the claim (submitted and approved) alone takes months, regardless of whether you agree with Bambu or not.
In addition, cases like this rarely go to trial because a settlement is reached.
Here is where you are wrong. By the letter of the license, if something is dynamically or statically linked to the application (loading plugins with dlopen counts as dynamic linking), it is considered a part of the whole package as GPL and AGPL were explicitly written to ensure that plugins would have the same license. There is one exception in the license text - that is system libraries, but they must be part of the OS or environment and also explicitly defined in the text.
Therefore here you are wrong, network plugin is a part of the slicer and must be also licensed under AGPL terms.
Therefore, as I’ve explained multiple times earlier, it is a direct violation of Prusa Slicer license to refuse to give plugin’s source code back. They technically have two options - either completely opensource the plugin or recall Bambu Slicer and stop using any Prusa Slicer derivatives.
Well, if we are having a civil conversation here - you kinda should Look, I’ve provided justification for my position earlier in the thread, with the links to the source code and to exact places in the license and FAQ that proves my point. All I heard back from you and few more people who tried to disagree - is just emotions. No one tried to prove me wrong, no one managed to find any mistakes in my logic, no one disproved the license. Though I saw multiple verbal attack on me personally or attempts to just throw the facts out of the window. That is not what is generally called civil conversation.
Would you please elaborate on how exactly it helps you that Bambu breaks the law and harasses developers?
You’ve said this before to me, but you still haven’t provided facts to support your position. Meanwhile, if you would look at the code of their fork of OrcaSlicer, you’ll see that there is no unlawful break ins into anything, only the stuff that is explicitly permitted by AGPL that Bambu uses.
It is extremely impolite to still state what you actually need to prove as facts and also goes against what is called a civil conversation in the big world of yours.
Guys who don’t understand what’s going on and those who are completely fine with everything (it’s not clear what you’re doing here) read Pavel’s analysis
Why bambu_networking violates the AGPL in Bambu Studio _github.com/jarczakpawel/OrcaSlicer-bambulab/blob/main/bambu_agpl.md
They don’t want to comment on my simplified analysis of what happened I won’t expect neither of them to even try to read a more technical write-up by Pavel, to be honest…
What has only been a week? I thought this was a very old issue, surely were are not talking about suing for saying they might send a cease and desist letter.
Here is the explanation, by law, about the independent plugin as well as the precedent about it.
Also as a note, the plugin is downloaded after the installation and used as a core module for the print to communicate to their infrastructure. That same plugin is to be used as combined works, as stated above. This is from a formal paid assessment and not from a youtuber or the internet. The precedent can be searched and is available publicly.
It seems that people are discarding what they don’t want to believe, going against what is right and wrong. “I think that…” and “i believe that…” is long gone. The facts are here for everyone to read. Just think about it, why didn’t Bambu went after GN and Rossman yet?
To be honest, i don’t even care anymore since i am still here since the beginning and will be.
The guy that is always stating that this will die and that the people will not leave Bambu and will still be here in a year. Yes, i will still be here, why shouldn’t i? Is this an invitation only club? Want to buy my H2S Laser Combo? We could arrange something.
But will it make me leave the forum? Absolutely not!
I am not a Bambu hater, i’m an OG backer! My H2S works. My old ones worked. Never filled a support ticket, ever. Never had one breaking down. But it does not mean that a company can do whatever they want, period!
To follow up on your comment: It’s amazing how some people are still trying to divert attention from the topic by portraying the developer as a criminal, even though the situation has already moved on. The developer has been doing his own thing for days now.
They still haven’t figured out that this is about something much bigger. Namely, Bambu, Prusa, FULU, GamersNexus Consumer Advocacy.
It might have worked at the beginning to portray the developer as a criminal, but now it just looks ridiculous. Especially given that the developer has deleted his project and has now switched to Klipper.
It is simpler than that. Bambu Studio is an AGPL code, derived from other AGPL projects (so Bambu can’t claim ownership here). By the letter of the license, any plugins that are called by anything more than a single initialization function are a part of combined work: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins
(well, that is the same as what a lawyer said to you, but in simpler terms)
Rest is irrelevant, even if they won’t market the printer as cloud-connected - they still must opensource the plugin or stop using Prusa Slicer (and probably pay for damages if Prusa would sue) and do a recall.
Overall toxicity from people who are desperately trying to claim that Bambu is in their rights would make me go back to read only mode and essentially leave the forum for a long while.
It would’ve worked only if the slicer was actually a closed sourced project - as understanding legality of reverse engineering is much harder. In this case - code is there, license is there, FAQ is there - anyone can read and verify.
Well, if you want to defend Bambu actions here, can you please try to answer my question from some posts ago: how is that helping personally you, that Bambu breakes the law (violates the license) and harasses 3rd party developers?
Frankly speaking, that is what will likely happen if you let bussinesses harass people into submission and continue to close down the ecosystem. As that is exactly what happens with most other fields where there is a technical barrier to enter the market and when there is a single company that anyhow becomes dominant in the area. Even if that is for a relatively short while (few years).
Look, I’ve provided justification for my position earlier in the thread, with the links to the source code and to exact places in the license and FAQ that proves my point. All I heard back from you and few more people who tried to disagree - is just emotions. No one tried to prove me wrong, no one managed to find any mistakes in my logic, no one disproved the license. Though I saw multiple verbal attack on me personally or attempts to just throw the facts out of the window. That is not what is generally called civil conversation.