That’s my problem with Prusa as well, everything is just too late. Or they will introduce something worthwhile (OpenPrintTag) but then have no idea how to integrate it into their existing printers and slicer workflow.
2 Likes
It just goes both ways. I’ll just give you a recent example.
Bambu Studio v2.5.3 - for example, Bambu has adopted the FullSpectrum Color Mixing Orca Fork.
Actually, an open-source developer discovered this and implemented it: A project called FullSpectrum - a fork of OrcaSlicer by developer Ratdoux - demonstrated the concept for the Snapmaker U1 toolchanger.
I’ll just quote bambu: “The color prediction part was based on @ratdoux’s approach in OrcaSlicer-FullSpectrum. We thank him for his outstanding work. All other parts were independently developed by the Bambu Studio team.”
It just doesn’t make sense to start discrediting PrusaSlicer or any other slicer, when Bambu is constantly making use of its competitors’ open-source projects. Sure, other competitors can and do the same - use Bambu’s code too, of course. But come on…
Is it possible to acknowledge the contributions of past programmers and developers without undermining their legacy?
A company like - I don’t know - Apple could have developed and patented the technology, and then no one else would be able to make 3D printers except Apple. Let’s all just be glad that this open legacy exists.
One more thing: forget about using LLM for security-related programming. They tried that with industrial robots, and it was a disaster. At the end of the day, a 3D printer is nothing more than moving axes. One programming error, and it’ll crash into something or heat up uncontrollably because the g-code is messed up.
The AI introduces more errors than you’d like, and you still have to check every line of code to be on the safe side. It’s faster to write it yourself. Unless you have a whole bunch of printers you can scrap, AI might actually be faster.
Just imagine what would happen if you accidentally swapped a few lines of G-code. That’s exactly what the AI does, because it doesn’t understand at all what a 3D printer is or why you should avoid certain areas of the build chamber. And even though I refer to g-code, I’m of course talking about the AI-programmed slicer.
Sure, that is proper use of open source.
My point is that you can not take everything that Bambu Studio has done as taken from the open source. They have still contributed a lot to the open source community.
No one is discrediting PrusaSlicer or any other slicer. Almost all of them have been built off of eachother in one way or another.
No one is undermining the legacy of the developers. Is it possible to acknowledge their contributions? Of course…
Their contributions are noted in the license info and pointed out in the statement from Bambu that you quoted.
For my personal use and trying it out, I am not concerned about security. I am not going to worry about networking or anything. My goal is to get the basic foundation of a slicer. As for safety of the machine, Ill throw it on one of my Enders, if they break, I do not care.
AI can make mistakes, but don’t sleep on it, it is getting much better.
2 Likes
Well, maybe I misunderstood your comment. In that case, I apologize. I actually agree 100% with what you said on this part.
Please let us know how it went. 
1 Like
You missed the point, which was to point out the absurd nature of the narrative at hand. A strict reading of the AGPL asserts that anything that touches open source software is forced to become open source. It even asserts that laws and court orders are inferior to the terms of the license.
The provision that seems to be misused here is the one that applies to code that is run off the internet. The GPL only applied to distributed code and there were those who would get around it by running the program off the internet. It is that code that the AGPL was designed to include.
Being that the network plug-in serves a security function, if it was forced to be included in the open source license, those security functions would have to be implemented down stream from the network plug-in. If it can be argued that the plug-in has to be included, that what about what the plug-in connects to. Would you all not argue that splitting the code was also in violation of the license. If the plug in connects to Bambu’s cloud, then by extension would require the cloud to become open source. At what point does it stop, and to what end?
2 Likes
And on this, what are people expecting the publishing of this plugin to acheive ?
There are people who want to die on the hill of AGPL licence requirments but this is not Bambu halding back Bambu Slicer, this is a custom specific network plug in that allowes them to protect their servers. Regardless if you agree with that or not its not something that benefits the Opensource slicer community.
What is the goal with this, Release so everyhting goes back to the way it was or release becuase the licence says you must.
Anyone who thinks banmbu is going to go back to jsut opening up local access is crazy, you have developer mode and thats the option you have.
Mark my words I can see Bambu dubeling down and even getting rid of BS so going full lcosed sorce for this all.
I hope they do that. Follow the rules, or get out of the license they signed up for.
So to get this straight, you would rather they had to leave the OS, porduce a likely less capable slicer than actually have the current setup all over a plug in that does not even benefit the comminuty ?
If thats the case that is the issue with the community right there
1 Like
My overall point is the communty seems to want to burn the building down over something that has zero material benefit to the OS community or 3d printing in frankly any way on the princible of largly an arguable techinicality in the licencing.
This is not the slicer its self. its not functionaly, features or any form of use to anyone other than bambu protecting their servers. If the thought is to force them to release it so that others can start to use the servers is crazy as they will just block it other ways.
What is find strange is people want to stand on this pillar of “ comply or else” over something that does not even matter to anyone esle.
1 Like
I think they make it obtrusive to use the printers I bought in the way I want to use them. They do this by breaking the license they agreed to. They’re not going to change, so I don’t really care what the result is, but pointing out they’re breaking the rules and bullying people who don’t deserve bullying is okay.
2 Likes
You know that this likely means that you tend to use that approach too much, as with civil conversion there is no need to call out that in the oponnents, right?
You seems to still miss the point - I’ve provided you just facts - text of the license is legal English that has enough court precedents to say for sure how the case would end up in the court in US and EU if anyone from those countries would sue Bambu. Main question there is not the outcome, but how long the case would take (answer is probably too much for a random person to fight in court, though a principled developer with above average for the field income have enough resources to pour into lawyers to see the win). And I’ve asked for a simple thing - just let’s discuss facts 
Facts are very nice substance as they doesn’t depend on reason or opinions - they just exist.
Just want to point out that you are right now talking not with OpenSource community but with a specific person - me. Let’s say - I have some experience writing code and with opensource as well (I’m still main maintainer of some niche projects that I know for sure were used in core infrastructure of eBay and Adobe for example), I have enough of experience working at various Big Tech companies (including working at a few companies of the top5 by market cap) as SWE-like role. I have my share of fighting with GPL-violations in various places as well, so I kinda know what I’m talking about here.
And because of all of that - your attempts to justify that my opinion doesn’t matter because <insert here something you think about community, influencers, etc, etc, etc> is “ad hominem” by the definition - as instead of arguing in technical terms, you are trying to attack your vision of me as a person. That is counter productive and I tend not to respect such people at all.
That is just straight unfair generalisation of a large group of people based not on facts but on prejudice and your own bias - so yet another logical fallacy that you use instead of actually talking facts here.
5 Likes
Welcome to the forum! Congratulations to your first post … and what a way to start! You’re really hitting fast track - You just found your way direct into this thread here.
5 Likes
If someone says “ad hominem” one more time
2 Likes
Idk if its worth getting worked up over, its a giant faceless corporation [overseas, industry production leader, benefitting from domestic mfr policy] and it’s previously said, out loud, into microphones, they want to be apple. I think the same people who “hate their iphone” but are on their 6th $1000+ device in as many years, and just as much in subscriptions and consumption… these are the same ones who ultimately let corporations like this behave in this way. No incentive to change, every incentive to mash that capitalism gas pedal to the floor
I reduced my bambu spend by 85% since the original auth control gaslighting, would like to bring it to zero but I live in reality Maybe someday
1 Like
That part is simple - if you cannot fulfil the license terms you must not use the code. Period.
Here is where you are mixing things up a bit. There is a viral part of the license - what other parts must be made available under compatible license and in that parts AGPL is no different than GPLv3.
There is a second part - who is the user that must be provided with the offer for the source code - and that is the place where AGPL is more strict - everybody who touches the data that touched AGPL code has rights to get the source code of a software under AGPL. Read FSF’s FAQ, it has some examples - e.x. if some proxy server on a path of a web request is licensed under AGPL, then users of that website can ask for the source code of that proxy. They are not obliged to get source code of a backend or of a web server though. That is what is said in provision 13 of the license:
<…>if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge<…>
If you see it differently - please provide a quote from the license or at least say which provision you are talking about. I’ll be more than happy to explain that to you.
But what you’ve said is a common misconception of an AGPL.
It includes any type of linking as a technical term, static or dynamic. It won’t infect code that calls the AGPL binary or uses AGPL binary over a network, but all users direct or indirect of AGPL work must get the source code - and that goes basically limitless - if Bambu uses some database relased under AGPL to store let’s say models for makerworld, they must provide any one who can user makerworld with the source code of that database if they ask (or as that might be too much - better to just publish the actual source code somewhere and link it).
3 Likes
How exactly does that allow them protect their servers? And in what way that is better than, let’s say, a proper SDK that anyone can integrate in any form into their product and let’s say obtain an API key in their account to use whatever they want with their cloud just obeying the request quota they’ll have?
That is actually not true at all. Ability to seamlessly use slicer with the printer, without all kind of dev mode / lan mode, would help by expanding a base of people who can test new features.
That is their right. I personally don’t belive they’ll be able to produce a capable closed-source slicer that won’t violate AGPL, therefore they’ll just eventually lose a huge portion of market if they do so. But that is their right to try and their position doesn’t give them right to break the law.
Arguably, if they’ll show their true nature sooner than later is better for everyone as less people in the result would get burned by their decisions.
5 Likes