Should a company use open souce

Bambu Lab Software
1

I think OSouce works as long as you have a large community of TALENTED developers around it.

When does it make sense for a company to build on OSouce?

Companies thrive on Predictability, and profiting from their efforts. To be fully OS, you need to publish your work so someone can build on it. Make it better. and make all your potential for profits almost gone. Why would someone buy a product that is less than best. Much of Bambu’s magic is software. That should be OS. From my understanding. Not concerned with the OS facts in this thread.

I have been involved in the new product design field for 40+ years. Who would be willing to pay my rate if they are OS? And could be scooped by someone else. I see the advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants to start, but…

2

If you’re interested in this topic, there’s a very good article on it. More software is open source than most people realise.

Nevertheless, companies still make money from it because a small portion is closed source, and because of customisations for customers, support, and the whole package. It’s the customisation and support for customers that generates revenue, not open source alone.

This is the case in many fields, though, whether it’s programming or the industry in general. Anyone can access individual components or code, but customising them comes at a cost. While a layperson could set up a server, they would struggle to tailor it precisely to a client’s needs.

In fact, there’s actually a lot of money involved in open source, because customizations can be really expensive. Customers are lured in with free software or savings on initial development costs, but then end up paying a lot for customisations. This has always been the case with Linux, for example: anyone can access it for free, but very few people can customise it.

  • The Careful Consumption of Open Source Software

Open source software is everywhere today. A 2024 Synopsis report showed that 96% of the commercial code bases they sampled contained open source software, and 77% of the code within those code bases was open source. Similarly, a 2022 Linux Foundation study found that 70-90% of any given software code base is made up of open source components.

Screenshot 2026-05-26 011606
Screenshot 2026-05-26 0116061792×619 97.5 KB

Here’s a real-world example from when I was be involved in large-scale projects: The project cost €200,000. Of that, €50,000 went towards hardware, €50,000 towards planning and €100,000 towards programming. Bear in mind that this wasn’t a new development, but a customisation.

A new printer? An industrial printer, for example, would cost €30,000 for programming alone. A calculator / maths program would cost €30,000. This may sound expensive, but it’s simply because a programmer is tailoring it precisely to the customer’s specifications. It’s the customer’s specifications that are expensive, not the calculator itself.

And you can probably imagine what kind of crazy requests customers have.

Although those are big numbers, unfortunately not much of it ends up going to the programmer; mostly goes to the company instead.

3 Likes
Setting the Record Straight on Cloud Access and Community
3

Removed by User. Just a bit too much info.

4

I think that the open source system is broken. Maybe even the software industry as a whole tends to be a bit of a scam. Afterall the tech bros couldn’t care less about the best interests of humanity.

There is a loophole in open source licenses. If someone uses open source code without attribution, then another uses that unattributed code unaware that it is part of an otherwise licensed work, that third party and their subsequent code is not bound by the original license. Currently open source is facing three existential crises. One being the use of AI to create code, which is flooding the space. In addition AI is being used to harvest code from open source sources to be used without attributions. One being that open source is mostly created and controlled by the very corporations many open source advocates claim open source was designed to circumvent. One being that the US federal government has determined that open source code has national security concerns which will require federal controls.

I had a career doing product development in an R&D setting. Everything was microprocessor based which required programming. The programming was typically divided between the code required to make the machine run and the user interface. Engineers and scientists would program the machine while a proper software programmer would do the user interface. Other than the underlying operating system and communication interface, all the code was specific to the machine. It wasn’t just code that ran the machine, but the result of sometimes years of work. If we would have been required to provide open source code, that would have amounted to handing competitor companies our hard earned technology on a platter.

Comparing software to hardware, one sees a different picture. Typically in electronics and mechanics patents are used to give the originator an advantage, but that advantage runs out after 20 years. The ideas then fall into the public domain and are free for anyone to use. Yet the software community seems to think it proper to use perpetual licenses that forever restrict the use of the software. Which, to me, is a small group of individuals doing their best to have control over what ought rightly belong in the public domain.

During the World War 2 era, RCA developed an audio amplifier for the US Army. Because it was the Army, so that anyone could reproduce it, the design was in the public domain. When Leo Fender wanted to invent an electric guitar amplifier, he began with the schematic of the Army audio amplifier. He modified the design, to be compatible with the guitar pickups he was also designing. Later vibrato and reverb circuits were added. All of which he patented. About the time Fender’s patents began to expire Jim Marshall had one of his techs reverse engineer a Fender Bassman, and, with modifications, created the Marshall guitar amplifier. The rest is Country, Blues, and Rock-n-Roll history.

If one wants to recreate any of the legendary amplifiers, from any manufacturer, the schematics are in the public domain and can be be freely used by anyone. There is even modeling software, that can recreate an amplifier’s tone, just from the schematic alone. If the electronics industry was like the software industry, an open source group would have swooped in at some point and created an open source license so that that the information in the public domain could ostensibly be “protected”. Then anyone wanting to use the technology would be beholden, into perpetuality, to the whims of the holders of the license.

I think that most companies have discovered that protecting their trademark is more important than protecting their technology. As John Lennon sang, “there is nothing that you can do that can’t be done”. Yet not everyone can have a good recognizable and marketable reputation.

5

This is untrue - at least in USA, UK, and Singapore.

However I am prepared to be taught something. Can you point to an example of a legal ruling, court case etc that has accepted this “loophole”.

6

I do very little programing. almost zero. I have only delt with patens for mechanical or physical parts.
Open source applies to mainly software. In my simple way of looking at things there are 3 categories: Public Domain, Open Source, or Proprietary. I am sure there are lots of in between buckets. I assume some programs fall into multiple categories. Can a program fall into open source, and proprietary? I can see someone writing using open source, and licensing part of it from a 3rd party. I have heard that if you use any part that is OS then the entire thing must be OS.
Most likely, like any legal question, the answer will be “It depends”.

7

Yes, part of the program can be open source and part closed source. But there are very specific requirements, and the license terms must be followed. In short: That’s where it gets complicated. After all, there isn’t just one open-source license; there are actually many different ones. Example: That is why some people refer to AGPL versions 1, 2, and 3.

It is certainly possible and is often common practice, but as I said, it’s a legal minefield when it comes to licensing.

Let’s take… any OS… say, SteamOS. It’s open source, but the launcher - that is, the store and user interface - is closed source.

Or, as you already said, it’s almost always true: “It depends.”

8

I thought that was the case. So the statement often sited that “any means; it is all OS” is wrong. I would guess Most software is a mix. And few is truly fully OS.

I am not thinking of a physical product that is OS. Mainly because what else has source … (avoiding code that might exclude). Physical parts fall into Public, or patented.
the goal of patents is to get ideas in public. Giving the original developer enough time to recoup development. Sometimes it does not make sense to patent things. like Coca Cola. Is a trade secret not patented. Avoiding public domain.

9

AGPL is primarily a philosophical model on the access of information, with enough tendrils into the legal and business world to maybe be enforcable. The way you characterize what open source is misses a lot of marks, not all open source is AGPL, but the choices bambu made in the past is what binds them to that specific path. And yes, AGPL users’ flavor of open source is actively hostile to the concept of “if someone learns my secret sauce, i’m ruined!” so a lot of business based on that secrecy do not choose to wade into it. Thats what makes the popcorn so delicious right now. Someone did! :slight_smile:

1 Like
10

Open source (OS) had given users poorly built 3D printers for over a decade before Bambu Lab (BL) came along. Printer makers built on OS are not compete on innovation, but rather on fast releases of small incremental improvements and on price- the race to the bottom.

In 3D printing, tinkerers may view that era as a good old time. But for a lot more users like me, that was a bad old time. I am glad BL isn’t another OS company.

The recent episode highlighted how the OS can continue to hinder progress in 3D printing. It is clear that as long as Bambu Studio is OS, it cannot be revolutionary, but can only move along with the rest of the OS gang. BL will have to disentangle from it before it is worthwhile to invest to make true innovation on the slicer front.

1 Like
11

Pretty much anything that starts with some kind of “source” material which is made available in it’s original form. An original CAD format for a 3D model, a circuit diagram or PCB layout, vector version of a sewing pattern, Photoshop file of a composite image, etc. The idea being that one doesn’t have to re-create something from scratch in order to modify it. Typically of course this means the whole design concept is also liberally licensed, or public domain. But OS licenses are concerned with an actual thing they’re protecting, not a concept, since the latter indeed cannot have a tangible source.

-Max

12

Bambu has actively chosen to use the AGPL V3 license. Besides, there’s already a thread on that. That has nothing to do with the OP’s original question. The only thing standing in Bambu’s way is Bambu itself. No one is stopping Bambu from developing anything - that’s nonsense.

We have seen many developments in 3D printing - or rather, in the software for it, such as the recent FullSpectrum Color Mixing print.

13

I get the concept that G-code is source and could be applied. But in my world, as a Designer, everything I design is in CAD. Patents don’t apply to the part. They apply to the concept. Same thing with PCB’s Even the simplest form of patents apply to the shape not the actual physical part. Several of the other examples you used “copyright” applies not “patents”. It is complex to define if copyright is infringed. I have delt with that on several levels. As a pro-photographer, selling photographs to magazines, for example. The magazine has its own policy that is implemented to keep them out of court. In most cases much more restrictive than Legal required.

So summing up. I don’t think open source applies to most physical products. You might argue that things on maker world are Open Source. But that is better described as licensing. But OS is more a concept than a legal term.

14

I’d just like to mention that there’s also CC0 (Creative Commons Zero). I used to release my models under a CC0 licence. This means that anyone can do whatever they want with them - you don’t even have to credit the creator. It’s basically: Do whatever you want with them, even sell them.

Just search for CC0 models on Google or check out MakerWorld.

Screenshot 2026-05-28 010046
Screenshot 2026-05-28 010046986×524 24.9 KB

But I don’t do that anymore, since MakerWorld has moved away from the community spirit somewhat. CC0 is mainly used by people who - how should I put it? - believe that knowledge should be freely accessible and that everyone should learn from one another.

With CC0, it’s almost impossible to make any money, which is an almost ideological concept in today’s world. Just for fun, try searching for CC0 models on MakerWorld - they’re still out there, but rare.

Nowadays, however, many different licences are listed on the MakerWorld page.

15

Well, g-code is not really source, it’s, arguably, more of a final product. But anyway OS licenses are not directly related to copyright or patents since they apply to a tangible thing. I might apply an OS license to my published software code or the original Fusion CAD file of a model, but I also apply a copyright notice for the concept/design (or could patent it in some cases). That’s an important distinction. Just because I chose to share the source for something, doesn’t mean anyone is free to claim the whole design/concept as their own even if they start with a different “source” (assuming original art and all that… indeed copyright claims can get quite complicated, and also there are already multiple threads on these forums debating this last point to death… copy vs. original).

-Max

16

I didn’t say BL was forced by others to use OS for Bambu Studio. It could made sense at the time as BL didn’t have to delay the launch of the X1C.

I didn’t say someone is stopping BL. However with Bambu Studio being open source, they cannot invest millions in money and time to revolutionize it.

No company will make that kind of investment that is necessary for true breakthough if the moment they have it other will have it too. This is not ideological or theoretical, but in reality. It is backed up by the fact that for over a decade, OS had meant slow progress. No company would make the necessary investment.

BL will disentangle from this mess. The slicer is a major obstacle for 3D printing to go to the general public. Any new startup(s) that is quietly working hard under the radar for a future challenge to BL will also learn from this and go for a proprietary slicer, proibably from the get-go.

17

The facts simply contradict you, no matter how often you repeat that. See also the link I posted to the article. Other than viewing it as your own opinion, there’s simply no basis for discussion.

If you want to disprove the entire report, go ahead. I won’t stop you. :man_shrugging:

Alternatively, you can also check out the other link to the releases page that Bambu is constantly further improving.

18

G-code is an international standard, ISO 6983 to be exact. G-code is a standard in the same way that screw thread dimension are standards.

19

Resin printers don’t use open-source slicers.

20

Out of curiosity I scanned that page, I don’t really see where it mentions anything about any true breakthoroughs, it seemed to be more about how many companys are doing the same old thing using the same old source code.

1 Like