Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BambuStudio has been violating PrusaSlicer AGPL license since their fork

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: BambuStudio has been violating PrusaSlicer AGPL license since their fork

#12

Post by dns_snek »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #3

This interpretation would mean that you could not produce AGPL licensed code which loads some code in dynamically. Like say you couldn't have an AGPL licensed web-browser which sometimes loads pages whose JavaScript's source-code is obscured. ?

This is not like a web browser, Bambu Studio requires the networking plugin to function, it explicitly depends on the services provided by a specific plug-in therefore it's not a plug-in at all, except in name.

What you're describing is probably a gray area, the closest example I can think of is the Wordpress plugin ecosystem (GPLv2+).

Re: BambuStudio has been violating PrusaSlicer AGPL license since their fork

#13

Post by walletdrainer »

wlkr wrote: post #6
Gigachad wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more credible source from Prusa (the company behind the source slicer that bambulab forked) https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/josef-prusa-warns-c... The situation is interesting and kind of a grey area. The way they structured the network code as a plugin that downloads after first run is obviously to avoid violating the AGPL license, but if you don’t install it, large parts of the slicer are inaccessible. S…

This is much better than the current slop post. Could it be swapped, please @dang?

The tweets by Josef Prusa also seem LLM generated, this whole story is slop.

Re: BambuStudio has been violating PrusaSlicer AGPL license since their fork

#15

Post by N-Krause »

wlkr wrote: post #6
Gigachad wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more credible source from Prusa (the company behind the source slicer that bambulab forked) https://www.tomshardware.com/3d-printing/josef-prusa-warns-c... The situation is interesting and kind of a grey area. The way they structured the network code as a plugin that downloads after first run is obviously to avoid violating the AGPL license, but if you don’t install it, large parts of the slicer are inaccessible. S…

This is much better than the current slop post. Could it be swapped, please @dang?

The article linked here is a consequence of the actions taken against the repository linked by OP, not a more 'credible source'.

The file linked in by OP, is the main argument by Pawel Jarczak why his fork does not violate any copyright laws (may it be written by/with help of AI or not).

Re: BambuStudio has been violating PrusaSlicer AGPL license since their fork

#16

Post by tsimionescu »

liamgm wrote: post #11

it is okay for agpl3 app to consume propietary library , not the opposite that derived code must be same viral license

If you want to distribute binaries or code based on the (A)GPLv3, or use them to serve content over the wire, you have to distribute the source code of the entire software project under the (A)GPLv3. If part of that software is proprietary and licensed in such a way that you can't or won't distribute its code under the (A)GPLv3 or a compatible license, then you can't use any of the (A)GPLv3 code at all.

Now, there is some unclear legality around the distribution of plug-ins to a standalone software package. Are you allowed to distribute a GPLv3 plug-in to a proprietary program, like a GPLv3 plugin for Visual Studio? Maybe. Are you allowed to sell a proprietary plug-in for a GPLv3 software, like a paid plug-in to Emacs? Again, maybe.

However, the chances for both go down significantly if the "plug-in" is distributed by the same company as the software itself, and if the plugin is critical to major functionality of that software.

Re: BambuStudio has been violating PrusaSlicer AGPL license since their fork

#17

Post by sbrocket »

selectively wrote: post #14

Generated by AI + no one cares about AGPL license compliance (and they aren't violating the AGPL anyway - your AI model is confusing the AGPL for actual GPL).

This is nonsense. AGPLv3 is GPLv3 with an added term that extends it to SaaS/network hosted software as well as software distributed in binary or source form. What are you suggesting the AGPL allows that GPL does not?

AI-generated text is worth skepticism, but humans can be idiots and spout nonsense too.

Re: BambuStudio has been violating PrusaSlicer AGPL license since their fork

#19

Post by sbrocket »

liamgm wrote: post #11

it is okay for agpl3 app to consume propietary library , not the opposite that derived code must be same viral license

This sounds like pro-Bambu wishful thinking rather than an informed opinion. On what basis do you believe proprietary plugins or libraries are allowed under any conditions by the AGPLv3? And if you want to counter that you didn't say "under any conditions", I agree, but that means we need to discuss the particulars of this case to decide whether it's allowed or not.

Bambu took existing open-source, AGPL slicer software for free from the rest of the community and then has continually snubbed that open community by not giving back, or only giving back when they can maintain ultimate control to later decide to be less friendly to their users.

Sorry, no, they can build their own slicer from scratch (hah, good luck) or play by the license. Their networking plugin is tightly integrated with the AGPLv3 Bambu Studio. GNU's stance on plugins is fairly straightforward, and this is not at all a borderline case where the plugin interface is limited: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPlugins

Re: BambuStudio has been violating PrusaSlicer AGPL license since their fork

#20

Post by walletdrainer »

sbrocket wrote: post #17
selectively wrote: post #14

Generated by AI + no one cares about AGPL license compliance (and they aren't violating the AGPL anyway - your AI model is confusing the AGPL for actual GPL).

This is nonsense. AGPLv3 is GPLv3 with an added term that extends it to SaaS/network hosted software as well as software distributed in binary or source form. What are you suggesting the AGPL allows that GPL does not? AI-generated text is worth skepticism, but humans can be idiots and spout nonsense too.

> AI-generated text is worth skepticism, but humans can be idiots and spout nonsense too.

Sure, but anyone posting chains of incredibly long LLM generated tweets can safely be ignored as an utter moron.

Post reply on HN