41–50 of 172 posts
[flagged]
For a concrete example look at OpenWRT, there were not many good choices before copyleft forced the linksys release. Now they have exploded and there is an entire ecosystem of open software and modifications on routers.
Cannot agree more with Josef on how dangerous this is for our intellectual property; Of course there laws and mechanisms in China for the government to obtain any information retained by their companies under any possible justification, but the US does so, and thanks to the Cloud Act they can simply decide to do the same with any of the big players sitting in their territory (even to servers located out of their terr…
No one pretends that everything else is fine.
It is in my opinion reasonable to call out any violations of any law or any violations of the users' or companies' privacy as they are spotted. And everyone is best suited to spot issues in areas or fields in which they operate.
I would like some precedents, to see if AGPL is actually enforceable. Many licenses put several demands on user, but are some parts are void and illegal. Like OEM licenses for MS Windows, that forbit reselling. License can not order someone to publish something. They may not have a rights to publish code, or it was created as part of employment...
AGPLv3 still has the termination clause which is at least in the worst case (total failure to comply) entirely self-contained. I'm not however convinced they are really in violation by calling a binary plugin. GPL itself does not forbid you from dynamically linking to or calling unrelated software. The network plugin is analogous to a device driver, it's not core part of the slicer. GPL differentiates between a "Comb…
GPL does not contain the words "dynamically linking". That‘s just a common interpretation as a shortcut.
In this case there are arguments for the program-plugin communication to be "intimate" and as such falling under "derivative work". But it‘s easy to take the other side, as well.
I can't help but wonder how could, Bambulabs or the Chinese government, actually mine that data? In my mind, 3D models fail into two categories: artistic and utilitarian, though there's a continuum between those two. With the artistic side, the Chinese government could find itself in possession of tons and tons of Western miniatures. With the utilitarian side, they will find themselves in possession of lots and lots…
I think you are underestimating how many companies use 3D printing for prototyping. It's not just hobbyists printing miniatures. To give an example, I had RSI and use a high-end, expensive ergonomic keyboard. The company that makes these keyboards does not go immediately from design idea to an expensive mold. There are many design iterations and prototypes and they are all 3D prints. The same is probably true for air…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was curious about this as well. Hypothetically, if they are really trying to extract insight, they could be: - Industrial trend pattern: even if only people accidentally leave the Cloud Feature on initially, there could be some that slip through. It could be product categories way before the public knows about it. - Defence and aerospace: obviously less likely, but if people use Strava in odd locations, and people…
In general, the PRC government will install local politically connected members into advisor roles in almost all large companies. It is something a lot of businesses simply have no control over in that country, or in the US for that matter. The locked ecosystem posture is simply because with a billion people a firm of any size always has irrational competitors/cloners. Sometimes the governments national policy aligns…
Can you expand on instances where the US government has installed overseers in large US companies? This sounds preposterous.
Cannot agree more with Josef on how dangerous this is for our intellectual property; Of course there laws and mechanisms in China for the government to obtain any information retained by their companies under any possible justification, but the US does so, and thanks to the Cloud Act they can simply decide to do the same with any of the big players sitting in their territory (even to servers located out of their terr…
I love Prusa printers and all my machines are Prusa, but they really do need to get their software situation sorted because in it's current form, it's somewhat hard to distinguish from the operational reality of Bambu - if I want to use all the features on my XL, I need to send my files to Czechia first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AGPLv3 still has the termination clause which is at least in the worst case (total failure to comply) entirely self-contained. I'm not however convinced they are really in violation by calling a binary plugin. GPL itself does not forbid you from dynamically linking to or calling unrelated software. The network plugin is analogous to a device driver, it's not core part of the slicer. GPL differentiates between a "Comb…
> GPL itself does not forbid you from dynamically linking GPL does not contain the words "dynamically linking". That‘s just a common interpretation as a shortcut. In this case there are arguments for the program-plugin communication to be "intimate" and as such falling under "derivative work". But it‘s easy to take the other side, as well.
GPL license in spirit is about assuring the user freedoms. No user freedoms are limited in this case. You are free to modify and redistribute the software as you like. OrcaSlicer pulls changes from Bambu without any issues.
I don't think trying to enforce the license in this way, even if possible (which again I think if it was it would happen with Linux drivers long before), is the right thing to do anyway. All it's doing is painting the GPL as a liability to any business for no benefit.
I can't help but wonder how could, Bambulabs or the Chinese government, actually mine that data? In my mind, 3D models fail into two categories: artistic and utilitarian, though there's a continuum between those two. With the artistic side, the Chinese government could find itself in possession of tons and tons of Western miniatures. With the utilitarian side, they will find themselves in possession of lots and lots…
Not everything that a Chinese company does is for nefarious reason or under the hidden agenda of the Chinese government. The reality is much more mundane: many Chinese companies do not understand the expectations around open source. There isn’t anything really equivalent in China. The closest mindset is that things that are available to use, are available to take. The notion of copyright -while not inexistent- is not…
Copyright is not some kind of spiritual nonsense. It's law. You don't need to understand how, you just need to follow it. There can be legal questions on what exactly you can do, but those can arise for any kind of law.
Of course you could also ignore copyright law - but that's the same with any other law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like an overreaction. Licensing aside it is trivial to use a Bambu completely air gapped. If someone uses AI at all but cares about this I hope the irony is not lost on them.
Or, just maybe, buy a printer that does not actively disrespect their users?