If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS, OK you wouldn't be alone in that, but there's no moral high ground in it.
In most countries, that would violate consumer rights. There's an ethics argument here.
Feel free to consult Steam, Google, Meta and others, if a software license is enough to ignore consumer rights.
Will this mean that Bambu will withdraw from the Australian market? Possibly maybe probably, but the ACCC takes a very hard stance against bait and switch.
I'd be reasonably happy to lodge a complaint if I could find a version that's reasonably articulated. As a Bambu customer in Australia I switched my printer to local mode and its been great.
Worth pointing out also that the US is the odd one out, here. Europe also enforces consumer rights.
Yes, it's not as simple as that, but it's not that impossible either.
This kind of firmware update to remotely disable feature is also illegal in the EU
Regardless, at least in the US, not only are software-based ToS becoming unenforceable, but there’s a large upswing towards “right to repair” legislation, which, I think, is what you’re arguing against here… and I really think you’re going to be on the wrong side of history with your current line of thinking (despite what Bambu Labs does).
I have no idea why you think copyright violations apply here? You seem to be throwing legal terms around without regard for their actual meaning. It's clear you're here to argue for the sake of argument, but I'd really encourage you to reflect and think about why you're so loyal to a corporate entity instead of your fellow consumers (of which there are many in the parent and sibling comments... hint: you may be on the wrong side).
Just for fun, pretend you bought a propane grill for cooking on Monday. On Tuesday, you cooked some bbq chicken and some corn. Later on Thursday, and without your knowledge or authorization, the grill no longer allowed you to use the propane apparatus for cooking non-meats unless you call a special telephone number and said a magic word whenever the call was answered. As a minimum, I feel, it'd be very confusing because, even though you're doing the exact same thing as Tuesday, the outcome is not the same.
Your freedoms have been restricted by someone else; if you are okay with that, then have fun licking boots. The rest of us will still be here advocating for your freedoms.
When I buy a product, I look at reviews and make my purchasing decision on the features and functionality at the time of sale. If a software update later ruins that, I want the option to get my money back.
At worst, its a fraudulent indefinite rental masquerading as a 'sale'.
And lets discuss 'updates that fuck over your hardware'. In dwcent countries, thats hacking, and a serious criminal charge. But lol, companies are somehow exempt.
There’s a small benefit of anti-circumvention where businesses sell hardware for cheaper with restrictions and a TOS that prevents bypassing them. But even that doesn’t apply here because Bambu changed the software after purchase.
> If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS
How does the TOS get involved here? I don't use their TOS. Why would or should they be able to enforce it? Note that it also depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, Microsoft's EULA never had any legal bearings in the EU.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...
Nobody is arguing against Bambu's legal right to be arseholes.
If so, then yes, the software too
The issue here is less "they put in a restriction" and more "they are trying to bankrupt/imprison consumers for daring to modify the property they purchased."
I could interpret this three ways:
1. It's a reflexive double-down "nuh uh" denial, with no deeper cause.
2. You jumped in without knowing the risks that people (regular non-rich ones, anyway) face from lawsuits or CFAA charges, and you assumed the OrcaSlicer maintainer abandoned their project just to be polite.
3. You're whining that Bambu lawyers were "forced" to make disproportionate threats with nonsense logic. (Which isn't a huge step up, because it means they're still telling threatening lies for their own benefit.)
Legal representation typically has a cost associated to the individual, unless you have the state put down a lawyer for you. You could assume that bankrupting may not be the primary goal by Bambu Lab, but it most assuredly can be an associated outcome, in particular if your income is comparatively low. I don't think sarcasm is appropriate here.
By attempting to stop users from using their AGPL code they are behaving illegally.
By "many" do you mean Bambu Lab themselves who are violating the AGPL license of Prusa slicer & predecessors with their non-AGPL, proprietary networking plugin?
They're choosing to violate the license because they don't think anyone will actually dare to sue them, and they're probably right. Ascribing some sort of moral righteousness to Bambu's actions and accusing users of breaking their license is hysterical.
They should have no rights to control how people use hardware they bought. ToS for hardware should simply be unenforceable.
People should have full rights to adversarial interoperability, even if it means modifying proprietary software or hardware.
It always surprises me when people (on this site particularly) are more interested in the law as it stands than how things could or should be.
I wonder whether tech has become so exploitative partly because so many of us have lost track of (or never understood) how important civil disobedience has always been in the process of democracy and securing our rights.
As an individual you really don’t have to follow the terms of service! You certainly don’t have to support the [ab]use of ToS, DRM and related tech to screw you at every opportunity!
AGPL software can be used and modified within the limits of what the AGPL permits. People can do that with their Bambu software running on their own hardware.
That does not extend to using their proprietary BambuNetwork cloud service (somebody else's computer). The AGPL specifically mentions this scenario in section 6. There are open source alternatives to that like the third-party Bambu-Farm and bambuddy that people can self host instead.
Interestingly, Bambu's own initial approach to the AGPL was more in line with "modifying and using AGPL software however they want" (and potentially violating their section 6 obligations), until customer backlash forced them to adhere to the terms of the licence.
As I said, I believe people have a right to "adversarial interoperability", so I respectfully disagree
While I agree that the AGPL does not grant users any rights to Bambu's cloud service, sending DCMA nastygrams to people hosting copies on old versions of their software isn't the right (or even legal) way to enforce that. And since Bambu choose to build their products and software stack on pre existing AGPL code, they've backed themselves into a corner a bit with other options. They can add new auth to new versions of the code (which is stringer than just hardcoded useragent-like strings in the code) but they'll then have to release the source code to their new version - exactly like the original authors who chose the AGPL intended.
However, the AGPL comes with no right to such network access to begin with. Permission to access the network would usually come separately from the AGPL; I suppose you could potentially bundle it as an additional permission under section 7, but I don't think Bambu is doing that.
To take it a step further, even if you use the latest official software, installed by the vendor (and not by you), they can still refuse you access to their network. That might violate some other agreements or laws (e.g. contract to provide a service), but it does not violate the AGPL itself.
What they cannot do is prevent you from running your modifications on your hardware.
> [...] they can still refuse you access to their network.
Sure, they can and yes, AGPL doesn't give users right to just access services, I have said before that they may enforce their EULA upon individual users. They are however not doing that, they are harassing repo owners. Let me put it this way: If the network access were the issue, as you seem to think, why go after the dev hosting your code rather than the individual users that you claim improperly access your services.
> What they cannot do is prevent you from running your modifications on your hardware.
They also cannot prevent a developer from rehosting AGPL code, but they are trying to do that. And it's kind of the actual issue.
That's why I was asking specifically regarding what level of code modifications is acceptable for them. Because they made this an issue not about using their servers but hosting code, regardless of how it's used.
I agree. I think the argument they are going for is similar to that from Google against yt-dl, but unlike in that case, Bambu is obligated to allow this codebase.
Of course, many prefer to break their license agreement because They Really Want It, in effect daring Bambu to get aggressive with license enforcement. They probably won't...