So, taking into account >80% of European companies rely either on Amazon, Microsoft or Google to store all their most private and business sensitive data, is this any different from all the data we are possibly leaking already? Same with AI, same with the phones and payment systems we use on a daily basis...
Sometimes I just have the impression that this has nothing to do with protecting our intellectual property but rather with finding an enemy and focus on that while pretending everything else is fine... and a blogpost from the owner of Prusa Research talking about their main competitor is a good demonstration of that.
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.
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 think my next printer will be mostly 3D printed, with a few generic parts like motor controllers, the odd bit of metal tubing, off the shelf bed levelling system, open source software etc.
I only need single colour prints for work, and AFAIK the fastest printer on the planet is mostly 3D printed, I'd start with that one as a base and adapt it for my needs. I considered Bambu until they started down the road that ends with me not having control of the product I own. Any company on that path does not get my money.
I think it’s funny how much this battle has been contorted since it started.
This fight started because someone added Bambu Cloud support back into OrcaSlicer because it’s what users wanted.
These are the first 3 lines of Louis Rossman’s fork’s README:
> This version of OrcaSlicer restores full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers.
> You are not limited to LAN only.
> It works over the internet just like before, through BambuNetwork, with full functionality for normal use and printing.
Yet reading all of the comments on HN you would be left with the impression that Bambu was fighting to force everyone to use their cloud service.
What you're looking for then is a Voron. They're the printers that Bambu was "inspired" by and are made with all off-the-shelf parts.
I really enjoyed building my Voron 2.4. I bought a kit that included all the wires pre-harnessed which made it much simpler to do.
I fully intend to spec and build a 2.4 in the near future.
There's an absolute fuckton of new, offline 3D printers for sale in the world. If disconnected operation is the goal, then finding a disconnected printer to buy is a simple affair. Lots of them just take regular gcode (as produced by Orca Slicer or similar) from an SD card or over USB, and don't have built-in networking as a feature at all.
If having it run open-source firmware is also a goal, then that's fine too: Research it first to ensure that its stock controller board can be flashed with custom-built Marlin (for complete airgap) and/or Klipper (which tends to imply LAN-only connectivity).
Being able to run open firmware is more common than it is unusual.
It's a pretty basic research task to drill down and then pick one with the price/performance/community/support characteristics that you want. After that, just assemble the machine when it shows up, and then build Marlin or Klipper for it.
And people in the 3D printing community will help with all aspects of this process, regardless of how you set your own goals. :)
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 humidifiers, drones, or whatever other object you can come up with.
If you have access to everyone's STLs, you basically have access to all the design prototypes and something close to the final product.
It's like industrial espionage, except companies are willingly giving you the data, because they do not want to spend the extra money for a farm of Prusa printers.
It's a brilliant play of the Chinese government. Exploiting that we prefer short-term savings over long-term strategy.
This pattern repeats over and over again, from 3D printers to people buying Chinese fitness watches because they are cheaper than EU and US counterparts.
There’s plenty of other more valuable things that are prototyped using 3D printers, such as high end commercial machines, or components that go into those machines.
I suspect that getting hold of STLs from US defence manufacturers would be extremely valuable. Why bother trying to capture a copy of your enemies technology, when they’ll happy just send you all the prototype STLs. Even if it’s not defence, don’t you think access to prototype components from EUV machines from ASML would be crazy valuable to Chinese companies trying to close the gap between Chinese and Western chip fabrication technologies?
The only case where they might not be able to do that is if they literally can't buy the part (e.g. the military). But the military does not use Bambu printers.
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 really a basic cultural notion. Even more so, not caring about ownership, and not enforcing the legalities of it, is partly what allowed innovation at such rapid pace in China.
After all, the Chinese government mandated for decades that all foreign companies setting up shop in China had to have a 51% majority local partner, and technology transfer was mandatory. Basically a government-mandated mandatory transfer of knowledge, to be freely used by the local recipients of it.
So the intricacies of Open Source licenses are a bit lost. Many understand the benefit of it, but not the expectations put on them for this benefit.
In the case of Bambulabs, I suspect that, in their mind, they just want to control their platform. They show their misunderstanding of Open Source rights and expectations and I’m pretty sure they are baffled by the reaction.
It not necessarily malevolent or malicious, though it looks that way from a Western perspective, but more of a cultural impedance mismatch.
They are not idiots, but not everyone at that company will actually understand the duties that come with these licenses.
This reminds me of the fights Naomi Wu used to have a few years ago, going to other 3D printer manufacturers in ShenZhen who were using GPL software but would not release their modifications for their equipment.
She had a hard time making them understand and see the duties and benefits that came with using these types of licenses.
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.
The EFF, Creative Commons, FSF - they're all based in America. The licenses they write are based on American legal concepts.
It's interesting to see a Czech CEO commenting on (and quoting) and English translation of Chinese law in the context of a license written in America. As he points out in the thread, AGPL is unenforceable against a Chinese company if China doesn't recognize the rights AGPL is predicated on.
Except that Bambu is not a small player in the game, and they made threats of using the DMCA which shows they are fully aware of "western" IP law and the nature of licenses, Open or otherwise.
Apparently until someone finds the things you make available to use and uses them to circumvent your own forced limitation on the product.
Sending cease and desists to developers using AGPL code has nothing to do with any mindset other than bold faced greed. While China has been the source of many ancient inventions, I doubt they invented greed.
And Chinese government and companies clearly understand Open Source. They support open licenses, standardsm, software and hardware wherever it benefits them – mostly by making western competitors relying on IP and licensing weaker.
Naomi Wu made herself notable in media, and in China "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down". Unfortunate, as she seemed like a real entrepreneurial leader with skill. =3
> Vice published a profile on Wu that included personal details regarding her sexual orientation, which she had explicitly asked them to keep off the record out of fear of state censorship and government retaliation in China.
This is the first three lines of the FULU fork of OrcaSlicer from Louis Rossmann:
> This version of OrcaSlicer restores full BambuNetwork support for Bambu Lab printers.
> You are not limited to LAN only.
> It works over the internet just like before, through BambuNetwork, with full functionality for normal use and printing.
Reading the comment sections are confusing because so many people without Bambu printers have assumed the battle is going the other way, with users fighting to not use Bambu’s cloud servers.
Your comment is close to getting to the root of why the arguments are getting weird: The Chinese government isn’t interested in scooping up all of the trinkets being printed. Anyone using a Bambu printer for anything sensitive was already using LAN mode or SD card for printing. The users fighting for this wanted to go back to sending their prints through the cloud for convenience.
I'd like to just highlight that this may soon no longer be (legally) possible thanks to state legislation. At least in California, see: https://eff.org/3DPrintCA
I encourage folks to share this and the NY campaigns (eff.org/3DPrintNY), as this new surveillance does put people/industries relying on 3D printers at risk
- 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 share classified defence info on War Thunder, then it wouldn’t surprise me if someone slipped something through.
It wouldn’t surprise me if such automated analysis is setup somewhere in China.
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 with a firm, but the support always comes at a price for every business owner. Communism is certainly different with subsidized labor pools, and worker support obligations.
Both China and the US governments engage in trade policy/intelligence shenanigans to try to position themselves for whats more than fair.
Global businesses must learn there is no difference between feigned incompetence, and real negligence. As a small firm most simply can't afford to defend themselves legally if targeted, and vastly undervalue why QA checkpoint roles are important. =3
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26184/26184-h/26184-h.htm
China is a big place, having both good and bad businesses... just like the US. =3
Can you expand on instances where the US government has installed overseers in large US companies? This sounds preposterous.
I'm building a prototype chemical vapor deposition system in a space with strong Chinese interest and activity. I picked Prusa 3D machines over Bambu because of the potential for losing critical proprietary IP with Bambu. Can't take the chance.
Custom firmware is always a thing for these printers.
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2026/may/18/bambu-studio-3d-p...
This is a social problem, and reverse engineering can only help up to a point.
I’m not sure how well tested AGPL has been tested in court, but assuming it has, the SFC has the right to reverse engineer anything covered by the license. That will help people sooner than trying to get a court to make a decision.
I hope that archive services implement preserving twitter content.
e.g. https://nitter.net/josefprusa/status/2054602354851254330
Nitter instances status pages: https://status.d420.de/
I really like Bambu's machines. Their quality and prices are both excellent. But they no longer have an edge feature and speed wise. I can get pretty much the same product from Creality, so why would I even entertain a user-hostile company like Bambu?
Without these issues, I would have already bought a Bambu printer. Now, I'm investigating all competitors.
That does not a moat make. Everyone has caught up. Go buy a Prusa (I'm currently hovering over the buy button on a Core One L, I really don't have the space but...). Go buy a Qidi. Go buy a Snapmaker. Hell, even the Elegoo Centuri is an excellent printer for the price. They have tons of competition and offer little above them aside from questionable ethics and a bad attitude.
Going from an old Prusa MK3s to a Bambu P1P+AMS was a huge upgrade. Mostly speed, reliable bed adhesion, and easy material swapping, it’s made printing as a hobby much more fun, and at this point I’m more interested in designing things to print than tinkering with the printer itself.
I’ve followed the online drama, but so far, not regretting the purchase. Would avoid Bambu if printing comercially/at scale, but the ‘user hostility’ doesn’t have much real world impact on hobbyists with 1-2 printers. Yet.
Going from a bedslinger to a CoreXY is why you felt the Bambu P1 was a big upgrade. Bambu didn't invent printers with those kinematics, they were just the first major ones on the market and marketed the hell out of it.
Yes, everyone has caught up to Bambu these days. I have personal experience with Creality and Anycubic.
Western providers of the open weight models are 3 times or more as expensive as DeepSeek itself right now.
Of course the data access for the Chinese is not the only part valued in there, but I am pretty sure it is one.
If Josef really wants to go after BambuLab over AGPL violations he can do what the music/movie industries did: have them blocked at the ISP level.
Cease and desist for all servers outside China. Block traffic at ISP levels.
Unlike various pirate websites there won't be a hundred copy cats to also hunt down.
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...
No it can't, you are right.
By default, you don't have any right to use any given software. The license outlines the conditions under which you have are permitted to use it. If you don't comply with the conditions, you aren't permitted to use it.
The license isn't ordering you to do anything, you can simply not use the software!
if I sign a contract saying I'll produce a million Iron Man action figures, but I don't have the IP for Iron Man, I can't just shrug my shoulders and say "well, you can't make me." the Court would make me pay damages.
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 "Combined Work" and an "Aggregate":
> A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
If they tried to add DRM to Bambu Studio and prevent you from replacing their blackbox with a different one then that would be where they would clearly go against the v3's TiVo provisions.
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 mean this as general advice; never trust software released/written/shared by mechanical/robotics engineers, especially ones from China. There's something deep-seated in their psychology where they ignore coding standards and can't conceptualize and obey software licenses.
But that's just not true? You can connect a printer in LAN/dev mode and print directly from slicer to printer. There are apparently some issues with more complex network setups but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
I think the concerns he has generally are valid, but I have yet to see something from a legal perspective (e.g. precedent) that convinces me this constitutes a license violation. Would love to see one.
If their license is void, then distribution is illegal, right?
The biggest companies in the world use licenses to weild power over people, but heaven forbid people use the same body of law to their benefit.
Which is to day you can go to any western court and have import stopped at the border.
(And, frankly, for Western providers to do similar things. Even major players like OpenAI have terms that really should not be seen as commercially acceptable unless you manage to negotiate ZDR.)
Instead, its negotiation and laughable settlements.
As someone who does work with FLOSS, if I violated their copyright/patent, theyd extract pounfs of flesh from me. Tit for tat.
Im done with nice. I want blood from corporations who wrong us.
If they're in violation of your copyright agreements, sue them. If you can't sue them because it's unenforceable, well, that sucks, but too bad.
I don't know what they expect to happen here. Is there even a clear call to action? Boycott? Do something.
If there is no legal recourse, but you believe in the ideas and philosophy of copyleft, then all that is left is social enforcement. I.e. don’t buy their printers and tell your friends not to buy their printers.
But you seem to have a problem with that second part because it’s “performative”? Ok…
Or is it just that you’d rather the call to action was clearer? Because it’s pretty clear to me.
Fundamentally this rubs me the same wrong way as others attempting to enforce social contracts do. It feels wrong to assume that western ethics should be universal and apply to a foreign entity such as a business in China. Perhaps they simply view this as a viable approach? And, surprise, it is, at least for them. Do I wish that weren't the case? Sure, that'd be grand. But I don't see how this post gets us any closer to that fantasy.
Put yourself in their shoes. Someone released some software under a license designed around a foreign legal framework that doesn't apply to you. You can make products using that software that people want and make money. Is it your fault you are immune from the license? Is it your government's? Is it wrong to do so? I don't think it's clear enough.
And yeah the call to action should be clear. It's not. I don't see why they can't pursue legal action and go for damages or at the very least prevent the sale of their printers in local jurisdictions. Perhaps that would still be performative but it at least creates precedence that others can use to strengthen their own cases, or allow governments to push for action. But it appears like they're doing nothing.
If the US or the EU are going to do nothing about Chinese companies pedaling wares derived from US/EU IP made possible only by dodging licensing requirements then perhaps it's simply not a viable approach to rely on copyleft to protect you. Or you can try and change that.
They could have created their complete custom, closed source, commercially licensed slicer. They didn't. It was probably a lot cheaper to take some else's work and slap your customizations on it.
On open source license if first and foremost the original author's decision on what can and can not, must or must not be done with their code. therefore shaming someone for ignoring the wishes is not just a last resort, but a valid strategy. Especially if it is company that wants and has money.
We wouldn't need any legal avenue when saying "don't be a dick" would work. Not respecting someone's work and wishes seems to be a pretty universal dick move from what I understand.
I know no one’s going to go into other peoples houses to break their printers, but the whole social enforcement thing really soured me after what happened with my EVs the past year. Even when I agree with the principle I automatically hate any call to impose opinions on other people’s purchases. Most people will be responsible about it but it will inspire enough unhinged people to tarnish the cause.
Surely you can see the difference in stakes between those two situations? Or maybe you can’t… you bought a cybertruck lol
I do agree with you though, that every time these things happen I also get a somewhat sour taste in my mouth. Ideally there'd be better venues for things like this, but based on history it seems to be the most effective way, sadly.
It seems we have arrived at the "HN does not read license texts" hour again.
Of course they can. The nature of any software license boils down to "this work is protected by copyright. If you comply to A, B and C, you can do D, E and F that otherwise would have violated copyright law". A, B and C can be whatever you want. It can be "don't use this in nuclear power plants" (MS likes that condition), it can be "if you make less than $100k anually" (Unity etc), or it can be "if you share the source code" (copyleft). You can make that clause as wide or unrelated as you want
The real issue with GPL and AGPL is how badly defined the boundary is unless you have a single compiled C program
No, the plugin is downloaded at runtime on first launch
The amount of outright obfuscation with this issue is absurd. Either many of the big names that have jumped on the bandwagon are credulous idiots or deliberately misrepresenting what has happened for their own gain.
