I remember this happening to Linksys with the WRT-54g routers. They shipped with firmware based on open software (I don’t remember the exact license) and they were brought to court and forced to release the source code.
In the end it really helped the sales of that model because hobbyists wanted it for the freedom of running their own code on it.
oh yeah i remember that. pretty sure that was gpl.
this is sort of a predecessor to that situation thus far: bambu is obviously in the wrong with regards to not handing out gpl’ed source, but they are in their full right to refuse handing out stuff they’ve built on top. so the question then is, is rossman in the clear for having taken their source code? if he has bought one of their printers (most likely) it’s pretty cut and dry, but if he took the code from somewhere else he has technically stolen it and the license does not apply. at least that’s my read.
The GPL applies to code built on top of GPL code, this is the viral nature of the GPL.
Anyone with a GPL license for the code can license anyone else, it does not have to come from the original creator. So Rossmann has a license granted by the creator of the fork. Also the source that Bambu Lab provide on GitHub provides a license as well.
Rossmann has only reuploaded the slicer fork, not any firmware (the article title is inaccurate). But yes, the slicer’s AGPL license does not apply to the firmware.
I remember this happening to Linksys with the WRT-54g routers. They shipped with firmware based on open software (I don’t remember the exact license) and they were brought to court and forced to release the source code.
In the end it really helped the sales of that model because hobbyists wanted it for the freedom of running their own code on it.
oh yeah i remember that. pretty sure that was gpl.
this is sort of a predecessor to that situation thus far: bambu is obviously in the wrong with regards to not handing out gpl’ed source, but they are in their full right to refuse handing out stuff they’ve built on top. so the question then is, is rossman in the clear for having taken their source code? if he has bought one of their printers (most likely) it’s pretty cut and dry, but if he took the code from somewhere else he has technically stolen it and the license does not apply. at least that’s my read.
You aren’t understanding the GPL correctly.
i’m using “on top” rather flippantly here, since orca is AGPL. but bambu may also have separate code running on the machines that is not agpl.
Rossmann has only reuploaded the slicer fork, not any firmware (the article title is inaccurate). But yes, the slicer’s AGPL license does not apply to the firmware.
well then. my argument is moot.