▲ 439 ▼ [Jeff Geerling] I'm never buying a Bambu Lab 3D printer again (www.youtube.com) submitted 3 months ago by grue@lemmy.world to c/3dprinting@lemmy.world 144 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] vxx@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (1 child) Didnt they sign a contract to make it open the moment they used open source Code as their base? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] daannii@lemmy.world -14 points 3 months ago (2 children) I don't think so. Open source stuff doesn't usually require that for using it as a base. Android OS is based on open source. Did Microsoft or whoever owns it, sign a contract saying they promise to keep it open since it's based on linux ? I don't think it works like that. Open source base just means you can't charge money for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 11 points 3 months ago (1 child) Please look up ooensource because it is a lot more nuanced than that and there are a lot of different approaches and even definitions of open source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] daannii@lemmy.world -7 points 3 months ago* (2 children) Okay but we are talking about Bambu using a specific open source code for creating their software and firmware. Have they violated the use of that specific open source code in some way ? Their software is free to use. Creality firmware is based on open source but they make it hard to jail break their printers too. Why aren't you going on tirade about creality? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vxx@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I just got this Info from a Youtube channel yesterday, so take it with a grain of salt, but they said that the license indeed includes that clause. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago (2 children) Seems like the owner would be suing them if that was the case. Honestly it all sounds like manufactured drama to me. If you don't like Bambu product limits. Just use a different brand. There are many other companies. No one is forcing people to use bambu products. It would be like me complaining a company doesn't sell the shoes I want. And then trying to sue them because of that and start drama in shoe comunities. Saying they are in the wrong for not running their company and offering services or products I want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vxx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) Suing is expensive, but it's all speculation from my side, so I don't want to lean heavily into the argument. I agree that it got some vibes to it that wants me to agree with you. Did they recently implement a "feature" that doesnt allow the printing of guns or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) I don't think there has been any gun banning on printers. Only on 3d file host websites and that's all of them as far as I know. And I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to ban a printer from printing a gun. A gun would print in multiple components that could be almost anything from looking at one part at a time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago Not using it is a way of distancing yourself. I agree. But the bigger issue to me Is that they are making money from the work of others without giving back. It's an ethical question for me and I want to change that behaviour not just in regards to me as a customer but as a whole for the industry to foster the advancement of the technology itself. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago* Afaik the firmware is self developed and closed source, so not free. as in freedom of code and free as in beer. The software slicer is based on prusa slicer which is based on slic3r which uses the agplv3 which dictates that all works derived from the original code needs to be published as code under the same license. They do that. But the trick is that they add closed source modules that are essential for the whole system to work and therefore control their devices and ecosystem via restrictive licenses or plain unavailability of sources. Regarding creality : the last time I used a creality printer it used marlin as firmware and it was trivial to compile and flash and modify. But in general you don't need to make your product easy to jailbreak under most ooensource licenses, you need to publish the code. Those are two different things. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago Much of Android is open source. That's why AOSP, LineageOS, Graphene, etc can exist. Google Play Services is not part of the kernel. Windows existed long before Linux. Or do you think MS develops Android? Open source base just means you can't charge money for it. That is very inaccurate. GPL3 specifically says all derivative work is also open source. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] daannii@lemmy.world -14 points 3 months ago (2 children) I don't think so. Open source stuff doesn't usually require that for using it as a base. Android OS is based on open source. Did Microsoft or whoever owns it, sign a contract saying they promise to keep it open since it's based on linux ? I don't think it works like that. Open source base just means you can't charge money for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 11 points 3 months ago (1 child) Please look up ooensource because it is a lot more nuanced than that and there are a lot of different approaches and even definitions of open source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] daannii@lemmy.world -7 points 3 months ago* (2 children) Okay but we are talking about Bambu using a specific open source code for creating their software and firmware. Have they violated the use of that specific open source code in some way ? Their software is free to use. Creality firmware is based on open source but they make it hard to jail break their printers too. Why aren't you going on tirade about creality? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vxx@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I just got this Info from a Youtube channel yesterday, so take it with a grain of salt, but they said that the license indeed includes that clause. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago (2 children) Seems like the owner would be suing them if that was the case. Honestly it all sounds like manufactured drama to me. If you don't like Bambu product limits. Just use a different brand. There are many other companies. No one is forcing people to use bambu products. It would be like me complaining a company doesn't sell the shoes I want. And then trying to sue them because of that and start drama in shoe comunities. Saying they are in the wrong for not running their company and offering services or products I want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vxx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) Suing is expensive, but it's all speculation from my side, so I don't want to lean heavily into the argument. I agree that it got some vibes to it that wants me to agree with you. Did they recently implement a "feature" that doesnt allow the printing of guns or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) I don't think there has been any gun banning on printers. Only on 3d file host websites and that's all of them as far as I know. And I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to ban a printer from printing a gun. A gun would print in multiple components that could be almost anything from looking at one part at a time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago Not using it is a way of distancing yourself. I agree. But the bigger issue to me Is that they are making money from the work of others without giving back. It's an ethical question for me and I want to change that behaviour not just in regards to me as a customer but as a whole for the industry to foster the advancement of the technology itself. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago* Afaik the firmware is self developed and closed source, so not free. as in freedom of code and free as in beer. The software slicer is based on prusa slicer which is based on slic3r which uses the agplv3 which dictates that all works derived from the original code needs to be published as code under the same license. They do that. But the trick is that they add closed source modules that are essential for the whole system to work and therefore control their devices and ecosystem via restrictive licenses or plain unavailability of sources. Regarding creality : the last time I used a creality printer it used marlin as firmware and it was trivial to compile and flash and modify. But in general you don't need to make your product easy to jailbreak under most ooensource licenses, you need to publish the code. Those are two different things. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago Much of Android is open source. That's why AOSP, LineageOS, Graphene, etc can exist. Google Play Services is not part of the kernel. Windows existed long before Linux. Or do you think MS develops Android? Open source base just means you can't charge money for it. That is very inaccurate. GPL3 specifically says all derivative work is also open source. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 11 points 3 months ago (1 child) Please look up ooensource because it is a lot more nuanced than that and there are a lot of different approaches and even definitions of open source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] daannii@lemmy.world -7 points 3 months ago* (2 children) Okay but we are talking about Bambu using a specific open source code for creating their software and firmware. Have they violated the use of that specific open source code in some way ? Their software is free to use. Creality firmware is based on open source but they make it hard to jail break their printers too. Why aren't you going on tirade about creality? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vxx@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I just got this Info from a Youtube channel yesterday, so take it with a grain of salt, but they said that the license indeed includes that clause. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago (2 children) Seems like the owner would be suing them if that was the case. Honestly it all sounds like manufactured drama to me. If you don't like Bambu product limits. Just use a different brand. There are many other companies. No one is forcing people to use bambu products. It would be like me complaining a company doesn't sell the shoes I want. And then trying to sue them because of that and start drama in shoe comunities. Saying they are in the wrong for not running their company and offering services or products I want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vxx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) Suing is expensive, but it's all speculation from my side, so I don't want to lean heavily into the argument. I agree that it got some vibes to it that wants me to agree with you. Did they recently implement a "feature" that doesnt allow the printing of guns or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) I don't think there has been any gun banning on printers. Only on 3d file host websites and that's all of them as far as I know. And I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to ban a printer from printing a gun. A gun would print in multiple components that could be almost anything from looking at one part at a time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago Not using it is a way of distancing yourself. I agree. But the bigger issue to me Is that they are making money from the work of others without giving back. It's an ethical question for me and I want to change that behaviour not just in regards to me as a customer but as a whole for the industry to foster the advancement of the technology itself. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago* Afaik the firmware is self developed and closed source, so not free. as in freedom of code and free as in beer. The software slicer is based on prusa slicer which is based on slic3r which uses the agplv3 which dictates that all works derived from the original code needs to be published as code under the same license. They do that. But the trick is that they add closed source modules that are essential for the whole system to work and therefore control their devices and ecosystem via restrictive licenses or plain unavailability of sources. Regarding creality : the last time I used a creality printer it used marlin as firmware and it was trivial to compile and flash and modify. But in general you don't need to make your product easy to jailbreak under most ooensource licenses, you need to publish the code. Those are two different things. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] daannii@lemmy.world -7 points 3 months ago* (2 children) Okay but we are talking about Bambu using a specific open source code for creating their software and firmware. Have they violated the use of that specific open source code in some way ? Their software is free to use. Creality firmware is based on open source but they make it hard to jail break their printers too. Why aren't you going on tirade about creality? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vxx@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I just got this Info from a Youtube channel yesterday, so take it with a grain of salt, but they said that the license indeed includes that clause. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago (2 children) Seems like the owner would be suing them if that was the case. Honestly it all sounds like manufactured drama to me. If you don't like Bambu product limits. Just use a different brand. There are many other companies. No one is forcing people to use bambu products. It would be like me complaining a company doesn't sell the shoes I want. And then trying to sue them because of that and start drama in shoe comunities. Saying they are in the wrong for not running their company and offering services or products I want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vxx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) Suing is expensive, but it's all speculation from my side, so I don't want to lean heavily into the argument. I agree that it got some vibes to it that wants me to agree with you. Did they recently implement a "feature" that doesnt allow the printing of guns or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) I don't think there has been any gun banning on printers. Only on 3d file host websites and that's all of them as far as I know. And I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to ban a printer from printing a gun. A gun would print in multiple components that could be almost anything from looking at one part at a time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago Not using it is a way of distancing yourself. I agree. But the bigger issue to me Is that they are making money from the work of others without giving back. It's an ethical question for me and I want to change that behaviour not just in regards to me as a customer but as a whole for the industry to foster the advancement of the technology itself. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago* Afaik the firmware is self developed and closed source, so not free. as in freedom of code and free as in beer. The software slicer is based on prusa slicer which is based on slic3r which uses the agplv3 which dictates that all works derived from the original code needs to be published as code under the same license. They do that. But the trick is that they add closed source modules that are essential for the whole system to work and therefore control their devices and ecosystem via restrictive licenses or plain unavailability of sources. Regarding creality : the last time I used a creality printer it used marlin as firmware and it was trivial to compile and flash and modify. But in general you don't need to make your product easy to jailbreak under most ooensource licenses, you need to publish the code. Those are two different things. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vxx@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I just got this Info from a Youtube channel yesterday, so take it with a grain of salt, but they said that the license indeed includes that clause. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago (2 children) Seems like the owner would be suing them if that was the case. Honestly it all sounds like manufactured drama to me. If you don't like Bambu product limits. Just use a different brand. There are many other companies. No one is forcing people to use bambu products. It would be like me complaining a company doesn't sell the shoes I want. And then trying to sue them because of that and start drama in shoe comunities. Saying they are in the wrong for not running their company and offering services or products I want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vxx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) Suing is expensive, but it's all speculation from my side, so I don't want to lean heavily into the argument. I agree that it got some vibes to it that wants me to agree with you. Did they recently implement a "feature" that doesnt allow the printing of guns or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) I don't think there has been any gun banning on printers. Only on 3d file host websites and that's all of them as far as I know. And I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to ban a printer from printing a gun. A gun would print in multiple components that could be almost anything from looking at one part at a time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago Not using it is a way of distancing yourself. I agree. But the bigger issue to me Is that they are making money from the work of others without giving back. It's an ethical question for me and I want to change that behaviour not just in regards to me as a customer but as a whole for the industry to foster the advancement of the technology itself. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] daannii@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago (2 children) Seems like the owner would be suing them if that was the case. Honestly it all sounds like manufactured drama to me. If you don't like Bambu product limits. Just use a different brand. There are many other companies. No one is forcing people to use bambu products. It would be like me complaining a company doesn't sell the shoes I want. And then trying to sue them because of that and start drama in shoe comunities. Saying they are in the wrong for not running their company and offering services or products I want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vxx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) Suing is expensive, but it's all speculation from my side, so I don't want to lean heavily into the argument. I agree that it got some vibes to it that wants me to agree with you. Did they recently implement a "feature" that doesnt allow the printing of guns or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) I don't think there has been any gun banning on printers. Only on 3d file host websites and that's all of them as far as I know. And I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to ban a printer from printing a gun. A gun would print in multiple components that could be almost anything from looking at one part at a time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago Not using it is a way of distancing yourself. I agree. But the bigger issue to me Is that they are making money from the work of others without giving back. It's an ethical question for me and I want to change that behaviour not just in regards to me as a customer but as a whole for the industry to foster the advancement of the technology itself. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vxx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) Suing is expensive, but it's all speculation from my side, so I don't want to lean heavily into the argument. I agree that it got some vibes to it that wants me to agree with you. Did they recently implement a "feature" that doesnt allow the printing of guns or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daannii@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) I don't think there has been any gun banning on printers. Only on 3d file host websites and that's all of them as far as I know. And I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to ban a printer from printing a gun. A gun would print in multiple components that could be almost anything from looking at one part at a time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] daannii@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) I don't think there has been any gun banning on printers. Only on 3d file host websites and that's all of them as far as I know. And I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to ban a printer from printing a gun. A gun would print in multiple components that could be almost anything from looking at one part at a time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago Not using it is a way of distancing yourself. I agree. But the bigger issue to me Is that they are making money from the work of others without giving back. It's an ethical question for me and I want to change that behaviour not just in regards to me as a customer but as a whole for the industry to foster the advancement of the technology itself. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago* Afaik the firmware is self developed and closed source, so not free. as in freedom of code and free as in beer. The software slicer is based on prusa slicer which is based on slic3r which uses the agplv3 which dictates that all works derived from the original code needs to be published as code under the same license. They do that. But the trick is that they add closed source modules that are essential for the whole system to work and therefore control their devices and ecosystem via restrictive licenses or plain unavailability of sources. Regarding creality : the last time I used a creality printer it used marlin as firmware and it was trivial to compile and flash and modify. But in general you don't need to make your product easy to jailbreak under most ooensource licenses, you need to publish the code. Those are two different things. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago Much of Android is open source. That's why AOSP, LineageOS, Graphene, etc can exist. Google Play Services is not part of the kernel. Windows existed long before Linux. Or do you think MS develops Android? Open source base just means you can't charge money for it. That is very inaccurate. GPL3 specifically says all derivative work is also open source. permalink fedilink source parent