BambuStudio has been violating PrusaSlicer AGPL license since their fork

TTomte about 3 hours ago 14 commentsRead Article on xcancel.com

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

44% Positive

Analyzed from 637 words in the discussion.

Discussion (14 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

dsign•12 minutes ago

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 of random parts with no way to know what they are for. Of course, there's no telling if the next step of boiling the frog is to require users to attach metadata to their models before the printer prints them...

zipy124•about 1 hour ago

It's become rather clear that Open source licenses are vulnerable, since defending them costs large amount of money, and proving violations can be hard since by definition the products that break them are closed-source.

amazingamazing•7 minutes ago

Open source for medium and small projects is dead if enforcement is a consideration. Trivial to reimplement in same or other language and give yourself plausible deniability.

misswaterfairy•about 1 hour ago

Software Freedom Conservancy is at least fighting back.

https://sfconservancy.org/news/2026/may/18/bambu-studio-3d-p...

thriododkdje•28 minutes ago

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...

skeledrew•2 minutes ago

A license is as enforceable as there are lawyers to advocate for it in court, judges to make rulings for it, and a system of enforcement to make any rulings a reality. Doesn't really matter what's in the license itself.

comandillos•about 1 hour ago

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 territory).

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.

awestroke•25 minutes ago

Your cloud act is making American cloud vendors lose customers in droves

isoprophlex•about 2 hours ago

Its a chinese company. They don't give a single flying fuck. Nor do almost all consumers as long as the product is good. And no western government is gonna care because we let ourselves become so dependent on cheap chinese manufacturing.

bluGill•about 1 hour ago

Western courts have a different perspective since they pretty much universally don't have the larger issue of the Chinese manufacturing as a consideration.

Which is to day you can go to any western court and have import stopped at the border.

amazingamazing•about 1 hour ago

Kind of love the irony of this being an xcancel link

SlinkyOnStairs•about 1 hour ago

This post is now gone. Click the down button and stop reading.

It seems we have arrived at the "HN does not read license texts" hour again.

wongarsu•about 1 hour ago

> Because the AGPL (and even general GPL) are copyright licenses, they simply do not have anything to say about software that is distributed separately

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

misnome•about 1 hour ago

> Which reduces the problem down to "is Bambu doing that"? Given the installer is 300 megabytes, it probably contains both the application and the plugin, but you go launch an international lawsuit over "probably".

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.