Talk:Bambu Lab Authorization Control System: Difference between revisions
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Bambu Lab press release== | ==Bambu Lab press release== | ||
A few things that should be added to the article: | A few things that should be added to the article: | ||
* Bambu Lab published a press release from January 18, 2025 after all the heat they got from [https://blog.bambulab.com/firmware-update-introducing-new-authorization-control-system-2/ the initial blog post] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11wl_DqAbSLPVMLZ_8jhlz4lGPLGFQPcp | *Bambu Lab published a press release from January 18, 2025 after all the heat they got from [https://blog.bambulab.com/firmware-update-introducing-new-authorization-control-system-2/ the initial blog post] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11wl_DqAbSLPVMLZ_8jhlz4lGPLGFQPcp | ||
* And here's a Mastodon user saying that this auth control system is a "DMCA trap", he also mentions precedents in the 3D printing market of ChiTu and Stratasys https://mas.to/@zzt/113848144602929391 | *And here's a Mastodon user saying that this auth control system is a "DMCA trap", he also mentions precedents in the 3D printing market of ChiTu and Stratasys https://mas.to/@zzt/113848144602929391 | ||
The ChiTu/Chirtubox issue seems to be referring to this https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/chitu-systems-and-chitubox-a-lesson-in-fighting-open-source-3d-printing-194783/ | The ChiTu/Chirtubox issue seems to be referring to this https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/chitu-systems-and-chitubox-a-lesson-in-fighting-open-source-3d-printing-194783/ | ||
| Line 19: | Line 20: | ||
Some of the citations in here seem off, specifically with regard to the claims Bambu is making regarding the cyber attacks which prompted these changes. One article is about an attack on Anycubic printers exclusively , and the other is from 2018, several years before Bambu even released their first printer. I appreciate the desire to highlight bad business practices, but how is this relevant at all to Bambu? {{Unsigned|50.104.180.233|04:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | Some of the citations in here seem off, specifically with regard to the claims Bambu is making regarding the cyber attacks which prompted these changes. One article is about an attack on Anycubic printers exclusively , and the other is from 2018, several years before Bambu even released their first printer. I appreciate the desire to highlight bad business practices, but how is this relevant at all to Bambu? {{Unsigned|50.104.180.233|04:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | ||
: These articles were the ones Bambu themselves have linked in their bog post as examples of attacks they aim to prevent with this update. [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | :These articles were the ones Bambu themselves have linked in their bog post as examples of attacks they aim to prevent with this update. [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
==January 20, 2025 statement== | ==January 20, 2025 statement== | ||
| Line 61: | Line 62: | ||
To regain the trust of their customers, Bambu Lab could | To regain the trust of their customers, Bambu Lab could | ||
* Remove the need for the proprietary Bambu Connect application and its questionable "security by obscurity" scheme altogether in LAN mode, and allow any kind of software to directly control the devices as it has been before the changes | *Remove the need for the proprietary Bambu Connect application and its questionable "security by obscurity" scheme altogether in LAN mode, and allow any kind of software to directly control the devices as it has been before the changes | ||
* Commit to Developer Mode a supported feature (as in: if it ceases to work properly, then it is a bug that will get fixed) | *Commit to Developer Mode a supported feature (as in: if it ceases to work properly, then it is a bug that will get fixed) | ||
* Promise that Developer Mode allowing unfettered access to all functions of the devices will be and remain a supported feature for all current and future models and versions | *Promise that Developer Mode allowing unfettered access to all functions of the devices will be and remain a supported feature for all current and future models and versions | ||
* Clarify that they will not try to charge money from companies making third-party aftermarket hardware upgrades nor from software developers developing e.g., print farm software | *Clarify that they will not try to charge money from companies making third-party aftermarket hardware upgrades nor from software developers developing e.g., print farm software | ||
* Give a clear commitment that all features of their current and future devices can be controlled by third-party and open source software without the need for any kind of "agreements" or "partnerships" with Bambu Lab, and especially without any form of NDAs or payments | *Give a clear commitment that all features of their current and future devices can be controlled by third-party and open source software without the need for any kind of "agreements" or "partnerships" with Bambu Lab, and especially without any form of NDAs or payments | ||
* Allow the end user to perform firmware installations, including firmware downgrades and installing third-party firmware, without requiring the manufacturer's signatures or permissions | *Allow the end user to perform firmware installations, including firmware downgrades and installing third-party firmware, without requiring the manufacturer's signatures or permissions | ||
* Provide clear instructions on how to install third-party firmware on all components of the system {{Unsigned|2a02:908:1873:e920:78b9:1f19:9dbc:6ac7|09:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | *Provide clear instructions on how to install third-party firmware on all components of the system {{Unsigned|2a02:908:1873:e920:78b9:1f19:9dbc:6ac7|09:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | ||
==Possible hidden reasons== | ==Possible hidden reasons== | ||
| Line 80: | Line 81: | ||
[[Special:Contributions/87.95.124.98|87.95.124.98]] 17:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | [[Special:Contributions/87.95.124.98|87.95.124.98]] 17:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
== "Who can enforce AGPL against Bambu Lab" section might be incorrect == | =="Who can enforce AGPL against Bambu Lab" section might be incorrect== | ||
SFC vs Vizio was filed from a third party beneficiary perspective -- as in, from that of a user of a non-compliant GPL-based software, and not from a copyright holder's of a prior software that the offending software was built upon. SFC's claim is that the GPL is a contract between Vizio and its users, and by not fulfilling its obligations under the GPL, Vizio is breaching this contract, in which even as a user they have standing to sue. So far, that seems to have stuck in court, so there is a pretty good chance that regular users could in fact be plaintiffs. It would of course be a stronger case with an actual copyright holder, but SFC is showing that copyright ownership may not be required for enforcing GPL compliance. | SFC vs Vizio was filed from a third party beneficiary perspective -- as in, from that of a user of a non-compliant GPL-based software, and not from a copyright holder's of a prior software that the offending software was built upon. SFC's claim is that the GPL is a contract between Vizio and its users, and by not fulfilling its obligations under the GPL, Vizio is breaching this contract, in which even as a user they have standing to sue. So far, that seems to have stuck in court, so there is a pretty good chance that regular users could in fact be plaintiffs. It would of course be a stronger case with an actual copyright holder, but SFC is showing that copyright ownership may not be required for enforcing GPL compliance. | ||
| Line 87: | Line 88: | ||
By continuing to ignore that request well beyond any reasonable time-frame for such a response, Bambu is clearly harming third party beneficiaries of the AGPL licence of PrusaSlicer. The only lawyer's opinion who I'm aware of commenting on this issue, that of Leonard French, seems to corroborate both that standing, and that Bambu's original authorisation mechanism is also in clear violation of the AGPL, not just its stance against Pawel Jarczak. But even in Jarczak's case, the precedent of SFC vs Vizio would likely mean that he does have standing to sue, because he too is a third party beneficiary of the AGPL. [[User:B3nsn0w|B3nsn0w]] ([[User talk:B3nsn0w|talk]]) 14:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC) | By continuing to ignore that request well beyond any reasonable time-frame for such a response, Bambu is clearly harming third party beneficiaries of the AGPL licence of PrusaSlicer. The only lawyer's opinion who I'm aware of commenting on this issue, that of Leonard French, seems to corroborate both that standing, and that Bambu's original authorisation mechanism is also in clear violation of the AGPL, not just its stance against Pawel Jarczak. But even in Jarczak's case, the precedent of SFC vs Vizio would likely mean that he does have standing to sue, because he too is a third party beneficiary of the AGPL. [[User:B3nsn0w|B3nsn0w]] ([[User talk:B3nsn0w|talk]]) 14:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC) | ||
:As the statement "Paweł Jarczak personally cannot bring a direct AGPL enforcement action against Bambu Lab. The right to sue for AGPL violations belongs to the original authors whose code Bambu Lab built on top of: the Slic3r contributors, Prusa Research and the PrusaSlicer contributors, and the SoftFever / OrcaSlicer maintainers. Jarczak's role in any formal complaint is reporter and witness, not plaintiff." is currently uncited (as in there is no legal opinion that supports the assertion), I'm honestly fine to just delete or comment out the section for now if there is any doubt over its accuracy. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC) | |||