this post was submitted on 14 May 2026

161 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

84597 readers

3967 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

161

Louis Rossmann taunts Bambu Lab by hosting banned 3D Printer firmware fork, dares $1 billion company to sue him — more creators pledge support and boycotts, Snapmaker donates equipment to embattled de (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 1 hour ago by commander@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It looks like Rossman is saying that anyone can post this code because it's an open source, GPL code. Rossman also posted the code: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jhRqgHxEP8&t=2s

[+] lime@feddit.nu -12 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

not really what the gpl means, but good for him i guess?

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 29 points 52 minutes ago (2 children)

The GPL explicitly grants anyone the right to share, distribute, and even modify the source code. So yes, that is exactly what it means. They cannot claim they wrote it, but they can absolutely both share and distribute the source code, and are in fact required to if they do make modifications to it. It's literally the main thing the license is even about.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 8 points 41 minutes ago (1 children)

Small sidenote: distribution of modified source code of GPLv2/v3 covered projects is only mandatory to those who have access to a binary version of the modified sources.

e.g. if you take a GPLv2 covered project that is a simple HTTP server, and you give the binary nobody, then you're not required to share the source (if the HTTP server is AGPL covered then you need to provide it to anyone who can access the HTTP service and requests the source).

This is an important distinction, as you can't demand the source of a GPL project from someone who cloned it and made modifications to their own use without distributing a binary of those changes. If I fork Orca and make some changes, and showcase those as screenshots, you have absolutely no right to demand the source for it. If I were to send you a binary of Orca with my changes, then you'd have the right.

I mean this distinction is obviously not applicable here but I wanted to make sure the GPL summary is fully correct. Which is the best kind of correct.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 22 minutes ago

Wait, i thought that technically correct was the best kind of correct ? i have been LIED TO.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 0 points 47 minutes ago* (last edited 46 minutes ago) (2 children)

maybe my thinking is off then, but in my mind it's mainly for first and second parties? as in, orca and bambu both have to share the source when sharing the binary, not necessarily immediately but on request. anything built on top of gpl code can be closed unless it's agpl. as a third party to all this, can rossman share the code bambu has made on top of orca?

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 4 points 36 minutes ago (1 children)

Your thinking is off, the GPL and derived licenses like the AGPL are viral on purpose. They apply to everybody who uses, downloads, or accesses the software (in the case of the AGPL) and they are explicit about this:

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 25 minutes ago

what i'm reading from that is that both parties must agree that the work has been conveyed. with the risk of going all sovcit, if the conveyed item is a binary, and the producer does not send the source code to the consumer as instructed by the license, can the consumer really pull the source and distribute it? surely if the license is broken the work falls back on default pecmissiots, e.g. all rights reserved?

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 3 points 36 minutes ago

AGPL can be closed too, the license bases the right to the source based on the access to the end product:

GPLv2/v3 - if you have the binary executable output of the GPLv2/3 covered source, you must be granted access to the exact source used to make the binary. This applies to legitimately sourced binaries only - if you were to hack into a company's servers and get a binary of a modified GPL product, this wouldn't apply. But extracting a binary from a device you own IS a legitimate access (so e.g. if your phone uses U-boot, the manufacturer must grant you access to their modified U-Boot sources used to build the bootloader)
AGPL - if you have (legitimate) access to a service you can request the source. This is so e.g. web services can be made into GPLed code where modifications must be released (negating the requirement of possession of a binary, since you can't possess a binary that runs on a remote server). e.g. let's say I run GTK app via browser using kasmVNC - if the app is GPL, I don't have to provide the source, if it's AGPL, I have to provide the source.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 31 points 1 hour ago (5 children)

Great move by Snapmaker. In considering a new printer soon and am very annoyed by how difficult it is to know beforehand how much functionality of a printer is locked behind cloud connectivity that can be remotely disabled at any point.

I know Prusa is a shining example of letting their customers own their devices but they are pricy. I didn't know Snapmaker had the same kind of mentality until now.

[–] ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 9 points 47 minutes ago

You might check out the Consumer Rights Wiki, also started by Rossman. It's crowd sourced, and lists anti-consumer BS like forced cloud subscriptions for a lot of companies.

Just find a printer, look up the company there, and see how legit they are. There's even a browser plugin that pops up on any website that has an entry on the wiki.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 3 points 33 minutes ago

Prusa is pricy because they make the de facto standards - including PrusaSlicer which is the base of OrcaSlicer/Bambu Studio.

Bambu can sell cheaper for two reason:

limited research needed to make their own products - they're just copying open patents and software, tuning it a little, and selling the package at manufacturing cost + profit margins
the CCP pouring a shitton of money into companies to subsidise them and allow them to undercut western competition. Bambu makes a printer for $1000, CCP pays $600 of it, Bambu sells for $600 - $200 profit

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 18 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Knowing what I know now, I' trade my Bambu P1S for a Prusa. Buy once, cry once.

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

My Prusa was tucked in between the cushions of my couch for a cross country move, left in storage for one year, and moved again before I just blew the first off and smashed out a perfect print from an SD card. That's a solid enough performance I don't think I'd consider any other brand.

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 4 points 57 minutes ago

The worst thing about Prusa is the knowledge that no matter what you buy, there will be an upgrade available to an even better one WAY too quickly, and then you'll want that one too. It's a trap, I tell you!

j/k I still love my Prusa MK3S+, though the relentless upgrade temptation is real.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 1 points 39 minutes ago

I pulled mine out of storage after four years. Same thing, blew the dust off, plugged it in, expecting the worst. Nope, it just lit up and ran through the setup procedure. Set the z and printed perfectly, just like I had it set up when I put it in storage. I didn't expect such a sensitive machine with such tight tolerances to just work.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I got the DIY kit Prusa MK3S+ a few years ago during covid, and it has been a workhorse. I love it, but I also don't have experience with many other 3d printers. I worked a bit with them in like the early 2010s but things have changed so much, so I don't know what to compare it to.

[–] sinadia@lemmy.world 0 points 30 minutes ago (1 children)

I really want the DIY kit. How was your experience actually building it?

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 1 points 18 minutes ago

I loved it, but there was one particular part that wasn't clear in the instructions so I had to do some research. There were tons of threads about that one step but I assume they've fixed it from 5 years ago.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

snapmaker has been really nice about that sort of thing. they sent out review units of the u1 early, got roasted, and fixed most of the things ueople didn't like. i've run mine without any sort of account from the start. you can take it completely offline or run it in "lan mode", and the only things that get more annoying are firmmare and remote control. you can still do them, there's just a bit more setup.

[–] 4grams@awful.systems 1 points 10 minutes ago

I bought my Bambu back when orca slicer and local network was out of the box supported. It was only a few months later that they locked out their firmware and started down this path.

I’ve been steadfastly refusing to update firmware. I hope to modify it someday but if not, I’ll just make sure it’s my last Bambu.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 48 minutes ago* (last edited 40 minutes ago) (1 children)

I don't really see the point. I mean, why bother to try to do something that just makes the company's printers more desirable? Even if you "win", the company is going to be a pain in the ass. Do you really want to waste time and financial resources on improving the company's product?

Just don't buy Bambu Lab printers.

[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 1 points 11 minutes ago* (last edited 9 minutes ago)

Because what Bamboo has done is screw over existing customers. People want their printers back to the way they baught it. They shouldn't have to throw their printers in the trash because the manufacture decided to changed the conditions.

If you buy a car with heated seats and 3 years later, the manufacture decided to disable your heated seats unless you paid a subscription, you'd be pretty upset.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 points 28 minutes ago

My next printer is definitely going to be a Snapmaker.

They one-upped Bambu with the fully open approach of the U1, did a better tool changing printer at a lower cost, and are now supporting the good fight. I really hope it's not a publicity stunt before enshittification begins, but so far, I'm liking them a lot.

Fingers crossed for a slightly improved U1 - primarily, a larger print volume (I'd be super happy with a ~5cm increase in all directions, making it 320x320x320), which I'm buying the moment it becomes available.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 33 minutes ago

Lol on me, I bought a p1s like 3 months ago.

Works like a charm though and 300€ is what like the hotend cost on my wanky homemade printer from the past.

Would love a full FOSS replacement ofc.is that something even possible (especially the cloud stuff, mighty convenient)?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Does this community not allow videos? I tried posting a link to it directly yesterday, but Automod removed it instantly.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah happens to me all the time. It's not a good rule imo but doesn't matter we have different subs 🙂

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 34 minutes ago* (last edited 33 minutes ago)

I don't mind it being a rule, but I do mind it being a secret. It needs to be mentioned in the sidebar (probably as an addendum to rule #2).