6 ms·

I think the Bambu case is a good one to litigate the AGPL but perhaps should start in the Court of International Trade. That court has the power to block import

I think the Bambu case is a good one to litigate the AGPL but perhaps should start in the Court of International Trade. That court has the power to block imports as part of a TRO which would shut down a lot of their revenue from the US at least. Doing something similar in Europe would also help apply pressure. Takes lawyers and money though, of which there is certainly not enough of the latter. Not to be too glib here, but its one of the paradoxes of "free software" which is there isn't any money generated by the licenses that keep it free. Where as "licensed" software has a revenue stream that is used to enforce the license against people who fail to honor it. The FSF can only do so much with their budget here.

Aurornis 21d ago
The article says the SFC had a fundraiser and raised over $250,000 to hire a lawyer. There's a confusing part of the article where he says that what he believes is a violation is something that a judge isn't going to care about. I don't know if he's implying that the judges aren't capable of interpreting the AGPL properly, or if he's admitting that the legal argument isn't as solid as they thought it was when they started. It's a confusing thing to say next to the broad claims about violations.
- biker142541 21d ago
  That confused me as well. I interpreted as judges not having (much) precedent and potentially unable/unwilling to interpret along lines of the license intent. But that’s what courts in this process are there for IMO. If a well written license and a good case, then you need to start somewhere to set precedent.
  - ZiiS 21d ago
    He is saying a judge will not care that they are technically a separate download. They only care if the end result is complying with the spirit of the license.
    - deleted 21d ago
      [deleted]
  - pocksuppet 21d ago
    GPL licenses are so much interpreted along lines of license intent that a German judge ruled GPLv2 software couldn't be Tivoized.
    - john01dav 21d ago
      I would expect this to forcibly unlock the bootloaders of every Android phone sold in Germany (because the Linux kernel, used on all such phones, is GPLv2, and to replace it the bootloader must be unlocked, and tivoization means restriction of the right to replace it), yet as far as I know this is not the case. So, what am I missing? Which specific German cases are you thinking about?
      - pocksuppet 20d ago
        Steck vs AVM. But the bootloader on your phone is still locked because companies don't have to comply with the law until you sue them. If you live in Germany, you should sue them.
    - simiones 20d ago
      Can you share a link? This would be a vindication of the SFC's position, which holds that what people commonly call "TiVoization" was in fact already not allowed by the GPLv2, and that the GPLv3 makes a slightly more complicated requirement. Specifically, the SFC generally claims that the GPLv2 doesn't allow you to distribute hardware running GPLv2 software on it and then refuse to allow customers to modify or update this software themselves*. Instead, they claim that what TiVo actually did that necessitated the creation of the GPLv3 is more complicated: you were perfectly well allowed to modify the Linux system on your TiVo box, BUT the proprietary TiVo software would thereafter refuse to run. Basically, you could either use the TiVo with only official TiVo software, OR you could use it as your own Linux PC, but NOT both. According to the SFC, this is the only difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 in this area - if the functionality of the product you received is allowed to be degraded intentionally because of modifications you make under your GPL rights. Linux with its GPLv2 license allows this, but much of the GNU utils, with the GPLv3 license, don't at this time. * unless the hardware itself is incapable of loading modified software, of course, such as the case where the software is burned into a ROM and no one can update it.
- JoshTriplett 21d ago
  I think he's saying the opposite: that "clever" attempts to work around the license aren't things a judge is going to appreciate.
  - Aurornis 21d ago
    That would make more sense. Thank you.
- ChuckMcM 21d ago
  For background, I participated in a "small" action that Sun took against someone who was violating the Java license. The legal fees (in the late 90's) were 8.2 million dollars. $250K is nothing to sneeze at, its a solid 6 weeks of a single lawyer's time, maybe a couple of weeks for a small team. Against a company doing nearly a billion dollars a year in revenue[1] and owning 29% of the printer market? Add in a couple of expert witnesses which are essential to that sort of a case and you'll see that $250K isn't even table stakes. Sad, I know, but it is the way things are these days. And the saddest thing is that Bambu knows this. They know that people who give away software are not a serious threat to them. And it is especially galling that the value they have extracted out of that software will pay the lawyers that keep you from preventing them from continuing to extract that value and keep it for themselves. [1] "Media reports have also indicated that Bambu Lab has shipped more than 1.2 million units, claiming a 29% global share." -- https://kr-asia.com/bambu-lab-nears-usd-100-billion-valuation-as-tencent-eyes-new-investment https://kr-asia.com/bambu-lab-nears-usd-100-billion-valuatio...
  - bonoboTP 21d ago
    Lawyers earn 250k per 6 weeks? More than 2M per year?
    - ChuckMcM 21d ago
      Yes. Well they certainly bill at that rate, it goes some to the lawyer, some to rent, etc.
      - bonoboTP 21d ago
        Outrageous cartel then. For such amounts there would be plenty who would have intellectual chops to do the job, driving the price down. Legal costs are nowhere close to this outside the US.
        simiones 20d ago
        Nothing stops anyone from briging a suit and representing themselves.
- ChickeNES 21d ago
  I guess I need to buy another printer to fund the other side?
- sailfast 20d ago
  I would imagine any settlement dollars would be enough of a carrot to get a lawyer involved. Has anyone actually sued over this yet?
  - criddell 20d ago
    It's really difficult to collect any judgement in China. https://www.internationaldisputeresolutionlaw.com/2025/06/enforcing-u-s-judgments-in-the-far-east-where-to-start/ https://www.internationaldisputeresolutionlaw.com/2025/06/en... I can't find the source right now, but I believe punitive damages are excluded. So all you could collect would be actual damages. What are the actual damages Bambu owners have suffered?
    - sailfast 19d ago
      My assumption was that a settlement would be part of the “cost of doing business in the USA” so they’d pay up to keep importing their products legally rather than lose the market - but you know what they say about assumptions…
mschuster91 21d ago
> I think the Bambu case is a good one to litigate the AGPL but perhaps should start in the Court of International Trade. IMHO that kind of stuff would have to go through the WTO but unfortunately Trump gutted that one already way back in his first term.
- WillPostForFood 21d ago
  Some context on the US/WTO conflict. It started under Obama, blocking reappointment of two judges. Trump in term 1 went all in, stopping all appointments. When Biden was elected he fully maintained and supported the policy of blocking judges. So it has been more of a bipartisan policy than "Trump gutted". https://www.cato.org/blog/biden-administration-continues-be-wrong-about-wto https://www.cato.org/blog/biden-administration-continues-be-...
_carbyau_ 21d ago
The article mentions reverse engineering the code. But is there anything to stop reverse engineering the physical printer itself, improving on it by 10mm build volume in each direction, and releasing that? It won't be a copy of the Bambu printer AND it can run the same software, truly freely.
- sgarland 21d ago
  There’s no need to reverse engineer it, just build a Voron 2.4.
- simiones 20d ago
  Do you mean physically modifying a printer you bought from Bambu, and selling that on? Potentially as a service, where you buy in bulk and re-sell with this modification? If so, I don't see how that would change anything about the software you're allowed to run on it. Or do you mean manufacturing your own printer that is a copy of theirs with 10mm extra build volume in each direction, and with your own software? That may be illegal if they have any patents, but otherwise should probably be ok, and would of course not have anything to do with their software - but you still couldn't take the software from one of their printers and running it on yours, most likely.
  - _carbyau_ 20d ago
    I was thinking more of a make your own copy of their printer and run free software on it rather than theirs. It just seems like they don't have that much of a moat which is why they are guarding the software bit as much as they can.
- krupan 20d ago
  As long as nothing in the printer's design is patented or trademarked then yes, you can reverse engineer it and sell your own version of it

Aurornis 21d ago

The article says the SFC had a fundraiser and raised over $250,000 to hire a lawyer. There's a confusing part of the article where he says that what he believes is a violation is something that a judge isn't going to care about. I don't know if he's implying that the judges aren't capable of interpreting the AGPL properly, or if he's admitting that the legal argument isn't as solid as they thought it was when they started. It's a confusing thing to say next to the broad claims about violations.

biker142541 21d ago
That confused me as well. I interpreted as judges not having (much) precedent and potentially unable/unwilling to interpret along lines of the license intent. But that’s what courts in this process are there for IMO. If a well written license and a good case, then you need to start somewhere to set precedent.
- ZiiS 21d ago
  He is saying a judge will not care that they are technically a separate download. They only care if the end result is complying with the spirit of the license.
  - deleted 21d ago
    [deleted]
- pocksuppet 21d ago
  GPL licenses are so much interpreted along lines of license intent that a German judge ruled GPLv2 software couldn't be Tivoized.
  - john01dav 21d ago
    I would expect this to forcibly unlock the bootloaders of every Android phone sold in Germany (because the Linux kernel, used on all such phones, is GPLv2, and to replace it the bootloader must be unlocked, and tivoization means restriction of the right to replace it), yet as far as I know this is not the case. So, what am I missing? Which specific German cases are you thinking about?
    - pocksuppet 20d ago
      Steck vs AVM. But the bootloader on your phone is still locked because companies don't have to comply with the law until you sue them. If you live in Germany, you should sue them.
  - simiones 20d ago
    Can you share a link? This would be a vindication of the SFC's position, which holds that what people commonly call "TiVoization" was in fact already not allowed by the GPLv2, and that the GPLv3 makes a slightly more complicated requirement. Specifically, the SFC generally claims that the GPLv2 doesn't allow you to distribute hardware running GPLv2 software on it and then refuse to allow customers to modify or update this software themselves*. Instead, they claim that what TiVo actually did that necessitated the creation of the GPLv3 is more complicated: you were perfectly well allowed to modify the Linux system on your TiVo box, BUT the proprietary TiVo software would thereafter refuse to run. Basically, you could either use the TiVo with only official TiVo software, OR you could use it as your own Linux PC, but NOT both. According to the SFC, this is the only difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 in this area - if the functionality of the product you received is allowed to be degraded intentionally because of modifications you make under your GPL rights. Linux with its GPLv2 license allows this, but much of the GNU utils, with the GPLv3 license, don't at this time. * unless the hardware itself is incapable of loading modified software, of course, such as the case where the software is burned into a ROM and no one can update it.
JoshTriplett 21d ago
I think he's saying the opposite: that "clever" attempts to work around the license aren't things a judge is going to appreciate.
- Aurornis 21d ago
  That would make more sense. Thank you.
ChuckMcM 21d ago
For background, I participated in a "small" action that Sun took against someone who was violating the Java license. The legal fees (in the late 90's) were 8.2 million dollars. $250K is nothing to sneeze at, its a solid 6 weeks of a single lawyer's time, maybe a couple of weeks for a small team. Against a company doing nearly a billion dollars a year in revenue[1] and owning 29% of the printer market? Add in a couple of expert witnesses which are essential to that sort of a case and you'll see that $250K isn't even table stakes. Sad, I know, but it is the way things are these days. And the saddest thing is that Bambu knows this. They know that people who give away software are not a serious threat to them. And it is especially galling that the value they have extracted out of that software will pay the lawyers that keep you from preventing them from continuing to extract that value and keep it for themselves. [1] "Media reports have also indicated that Bambu Lab has shipped more than 1.2 million units, claiming a 29% global share." -- https://kr-asia.com/bambu-lab-nears-usd-100-billion-valuation-as-tencent-eyes-new-investment https://kr-asia.com/bambu-lab-nears-usd-100-billion-valuatio...
- bonoboTP 21d ago
  Lawyers earn 250k per 6 weeks? More than 2M per year?
  - ChuckMcM 21d ago
    Yes. Well they certainly bill at that rate, it goes some to the lawyer, some to rent, etc.
    - bonoboTP 21d ago
      Outrageous cartel then. For such amounts there would be plenty who would have intellectual chops to do the job, driving the price down. Legal costs are nowhere close to this outside the US.
      - simiones 20d ago
        Nothing stops anyone from briging a suit and representing themselves.
ChickeNES 21d ago
I guess I need to buy another printer to fund the other side?
sailfast 20d ago
I would imagine any settlement dollars would be enough of a carrot to get a lawyer involved. Has anyone actually sued over this yet?
- criddell 20d ago
  It's really difficult to collect any judgement in China. https://www.internationaldisputeresolutionlaw.com/2025/06/enforcing-u-s-judgments-in-the-far-east-where-to-start/ https://www.internationaldisputeresolutionlaw.com/2025/06/en... I can't find the source right now, but I believe punitive damages are excluded. So all you could collect would be actual damages. What are the actual damages Bambu owners have suffered?
  - sailfast 19d ago
    My assumption was that a settlement would be part of the “cost of doing business in the USA” so they’d pay up to keep importing their products legally rather than lose the market - but you know what they say about assumptions…

mschuster91 21d ago

> I think the Bambu case is a good one to litigate the AGPL but perhaps should start in the Court of International Trade. IMHO that kind of stuff would have to go through the WTO but unfortunately Trump gutted that one already way back in his first term.

WillPostForFood 21d ago
Some context on the US/WTO conflict. It started under Obama, blocking reappointment of two judges. Trump in term 1 went all in, stopping all appointments. When Biden was elected he fully maintained and supported the policy of blocking judges. So it has been more of a bipartisan policy than "Trump gutted". https://www.cato.org/blog/biden-administration-continues-be-wrong-about-wto https://www.cato.org/blog/biden-administration-continues-be-...

_carbyau_ 21d ago

The article mentions reverse engineering the code. But is there anything to stop reverse engineering the physical printer itself, improving on it by 10mm build volume in each direction, and releasing that? It won't be a copy of the Bambu printer AND it can run the same software, truly freely.

sgarland 21d ago
There’s no need to reverse engineer it, just build a Voron 2.4.
simiones 20d ago
Do you mean physically modifying a printer you bought from Bambu, and selling that on? Potentially as a service, where you buy in bulk and re-sell with this modification? If so, I don't see how that would change anything about the software you're allowed to run on it. Or do you mean manufacturing your own printer that is a copy of theirs with 10mm extra build volume in each direction, and with your own software? That may be illegal if they have any patents, but otherwise should probably be ok, and would of course not have anything to do with their software - but you still couldn't take the software from one of their printers and running it on yours, most likely.
- _carbyau_ 20d ago
  I was thinking more of a make your own copy of their printer and run free software on it rather than theirs. It just seems like they don't have that much of a moat which is why they are guarding the software bit as much as they can.
krupan 20d ago
As long as nothing in the printer's design is patented or trademarked then yes, you can reverse engineer it and sell your own version of it