this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
1373 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

84653 readers
5406 users here now

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

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. 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
1373
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 day ago by commander@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
192 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lime@feddit.nu -1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

yeah, this is the interesting one. also this one and he ones below it.

basically, bambu has the right to refuse handing out gpled code. that's part of their freedom to distribute as they see fit. however, they can only exercise that freedom on people they haven't given the binaries. so if you decompile or download all the sources, and you don't own one of their printers, you are also violating the license.

now if rossman owns a bambu printer, and he has gotten the sources from that printer or directly from bambu, they can't do shit. otherwise there is wiggle room.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Interesting read.

I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPLed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?

No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.

What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy of the program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.

Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy of the program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.

Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?

No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program nonfree. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.

The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.

You can charge people a fee to get a copy from you. You can't require people to pay you when they get a copy from someone else.

Sounds like bambu is perfectly free to not give the code to anyone, but as soon as they give the code to someone, that someone can give it to whoever they want.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

Sounds like bambu is perfectly free to not give the code to anyone, but as soon as they give the code to someone, that someone can give it to whoever they want.

And that's why people redistributing and modifying an older snapshot of the code are 100% within their rights to do so.