alt Hacker NewsYes you can use the code however you want but equally they are free to bar anyone they wish from accessing their servers. These are completely orthogonal issues in a legal sense.
Replies
Any instance anywhere that a court has considered an UA sufficient for access control? Especially one published under a copyleft license?
They're essentially saying "yes, the code is open source, but you're not allowed to modify it or we'll ban you and threaten you with legal action", which is completely antithetical to the whole idea behind open source (especially the GPL which literally says in the license text itself that it was created to protect your right to run modified software). "Violation of the open source social contract" is a good way to describe it.
You're correct of course that this is an entirely distinct argument from what Bambu's legally allowed to do under existing law.
Yes, but not bully the people sharing AGPL code. I would like to see how they do it.
And their freedom to bar people from connecting to their servers is orthogonal to their bullshit legal threats aimed at the developer.
They can bar people from accessing their servers if they do so by rewriting the entire slicer to be closed source and then implementing some actual security, instead of literally giving you the means of access AND the permission to use and modify it as you wish.