Something I just thought of under the shower: A user can build the slicer from scratch and the UA is public on their repo [0]. If one is determined to do so, using the same deps, pinning the date, etc., they could create a deterministic build identical to what Bambu offers for download on their website.
Will using such a build be an issue for Bambu? If not, what degree of modification would be needed for them to view building with their publicly available UA as bypassing a security measure/improperly accessing their services? Where exactly is the line here? Does their EULA define what percentage of the source code may be modified to view using their UA as acceptable? If not, is this something that one could enforce if they wanted to?
Also, what about 10NES [1]? The courts found that reverse engineering such a measure would be lawful, the basis of much that came later with Phoenix, Compaq, etc. If reverse engineering is acceptable, why wouldn't using AGPL licensed code? In both cases, the required information was acquired 100% legally.
Topfi•26m ago
Will using such a build be an issue for Bambu? If not, what degree of modification would be needed for them to view building with their publicly available UA as bypassing a security measure/improperly accessing their services? Where exactly is the line here? Does their EULA define what percentage of the source code may be modified to view using their UA as acceptable? If not, is this something that one could enforce if they wanted to?
Also, what about 10NES [1]? The courts found that reverse engineering such a measure would be lawful, the basis of much that came later with Phoenix, Compaq, etc. If reverse engineering is acceptable, why wouldn't using AGPL licensed code? In both cases, the required information was acquired 100% legally.
[0] https://github.com/bambulab/BambuStudio/blob/3e96c7e073fdc14...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_....