A User Agent not being suitable for any kind of authorisation aside, given this was published under AGPL, is any kind of legal action even possible? Or is this like DMCA abuse, technically not grounded in any legal basis (and in the case of knowingly filing an improper DMCA claim, clearly illegal but never prosecuted) and solely a scare/might makes right tactic?

▲

kayson 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The license isn't the issue. It's the User Agreement. Bambu is claiming that the fork is allowing, enabling, (and/or promoting, encouraging, etc) users to violate the agreement with Bambu to not use their cloud with third party software.

I'm fairly certain user agreements have been used for suing makers of game cheats and other similar things. Certainly in the industry I work in, there was a company making third party software and integrating it with the industry standard tool without going through the official channels, which caused people to violate the user agreement when used. They got sued and settled.

▲

RobotToaster 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From the AGPL:

>When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.

	▲	kayson 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This doesn't apply because their cloud service, which has the "technological measure" is not the "covered work", as incompetent as the measure might be...
	▲	abigail95 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's copyright circumvention not CFAA authorization circumvention

▲

abigail95 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Even with a user agreement I think they need to gate their service behind that agreement, otherwise the agreement is optional and open ports are open for use.

You still need to form a valid contract - no notice, no assent, no contract.

If there's a gate that's being bypassed then this all changes but it doesn't seem like there is - and it doesn't seem like they can add one without breaking existing printers.

	▲	kayson 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In this case, you're signing up for an account and entering into the user agreement to do so. There's a whole separate legal discussion to be had about the whole "scroll past it all and just click accept to make it to away" thing...

▲

liampulles 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Another way to read it is that they are shifting blame away from their backend - which is so shitty that it experiences notable service disruptions when some of their existing users send unexpected headers - onto the client software.