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.
If I give you a template for a postcard, it doesn’t give you the right to send it with “signed, ricardobeat” at the end. These are orthogonal concerns.
They could very well enforce login for the entire app, that doesn’t require any closed source code and everyone would be worse off.
> it doesn’t give you the right to send it with “signed, ricardobeat” at the end.
Given this was "a developer using upstream code verbatim", in your analogy "ricardobeat" would've been printed on the blank postcard by you, then you gave me the postcard with permission to use/modify/redistribute it. Plus it'd be a machine-readable field interpreted as "this postcard supports the same envelopes as ricardobeat's template", not something read by a third-party.
It does if you make the card self destruct if you don't write "signed, ricardobeat" on it. Courts have been over this in the 1990s with Nintendo. The Gameboy wouldn't boot any game that didn't start with "signed, Nintendo" so game companies just put that there and it wasn't illegal.
(Later, a trick was found to replace the signature and still boot, but it required extra chips in the game cartridge)
That is not the case, is it? You only need to spoof the BambuStudio client in order to use their cloud infrastructure. Sending prints over LAN is still possible without it.
- "It is more convenient" is not a strong enough argument there, that's kind of the point of a commercial venture.
- Yes, they could be nicer about it. They aren't. That doesn't make this any more legal or acceptable.
The part of the slicer connecting to their cloud IS closed source.
Which is itself a violation of the AGPL license by Bambu - if anyone deserves to get sued, they do.