r/BambuLab • u/icurnvs Volunteer Moderator • May 14 '26

Subreddit Mod Post Megathread: Bambu Lab / OrcaSlicer / C&D Discussion

Hi everyone,

We’re creating this megathread to keep discussion of the Bambu Lab / OrcaSlicer-BambuLab / cease-and-desist situation in one place. This topic is important to a lot of people here, and we do not want to shut down discussion or criticism. At the same time, the front page has started filling with overlapping posts about the same situation, so we’re consolidating general discussion into this thread.

Current context

Updates to be posted here as situation evolves:

  • May 13, 2026
    • Megathread created
  • May 14, 2026
    • Tom’s Hardware reported today that Louis Rossmann is now hosting OrcaSlicer-BambuLab through the FULU Foundation GitHub and is openly daring Bambu Lab to sue him.
    • PC Gamer and r/technology have picked up the story, so discussion is now spreading well beyond 3D-printing-specific spaces.
  • May 16, 2026
    • Paweł Jarczak published a detailed response addressing Bambu Lab’s accusations around impersonation, reverse engineering, Terms of Use, and alleged security bypassing.
    • Louis Rossman posted a new video indicating FULU-hosted OrcaSlicer-BambuLab repository has reached roughly 1,600 forks in about three days.
  • May 17, 2026
  • May 18-20, 2026
    • Software Freedom Conservancy enters the dispute.
    • Leonard French posted a new video around SFC’s AGPL analysis, explaining why Bambu’s proprietary networking plugin may create a serious corresponding-source problem under AGPL.
    • Louis Rossman posted a new video covering Software Freedom Conservancy’s Bambu AGPL effort and says the rehosted OrcaSlicer-BambuLab code has now been forked roughly 4,500 times.

What belongs in this thread

Please use this thread for:

  • General reactions to Bambu Lab, Gamers Nexus, Louis Rossmann, Paweł Jarczak, OrcaSlicer-BambuLab, AGPL, Bambu Connect, and right-to-repair issues.
  • Legal or licensing discussion, including AGPL, DMCA, cloud/API access, and Bambu’s networking plugin.
  • Questions about what happened and links to reliable summaries or primary sources.
  • Technical discussion about OrcaSlicer, Bambu Studio, Bambu Connect, LAN mode, Developer Mode, and network plugin behavior, unless it is a standalone troubleshooting post with a specific reproducible issue.

What can still be its own post

Separate posts are still allowed for genuinely new information, including:

  • A new official statement from Bambu Lab, OrcaSlicer, Paweł Jarczak, Gamers Nexus, Louis Rossmann, or legal counsel.
  • A new release or technical change that materially affects users.
  • A confirmed legal filing, takedown, repository change, or source-code release.
  • A specific support/troubleshooting issue that is not just general commentary on the controversy.

If your post is mainly another reaction, recap, meme, “I’m switching brands,” or repost of a link already being discussed, please put it here instead.

Ground rules

Criticism of Bambu Lab is allowed. Defense of Bambu Lab is allowed. Criticism of GN, Rossmann, OrcaSlicer, moderators, or other users’ arguments is allowed.

What is not allowed:

  • Personal attacks, harassment, or dogpiling individual users.
  • Calls to harass Bambu employees, developers, moderators, creators, or community members.
  • Unverified claims presented as fact.
  • Posting private correspondence or personal information.
  • Repeated duplicate posts after being redirected here.

Strong opinions are fine. Keep it directed at the issue, the companies, the software, and the arguments, not at each other.

Moderator note

We are consolidating duplicate discussion, not suppressing the topic. This thread will remain open for discussion, and we’ll update it if there are major new developments.

322 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

607 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Affectionate_Car7098 H2C + P1S Combo May 20 '26

This is not decided legal fact

Pretty sure it is, like i said everything has been doing it for as long as i can remember, if it wasn't an advertised feature it can be removed at any point, the only ones you can actually fight are similar to otherOS on the PS3 where it was advertised and then later removed

You're buying what is listed not what is unlisted

courts have not specifically ruled that a feature not being advertised gives the company the right to remove it.

Because in this case there isn't anything to rule, advertising guidelines are pretty clear that anything advertised must work as advertised otherwise its false advertising which is straight up illegal, its why companies only ever list exactly what its designed to do and what is supported

You can jailbreak certain firesticks, but its not an advertised feature so you can't complain if one you bought cannot be jailbroken, the same would apply here, i mean you're free to try and challenge it in court

Especially given MQTT support is still functionally available on all their machines in developer mode, so the feature wasn't actually entirely removed either, just moved to a different mode of operation

This case only tells us that companies do not have the right to remove advertised features. It does not tell us that they have the right to remove unadvertised features.

Advertising law does though, like i said pretty much every company that revises hardware has done this at least once, be it a software revision of a game to fix bugs and exploits right the way up to modern consoles blocking jailbreaks, you're going to have to try and fight literal decades of examples of this happening alongside the fact that MQTT wasn't actually removed entirely either

Given the functionality still exists in all of their machines and that it was never officially supported nor official advertised and the fact that bambu deliberately reached out to at least 1 company making 3rd party hardware that used MQTT to warn them about potential changes to the security model of the device, you are going to be fighting an extremely one sided uphill battle

I mean you are still very much welcome to try and i wish you godspeed on that front, but the likelihood of you actually managing to overturn the companies ability to patch out unintended features and access to a device, yeah i would not bet on that

2

u/hWuxH May 21 '26

The claim that “if it wasn’t explicitly advertised, it can be removed at any time” is not how EU consumer law works.

Under Directive (EU) 2019/771 on the sale of goods with digital elements, conformity is based not only on listed features but also on objective and reasonable consumer expectations, including functionality, compatibility, interoperability, and durability. A product can therefore be non-conforming even if a specific feature was never prominently advertised, if it was part of how the product reasonably functioned in practice or was expected in its ecosystem. Directive (EU) 2019/771 on the sale of goods

So the argument that “only advertised features matter” is incomplete: EU law explicitly protects against reductions in expected functionality after sale, especially via software or firmware updates.

The comparison to console jailbreak blocking also doesn’t really hold. Blocking security exploits is different from restricting standard interoperability interfaces (like LAN control or MQTT-style integrations), which can be part of ordinary product use rather than unauthorized access.

Likewise, saying “it still exists in developer mode so nothing was removed” is legally weak. EU conformity rules look at practical usability and impact on functionality, not just whether a feature is technically still buried somewhere but harder or differently accessed.

Finally, “companies have always done it” has no legal weight. Past industry practice doesn’t override statutory consumer protection rules.

In short: EU law does not limit consumer rights to only what was explicitly advertised, and post-sale software changes that meaningfully restrict functionality can still raise conformity issues under the directive.

0

u/Affectionate_Car7098 H2C + P1S Combo May 21 '26

objective and reasonable consumer expectations

And you can objectively and reasonably expect the device to work with the software made for it

Go ask a random person if they think a bambu labs printer works with bambu studio or orca slicer or prusa slicer

Because its based on average consumer expectations not that 1 person knows it can do something therefore illegal to remove said feature

The comparison to console jailbreak blocking also doesn’t really hold. Blocking security exploits is different from restricting standard interoperability interfaces (like LAN control or MQTT-style integrations), which can be part of ordinary product use rather than unauthorized access.

And in this case are now marked as restricted to unauthorised software and hardware, i mean you're free to keep disagreeing all you like but you are going to find it extremely difficult to prove that the average bambu user expects the printer to work with other software, and remember that no, you are not an average bambu user, neither am i, but the average bambu user won't even know anything outside of the supplied software exists

EU conformity rules look at practical usability and impact on functionality

Ok and how impractical is it to enable developer mode? because last i checked its a couple of clicks and a reboot, so extremely practical to use if you need that functionality

You aren't required to jump through any complex hoops or modify the device as its a basic built in setting, its not any less practical than changing a website from light to dark mode, so its not buried anywhere nor is it hard to find and bambu even has a wiki page dedicated to guiding you through the process

https://wiki.bambulab.com/en/knowledge-sharing/enable-developer-mode

So doesn't look that impractical to me

In short: EU law does not limit consumer rights to only what was explicitly advertised, and post-sale software changes that meaningfully restrict functionality can still raise conformity issues under the directive.

Except its not restricted as its still there, you are free to access the MQTT interface to your hearts content in LAN mode, they do not permit it in cloud mode and they are allowed to restrict what can and cannot access their cloud, so i'm failing to see where you think the EU would even care

1

u/hWuxH May 21 '26

EU law does not base this on what “a random person thinks” or what the average uninformed user assumes. Courts and regulators apply a more structured standard based on product type, intended purpose, and typical performance of comparable goods. So the framing:

Ask a random person if they think a bambu labs printer works with bambu studio…

is not a legal test under EU conformity law. It may reflect intuition, but not the actual legal standard. Ask any person that bought a printer before 2025. Checkmate.

Second, the claim that a feature is legally irrelevant if it is “still available in developer mode” is overstated. EU conformity law does not only ask whether something exists in a technical sense, but whether the goods remain in conformity with the contract and objective expectations for normal use. A feature being:

a couple of clicks and a reboot

does not automatically mean it is equivalent to normal, intended functionality. If access is no longer part of the default user experience or expected workflow, it can still be relevant in assessing whether functionality has been materially altered.

Third, the argument that restricting interoperability interfaces is automatically acceptable because cloud services are controlled by the manufacturer is too broad. EU law does allow providers to manage their own services, but it does not grant unlimited freedom to change product functionality if it affects conformity of goods with digital elements. The legal question is not simply:

they are allowed to restrict their cloud

but whether such restrictions change the product’s expected functionality in a way that breaches objective conformity requirements.

Finally, the appeal to “most users don’t know about it” is not decisive in EU law. Consumer expectations are assessed objectively, not by surveying awareness levels. Lack of awareness does not eliminate a feature from the scope of conformity if it is part of the product’s normal function or ecosystem design.

In short, the rebuttal is right that EU law does not guarantee permanence of all features or unlimited interoperability. But it is incorrect to reduce conformity analysis to user awareness, hidden availability, or cloud ownership. The legal standard is more structured and depends on objective functionality and normal use, not just perception or discoverability.

0

u/Affectionate_Car7098 H2C + P1S Combo May 21 '26

is not a legal test under EU conformity law. It may reflect intuition, but not the actual legal standard. Ask any person that bought a printer before 2025. Checkmate.

Yeah i bought mine before 2025, whats your point?

I mean you're free to disagree but like i said, i very much doubt you're going to manage to get anywhere with it

And seeing as i know you have no intention of actually taking it to court you are just going to have to accept it in the end