• Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Sorry, I misstated the article - yes, what Jaczak modified or forked seems to be a networking plugin. What I get out of the article is that Bambu says the plugin is “separately delivered” software which they claim means it doesn’t fall under the AGPL. The way I interpret it is that there’s an unresolved dispute whose technicalities I don’t know enough about to have originally taken Jarczak’s side on. Maybe you do but for now I’m going back to being neutral. I agree putting pressure on the guy if they have no grounds for it is wrong - if that’s what they did.

    • TonyOstrich@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      29 minutes ago

      LawfulMasses did a video covering this exact question a week or two ago and explained the relevant details in what seemed to be a fairly clear manner. Keeping in mind that he is a lawyer but is arguing in favor of consumer rights and the AGPL so there may be a valid counter argument.

      I don’t think I would be doing a disservice to try and summarize what he stated in the video, but my takeaway was that the plugin was an attempt to dodge the AGPL, but the AGPL specifically has measures for that kind of tomfoolery.

      Video if anyone is interested.

      https://youtu.be/0tdZ5Z7nRDY

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It is kind of amusing how, “You guys are knee jerking your reactions instead of looking at the issue carefully” gets the knee jerk upvotes here.