Lost In TechAug 25, 2023
Reviewing the K1 Max and also reviewing the K1 again! https://youtu.be/VCzsSCN95Tg
Introducing The Creality K1 Max! (And how is the K1 after 100+ hours?)

YouTube
Show threadMichael K JohnsonAug 25, 2023

@lostintech So, Creality still violating open source licenses.

Qidi didn't do a perfect job of how they released the sources but at least they appear to have done so on a timely basis.

I ordered the Qidi X-Max3 instead of the K1 Max, and Qidi honoring the open source license terms was a major factor in this decision. Ordering the Creality would be a slap in the face to everyone who has contributed to all the software Creality are currently using in violation of license terms.

Show threadKyle DavisAug 25, 2023

@mcdanlj @lostintech I was critical of qidi and their lack of source nor root on the SBC, but I understand those are resolved?

The K1 Max is appealing, but I’d yeah, that OSS compliance is a no-go. I’m actually curious if -any- 3d printing manufacturer has an OSPO (or really anyone looking after open source concerns). I kind of doubt it.

Show threadMichael K JohnsonAug 25, 2023

@linux_mclinuxface @lostintech As far as I can tell, Qidi has released full source. They didn't do it in the best way, by forking; they just uploaded a bundle of files. But it would be possible to work out what they changed, and they did at least release the files. And I thought they did it before or contemporaneously with selling the printer?

Given that they sent a new emmc to one reviewer who updated Klipper (don't remember who) it must be possible (though, without merging, a temporarily bad idea).

I'll find out more when my Qidi arrives...

Creality doubling down on their license violation and calling their changes to open source their own proprietary work is appalling and immoral as well as illegal. Making a mistake is one thing, everyone does that. But defending it and refusing to fix it? That's just not OK.

Show threadLost In TechAug 25, 2023
@mcdanlj @linux_mclinuxface I did actually point this out in the first video and refer back to it in this one. I've made the situation quite clear I think.
Show threadMichael K JohnsonAug 25, 2023

@lostintech @linux_mclinuxface I watched the video, in fact in part to learn whether you had heard any news about Creality honoring the license terms that they are required under law to do, regardless of whether any license holders actually try to take them to court.

Thank you for mentioning it!

I do think that you are taking it easy on them, not calling them out for violating the terms of the license, rather just expressing hope that they stop breaking the law.

As @linux_mclinuxface says, what they are doing now is like stealing and promising to pay back later. It's not OK with physical goods, and it's not OK with software either.

Show threadLost In Tech
@mcdanlj @linux_mclinuxface ultimately it's down to the klipper development team and the licence holders to decide whether or not to pursue this, and if they so much as contact me directly with a stance they want me to take, I will be very happy to open a dialogue.
I don't think it's in any way fair to accuse me of "taking it easy" on them, I'll be frank. I'm one of the more outspoken content creators, and I find I get nothing but further criticism for my efforts. *Folded arm emoji*.
Aug 25, 2023 at 10:51pmWeb
Show threadKyle DavisAug 25, 2023
@lostintech @mcdanlj it’s not just the Klipper folks though. It’s everyone in the dependency tree. Like, there is a non zero (but tiny) chance there is *my* code running on that machine.
Show threadMichael K JohnsonAug 25, 2023

@lostintech @linux_mclinuxface This is where we differ.

As the recipient, you are entitled to the source.

The only way that you might not be entitled to the source is if you literally work for them, which I rather think is not the case. ☺

https://klipper.discourse.group/t/creality-violating-klipper-license/8990?u=mcdanlj

Creality responded to a request that they comply with the license with "We would like to inform you that the information in question is confidential and cannot be divulged to anyone outside our organization without proper authorization."

Kevin said "Klipper is licensed under the GNU GPLv3 ... Any redistribution of that code is required to follow the license. I have not dual-licensed the code nor provided any exceptions."

Why should Kevin have to reach out to you to say that yes, not only should open source licenses be honored every other time, but this time too? That seems like a stretch.

"Nothing but further criticism" — I wasn't starting out trying to criticize you in the first place! I was criticizing Creality. My initial response said nothing about you at all. Since then, I've merely disagreed with you whether "hoping" that they comply with the licenses is taking it easy on them.

Creality violating Klipper license?

As far as I know, the new Creality K1 printer comes with a modified version of Klipper. Since Klipper is released under the GPLv3 license, Creality would be obliged to provide the source code as well, including all of their modifications. I could not find the source code online, so I asked the Creality support. I got a quite fast answer (next day): Dear customer, I’m sorry, the source code of K1 is not open yet. I was expecting something like this, still I replied stating once more that the...

Klipper