MusicCity's Morpheus violating GPL 445
dotslash writes "The new Morpheus Preview Edition client [download.com] is actually just a fork of Gnucleus an open source GPLd Gnutella client. Upon installation Morpheus PE displays the GPL and asks the user to accept. It is currently being distributed without source in violation of article 3 of the GPL. Gnucleus developers are not too happy about this.
This Morpheus client is being downloaded by thousands of frustrated Morpheus users who have been cutoff the FastTrack/Kazaa network and are now migrating to Gnutella. The violation of the GPL is blatant and will also be the first glimpse of the GPL for many of these new users. It seems like the executives at MusicCity have decided that they prefer free 'as in beer' not 'as in speech.'" Update: 03/03 05:10 GMT by T : It looks like the source is available now, gpl.txt and all.
Source Availability (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Source Availability (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Source Availability (Score:2, Informative)
No.
Source has to be distributed as "machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange".
Re:Source Availability (Score:2, Interesting)
That said, there is no actual source being posted, which constitutes the derivative work based from gnucleus.
That's what it looks like so far after reviewing the source linked to on their site.
Re:Source Availability (Score:2)
If their source links to the Gnucleus source, either statically or dynamically, it must be GPLd. If they want to keep their source closed, but rely on Gnucleus for functionality, they'll be doing a lot of message-passing, and they'll of course have to GPL the changes made to Gnucleus to get it to work that way.
Re:Source Availability (Score:2)
Yes, because the Linux kernel is not GPL, it's a modified version of GPL done precisely to allow this kind of thing.
That's because (Score:2)
If you take my GPL code, and build upon it, even if the resulting product is 100x bigger, you are STILL using my code, and still have a derivative work.
(If I steal your code off your computer, but then use it to make something 100x bigger, can you no longer sue me for damages because your code is insignificant? No..)
Re:Not entirely true - read the GPL (Score:2, Informative)
You may receive a machine readable copy of the source code for this software from http://www.musiccity.com/.
This offer is valid for three years after the fate on which you downloaded
the binary version of this software.
Re:Source Availability (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
Subscribe now! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, /. did bring the truth to light (Score:2, Insightful)
Source Is Provided (for something) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Source Is Provided (for something) (Score:5, Informative)
A cursory check of the source reveals files modified as little as 24 hours ago -- one contains the comment at the beginning "Modified for StreamCast Networks by Rob Adamson 3/2/2002".
Grepping the source tree for "orpheus" reveals several mentions, including in what appear to be product name strings.
Looks like the real deal, folks, and someone just jumped the lawsuit-happy gun.
Re:Source Is Provided (for something) (Score:2)
Yes, I've just performed the same kind of analysis (had to move it to a UNIX box for sanity though). However, for the life of me I can't find the link to the source code that people are saying was on the front page (and I thought it was too). Has it been removed or am I merely blind?
Re:Source Is Provided (for something) (Score:4, Insightful)
It's at the bottom of the blue sidebar/frame on the left, just above the green "Return to Home." As of now, it appears -- if it's not working for you check that you're not using a cached version of the page, and that your browser likes frames (probably a given).
If you're still not getting it, here's a link straight to the source [musiccity.com].
Minor, advertizing violation (Score:5, Informative)
A quick download and scan of the readme.txt file shows that it is indeed Gnucleus source. The GPL violation here is merely in the advertizement -- the source is quite throughly public; I'm sure the flaw will be corrected soon.
um (Score:2, Insightful)
I've checked the links, and it isn't clear if it is available or not.
Writeups like these do not exactly make me want to reach into my wallet and pay for this site.
time for change (Score:2, Funny)
I didn't give a damn before about music companys getting cheated, but now that this freeloading is hurting an opensource company.......I'm changing my ways. I will now go out and legally purchase the latest by N'SYNC
There is some irony here somewhere... (Score:5, Funny)
Its ok to have software designed to "share" possibly copyrighted music, but God forbid they mess with the GPL copyright...
Not condemning, just seems amusingly ironic.
Re:There is some irony here somewhere... (Score:2)
Of course, that is no excuse to violate copyright law. And when someone does violate the GPL, it gives these people less room to speak (law-wise).
let me explain this a bit further (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL uses intellectual property law to achieve the rightthink agenda, making it plusrightthink, while others litigate against those who violate the ungood property laws, which is doubleplus ungood.
Opposing violating the GPL, even by accident, or even if the person making the righthink claim that you did without bothering to check, is thus doubleplessunrightthink.
see?
:)
hawk
Re:There is some irony here somewhere... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is some irony here somewhere... (Score:2)
I'll be happy to condemn. Or maybe some of the music-sharing crowd would like it if I started redistributing GPL code on my own terms, screaming (erroneously) "fair use"?
I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:5, Insightful)
In all seriousness, if
I'm With You (Score:2)
CmdrTaco just made the decision easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:CmdrTaco just made the decision easy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:CmdrTaco just made the decision easy (Score:2)
It's like when Slashdot used to post a "Mozilla Milestone n+1 is out!" story every single time a new n=1 directory was opened after Milestone n was released. You'd think that after the sixth or seventh time they got burned, they'd start paying a little extra attention.
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2, Insightful)
Offtopic but mod parent up (Score:2, Offtopic)
This place is merely a community. If you want it to survive, you donate. The editors are providing some kind of minor reward for this. But really, the reward means shit, you're donating to this site if you truly want it to go on. If you don't, then shut up.
The only other place that I in my limited college student surfing experience have witnessed do this honor system is Penny Arcade [www.penny-arcade]. You donate, you get a bonus wallpaper. The only way the site got payment was through their users. They tried this at the beginning of July. Note that link isn't dead.
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2)
I'd plonk CT, but then I'd lose half of the articles here.
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2)
Actually, that comment seems to have disappeared. (What a shock.) I'm been trying to reconstruct exactly what the hell went on in this whole ordeal (I presume it's related to the whole moderator-holocaust supercomment thingy that appeared on K5 in early February). Surely someone must have a copy of the comment they could e-mail me or something?
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2)
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:4, Insightful)
I just got out of a libel workshop on Friday for the newspaper I write for [dailycal.org] with our libel lawyer and ... let me tell you ... /. is going to get absolutely nailed sooner or later if they continue to print what are essentially lies accusing other entities of breaking the law.
Next time you are reading the newspaper or watching television news, take notice of how criminals are described. No one ever committed a crime, he was "alleged to have ..." If a man is convicted, sentenced to die, and executed, he did not "murder his wife," he "was convicted of murdering his wife" (actually, for dead people the rules are much more lax, but you get the point.) You never state as fact something which is not absolutely, completely, 100% provable; if you do, you've just opened yourself up to huge liability. And printing a correction/"Update: 03/03 05:10 GMT by T:" does emphatically not get you out of the doghouse. This is basic knowledge of libel law that every journalist should know and /. apparently does not. BTW tabloids are in no way exempt from this law, so don't say /. is acting like a tabloid. All the stories that tabloids are running are more or less factual if they are being written about other people. The art of gossip tabloid writing, actually, is in really pushing the edge of the law without actually being libelous/slanderous. They are very good at it. Also, you get a little more leeway when it comes to public figures, politicians, rock stars, etc. You do not get more leeway when it comes to "Joe Blow, co-developer on the Morpheus project".
With that in mind, I think a story entitled "MusicCity's Morpheus violating GPL" speaks for itself. I am surprised that the council for /.'s parent company really hasn't come down harder on them for these shenanigans, which appear to be occuring with increasing frequency.
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2)
Where Slashdot has to be careful is with groups that could care less about the Slashdot population. Like Scientology. They have been the only group to successfully get a post removed from Slashdot. A group that is not affected by the geek population could successfully sue without worrying about popular repercussions.
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2, Interesting)
My first question is: most of your comment is on the onus of /. to cross check references, but what liabilities are there on the original poster, i.e. for this posted story, the user dotslash? He/she was the one who submitted the story and wrote what we see in italics.
My second question: does journalism ethics really apply to a website that, distilled down, is really a moderated bulletin board service. My best analogy to what I see slashdot as (now, correct me if I'm completely wrong), is the local corkboard/kiosk/bulletin board at your local University. Is it the University's responsibility to police what is thumbtacked on their walls that is really meant to function as a service for the community? I don't know about you, but I've seen my share of libelous, even criminal posts, on local kiosks.
Drix, I kinda get what you're saying, but if you can provide me with a hypothetical situation that could get [/.] absolutely nailed sooner or later if they continue to print what are essentially lies accusing other entities of breaking the law, maybe it would be clearer to me.
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2)
IANAL a lawyer but I have some indirect experience with libel. My predecessor at a job was fired for making false accusations about my boss. He wanted to sue for slander but since every statement she made had the form of "Joe told me Bob is a dope-smoking embezzling child molseter" she was off hook. She always said she was repeating someone else's allegations. (These people denied making the allegations in the first place.) Based on this, it is my understanding that you cannot commit libel/slander by proxy, but
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2)
For me the answer is clear... The first thing on every Slashdot page is a large graphic prominently containing the word "News" -- from this I think Slashdot cannot simply use the "we are only a bulletin board" defense to escape liability. A major portion of Slashdot's traffic clearly comes from those who are seeking news coverage; there isn't even a disclaimer anywhere saying "but of course we aren't really news and anything you see here may be or is even likely to be fictitious or merely opinion."
That is not to say I'm happy about Slashdot's liability. I think one of the things most sorely lacking in our culture is a forum for the disgruntled to come together and try to figure out just what the "truth" is, without the mediation of corporate and government propaganda in the mainstream media. That such a forum (i.e. Slashdot) likely won't survive much longer without greater controls is truly unfortunate.
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2, Informative)
You can get hit for what you call "libel by proxy." How else do you think newspapers ever get sued for libel/slander in the first place? All of our information comes from sources. Here's the relevant paragraph, ripped straight out of our reporter's handbook:
There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. Reading that for the first time really shocked me.I might add that that paragraph really doesn't even apply in this case, where there was clearly not even a good-faith effort made to verify the details, as evidenced by the 20-some readers who posted a link to the source within 10 minutes of the story being posted. At the point where a simple phone call--or, my god, even easier, a scant minute of web-browsing--would have sufficiently refuted everything that they posted, I think that the case for reporterial negligence is pretty clear-cut and strong. Let's face it: Slashdot has the journalistic mores of a middle-school gossip rag, at best; CmrdTaco, Jamie, et al are lousy reporters. If you want to pay money for that, fine, but I'm gonna keep sending my checks to wsj.com.
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2)
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2)
Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting? (Score:2)
Re:Oh, shut up already. (Score:2)
It's true that Slashdot is being run as it always had -- but the lax way in which it is run is not approprite for a large site. It may have been fine when they were small but they have a greater responsibility now.
Now, cmdrtaco giving his opinion on something is fine. In fact, the editors giving their opinions on stories is what I love about this site most. But we're just asking for an intentional separation -- a facts part of the story and an opinion part of the story.
Articles should not be flamebait (Score:2)
Historically this was not an issue with C.T.'s postings. It seems to have become a problem in the past 6-9 months, particularly the past 3-6 months.
A lot of /. articles lately should be modded as Flamebait themselves, and that is my issue. This is supposed to be a place for people to learn about what is going on in the industry and in various loosely tech-related subjects, not a place for C.T. to post potentially libelous flamebait rants.
Has anyone *asked* for the source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did anyone download the binaries and ask for a copy of the source before they started screaming?
to be even more technical (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:to be even more technical (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't care? (Score:2, Funny)
They don't care about the Music industries Intellectual Property... why should they care for the Open Source communities IP?
After all we have a lot less money to sue them.
I think we should create a paypal account where we can take donations to buy our own Senator so that we can get or OWN version of the SSSCA created!
Kevin
Why Are The Gnucleus Developers "Not Happy"? (Score:2)
Then again, the whole story was a farce but it makes you question the claims of people not being happy in /. articles a bit more.
Not only that ... (Score:5, Informative)
But they indeed are very proud, and happy. Take a look:
http://www.gnucleus.com/general/clones.html [gnucleus.com]
Here's the text:
"Morpheus: Also a post-Gnucleus 1.0 clone. Wow, this was unexpected, 50 million users and they switch over to the Gnucleus engine... uhm.. welcome aboard!"
Re:Not only that ... (Score:2)
>MusicCity attitude
Or is it due to the Gnucleus attitude? Gnucleus is GPL-licensed. It means, the GPL condition is the *only* one you have to follow if you want to distribute. No other restriction is allowed.
So, there's nothing wrong with MusicCity not contacting/thanking the Gnucleus team.
After all, we all know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Do you need more tha that?
giFT (Score:5, Interesting)
Or you could use Limewire or some other Gnutella, I suppose, but I have been trying for days and I have yet to get anything to download from Gnutella. It just keeps rechecking and rechecking and nothing ever sends. giFT might have a smaller network, but at least it actually works most of the time.
Re:giFT (Score:3, Informative)
giFT started out as a FastTrack client, but changed to OpenFT once FastTrack locked them out. And they've been that way ever since--and now over a terabyte of files are being traded therein at this very moment. Small potatoes compared to KaZaa, but it's a start.
"Your version of Morpheus is too old..." (Score:2)
WTF? Anyone have this problem?
Re:"Your version of Morpheus is too old..." (Score:2)
But that's exactly what I just did, half an hour ago -- followed the MusicCity link to the new client, installed it, and got the "too old" message. Are you saying the new client doesn't fix the problem?
Re:"Your version of Morpheus is too old..." (Score:2)
They are complying with the letter of the GPL, but (Score:2, Informative)
I just tried to compile it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
--------------------Configuration: Gnucleus - Win32 Release--------------------
Compiling resources...
C:\gnucleus1\Gnucleus.rc(1852) : fatal error RC1015: cannot open include file 'res\Gnucleus.rc2'.
Error executing rc.exe.
morpheusp.exe - 1 error(s), 0 warning(s)
Naturally, this makes sense since the contents of the zip contains no res\Gnucleus.rc2
Now I recall having read in one of the posts that the source doesn't include some of the major Morpheus components.
But, damn it...I want to exercise my right to be able to compile this project and breeze through all the source. Since the inclusion of the Gnucleus source will spread the GPL throughout the morpheus client, I would like to get a full source code distribution...
Am I missing something here? This is simply wrong
Re:I just tried to compile it.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Icons:
"res\\Gnucleus.ico"
"res\\Connect.ico"
"res\\Disconnect.ico"
"res\\Statistics.ico"
"r
"res\\Routed.ico"
"res\\Broadca
"res\\Incoming.ico"
"res\\settings.ico
"res\\TrayOn.ico"
"res\\TrayOff.ico"
"res\\Sh
"res\\Transfers.ico"
"res\\Search.ico"
"res\\Browser.ico"
"res\\Browse
"res\\Browser.ico"
"res\\Transfers_Partia
"res\\Transfers_Up.ico"
"res\\Transfers_D
"res\\Search_Results.ico"
"res\\Search_
"res\\Connect_Advanced.ico"
"res\\
Bitmaps:
"res\\Toolbar.bmp"
"res\\search_butt
"res\\logo_black.bmp"
"res\\share.bmp"
"res\\chat.bmp"
"res\\transfer
"res\\SurfBar.bmp"
"res\\bitmap1.bmp"
"R
"Res\\connect64.bmp"
"Res\\
"Res\\disconnect64.bmp"
"Res\
Re:I just tried to compile it.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I just tried to compile it.... (Score:2)
So its not a GPL violation.
Re:I just tried to compile it.... (Score:4, Informative)
My build is neither efficient or great, but it did end up working (had to fix their code, couple of missing declarations missing in class headers). I also had to create the icons and bitmaps (i did a horrible job, but they worked).
Here's the screenshot [192.219.240.92].
I stand corrected. :)
GPL Never Violated (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
i'm really scared of this... (Score:5, Interesting)
I really think people associated with free software DO NOT want their reputations attached to software which lets people conduct illegal activities (and don't argue with this - IT IS ILLEGAL). Yes, you could say this about FTPd or apache or other programs, but Morpheus and Gnutella have a single purpose - to let people exchange these files illegally. I just don't want other projects to take the rap for the few bad apples in the bunch... You know - then free software opponents (read as: Microsoft) will come along and paint Linux and other open source projects as "illegal" and "insecure" and "untrustworthy" (which they may or may not be). Anyone out there with the same sentiment?
taco
Re:i'm really scared of this... (Score:2)
Morpheus and Gnutella have a single purpose: to let people exchange files. VCRs allow people to record and play back programs. Hammers are effective striking tools. All of these things can be used for both legal and illegal activities.
It's OK if you want to say that _most_ things traded on these networks are illegal; it's probably true. But please don't make the "MP3s are illegal" mistake.
Re:i'm really scared of this... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the problem is that too many people associate the free software movement with slackers and "hackers" - those who want to leech off the rest of society. Though I distribute software for free (see my website), I don't call it "Free Software" because I don't want to be associated with that side of the free software movement writing slaveware.
Slaveware is software which takes away another's right to a safe and enjoyable computing experience. Slaveware denies another man of his rights. Tools specifically built to crack systems and software are slaveware - regardless of whether or not they are released under the GPL. It seems that what the free software movement fails to emphasize is that free software is about empowerment and liberty - not stealing someone else's copyrighted material . The free software movement is literally being tarred and feathered by the likes of Morpheus and Napster (though it really wasn't free software) because they are giving away for free software that denies other people their rights. It is simply inexcusable for the authors of this software to claim that it was not designed for copyright infringement when they make no design effort to ensure that copyright is enforced. Something as simple as emailing the content creator when a file is shared would be sufficient. (I know, I know, but please resist the urge to flame about privacy and network load... But at least it would hold people accountable for what they do.)
Free software needs another moniker - like, say, Complete Software. Complete Software comes with source code. If it doesn't come with source code, it's not complete. You wouldn't want to buy something incomplete, would you?
You see, a simple name change, and the implications change. "Free" tends to imply that something has no value, or is only used by slackers/hackers (the public makes little distinction between the two). "Complete" tends to imply that there's something missing from other kinds of software - which is the truth that we want to convey to the general public. We want the general public to expect - no, demand more from software vendors.
Rather than arguing for the adoption of free software, we should be questioning why we aren't getting Complete Software. Why doesn't the vendor provide the source code? Are they ashamed of it? Are they afraid that we, the user, will find bugs in it? Incidentally, the original software manufacturing company, IBM, started out by distributing the source code with its software - a point you might want to bring up when you're on the hot seat defending Linux....
Re:i'm really scared of this... (Score:2)
If Napster is ever shut down because of copyright violations, then maybe people will associate Windows and Microsoft with distributing wares, mp3s, videos, etc... all these illegal things that Napster (and Hotmail) let you do.
Nice update T... (Score:5, Informative)
Not only did CmdrTaco not check this out before posting, but Timothy's update is VERY misleading. He says "It looks like the source is available now, gpl.txt and all." (emphasis mine) Well, looks to me like it was available BEFORE too if you bothered to look. It's not like all the sudden they said "Holy CRAP, look at this story on /., we better get our source code up..."
Sheeesh...
The Link On the Home Page Is New... (Score:2, Insightful)
(though I still don't think they were in violation, it is nice of them to make the source code easily findable)
Re:Nice update T... (Score:2)
Features wanted. (Score:4, Interesting)
ok everybody freakout...... (Score:2)
This is just hype. (Score:2)
Furthur, I see no indication that the Gnuclus programmers are 'not too happy about this'. Their homepage stated that they did not know what to think, but that as long as the source was released they'd be fine with it.
Anybody check variances between binary and code? (Score:2, Insightful)
Violations aren't negated because corrected (Score:2, Interesting)
To those of you who -- and I've read many of these comments -- say "calm down, calm down, give them a minute to post the source"...I say that its still a violation of the GPL. If a company got source code from MS or SGI on a confidential agreement, would they even DARE to, even for a few MINUTES, distribute that code on their web-site in violation of the confidentiality agreement? No, they wouldn't. The GPL should be adhered to just as strictly by corporations.
I seriously hope that FSF sues them. The problem with the GPL, though, is that suing after they start abiding by the GPL doesn't accomplish much (other than perhaps a public admittance of wrong-doing)...there should be a clause in the GPL that calls for fines if its violated by a company.
Tere are also some of you out there who say, "the GPL's never been taken to a court case," so it could mean anything, and the FSF's interpretation of it is meaningless. No, actually, that's not true. The FSF created the GPL, and they know exactly what it means. Furthermore, the GPL is written VERY clearly -- there's no doubt about exactly what it means. Corporations can hire the best lawyers in the world, but they'll never get a ruling that says "under the GPL, you don't have to distribute the source of something you bundle with a GPL'ed program". The GPL will not be invalidated -- it is in fact LESS strict than the EULA, which has (unconstitutionally) been held up in court.
About some of you who continue babbling about Morpheus as an "illegal product", no its not. It was not designed for any particular purpose, and can be used for sharing anything, not just music, movies, or software. You cannot say that it has no uses other than infringement.
If Morpheus -- or any other non-centralized file-sharing service -- is illegal, then so is the entire internet.
Why are they switching to GPL? To make their life easier. Under the GPL, you can't "sue anyone". Its distributed by everyone. And even if you somehow sue MusicCity and force them not to distribute, you can never stop the distribution of Morpheus now. It is a simple fact of life that no matter how hard the stupid judges stamp their feet, they can't stop the distribution of anything that's freely downloadable. Proof in point -- DeCSS. Its all over the place: both the source and the executable can be found by Googling.
As for some people's worries that GPL will be associated with piracy, warez, etc -- only in the minds of spin-meisters under the thumb of Jack Valentini and Hillary Rosen. The average person doesn't concern himself with these issues, and anyone smart enough to understand them knows how full of shit that idea is.
Aside from that, there's nothing wrong with warez, piracy, etc. Ghandi said we have an obligation to disobey immoral laws. How much more immoral can a law be than one which keeps information "secret" and in the hands of the rich few who can afford it?
53,000.000+ downloads (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been using Morpheus for quite awhile, although I had always wished that it was an open source product. Now it is, thanks to improvements to gnutella.
If Fast Track/Kazaa really did kick Morpheus off their network then they just committed suicide because given the choice between closed source spyware and open source, assumming both products work equally well, people will go for the open source version.
53,000,000 downloads! I think that makes Morpheus the single most popular GPL'd software ever. Good job, guys.
Re:53,000.000+ downloads (Score:3, Interesting)
Now there is a better version of gnutella, it has a real chance of succeeding with Morpheus. I just tried it and it works a lot better than the original gnutella. It works well enough for me to stick with it.
From non-technical standpoints, here's why:
1 - Its pretty obvious to me that this was a power play to get Morpheus users to switch to Kazaa.
2 - Kazaa uses spyware.
So even though the performance is slightly sub-par(although still acceptable), I think I will stick with it because I now view Morpheus to be the better company. And not just for technical or open-source reasons.
Delete Morpheus and install Gnucleus (Score:2)
Answer me this: is there ANY reason to use the new Morpheus rather than Gnucleus [gnucleus.com]? Seems to me that Guncleus is just Morpheus without a whole lot of annoying shit added.
By the way, I got booted from the Morpheus chat room about six times yesterday for posting the Gnucleus URL. They seem to think they can supress the fact that they just took the code from Gnucleus and put their own branding info and advertising on it.
Re:they make you keep updating too (Score:5, Informative)
So Kazaa made an updated version and let their updated version spread to all Kazaa users. Then either by a preset date or some sort of signal they activated the one "feature" of this update: to give all Morpheus users the bad version error. Really underhanded.
Right now sometimes on Morpheus you might still connect, depending on if you are lucky and connect to another Morpheus node, but you are only in contact with a small part of the network.
I hope the update is digitally signed? (Score:2)
Get real. (Score:5, Interesting)
and has been. The "update" leads you to believe they some how
gave in when they always complied. Do the editors check
anything ? Of course not this is slashdot.
As a side note check the load of crap news post on the gnucleaus
site. They somehow believe morpheus needed some 'permission'
to do anything with the source and act like they are
more honest and holy than morpheus, when they are just taking
advantage of the GPL as its meant to be.
Re:Get real. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I saw that. I could understand the shock (this must be a huge deal for an open source project -- to be adopted this way), but the holier than thou shit was unnessecary.
Especially given that it's a program designed to rip off someone (whoever you think you're stealing from when you use it). Irony is nature's candy.
Re:Get real. (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't sound holier then thou - he knew they were within their rights, he accepted this a long time ago, back when he started using GPL code. Everyone does, its the price and the payment. He knows he couldn't stop them, that they have every right to do this. He's just wishing it could have been discussed over the table, so at least he could've been informed that his project was about to be forked, maybe to have an open dialogue - but instead, he found out about their move when the rest of us did. I really think you're being too hard on the guy, he doesn't sound unreasonable or holier-then-thou at all. He's not preaching, he's not ranting, and he knows his rights and responsibilities under the GPL - he says he wishes not demands or anything - never said they had to. Would've been nice, that's all.
Besides, imagine yourself in that place - be a hell of a shock to your system - the highest complement and the lowest bitchslap, all rolled into one.
Re:Get real. (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right (Score:2, Informative)
It helps to read before posting doesn't it
Re:I'm mad (Score:2)
I'm not sure whether they had much of a choice in the matter. Everything I've read seems to indicate that Morpheus users were suddenly locked out of the FastTrack network without warning either to them or to MusicCity. In order to keep their client base, they had to put something out now.
It's unfair to blame MusicCity for putting out a Gnucleus client that doesn't have any new features -- they had a grand total of a week to figure out what the hell the problem was, realize that they couldn't fix it, and put out a stopgap solution.
I'm sure that, over the next month, MusicCity will be putting out a client that has some actual programming work put into it, but for now the most important thing is that it works.
You may not like it.. (Score:2)
Those terms are known as the GPL.
Re:I'm mad (Score:2)
In this case, BSD licensing would get them what? Their names mentioned in the Help|about window?
But this is GPL (Score:2)
The GPL does not require you to cite sources, give credit, or any other such thing. It requires that you provide the source code in a commonly readable form on the platform in question.
(So if you re-write the software in your custom version of C in which you only have the compiler... that is probably your right)
Re:Note to the naysayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Neither is theft. One is copyrignt infringement, and the other is copyright infringement and fraud.
Copyright infringement and theft are not interchangeable legal terms.
Please don't smoke so much crack. (Score:3, Informative)
followed by the rest of the GPL.
You are just plain wrong, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:Morpheus GPL violation won't be attacked (Score:3, Insightful)
No. That is different. (Score:2)
However, Morpheus is distrubing a binary that is a derivitave work of GPL code without complying with the GPL. Period.
Re:Looks like both violate the GPL... (Score:2)
If you read the FSF GPL FAQ, they make it very clear that they think the VC++ Compiler and distributable libraries are OK to use with GPL projects. Great, but that's not what the licence says in black-and-white - the plain fact is that VC isn't distributed with the OS.
So, does the unstated "VC Exception" extend to non vendor compilers like Borland's? How about Sun Java on Windows? Big big big gray area there.
If GNU was being intellectually honest, they would release a licence patch to solve this problem. However, a big part of GPL politics is that the licence is open to a certain amount of interpretation and Stallman/FSF wants to be in the position when there are interpeting the scrolls of wisdom for us plebs. This give them the power to create conflicts when it suits them (KDE and the Qt libs) or ignore them when convienent (MFC.DLL), or go back and forth depending on which side of the bed they woke up on (Java).