Loading Profile...
Screwy License.
BIG, BIG, MAJOR PROBLEM!
there's something screwy with the license. the player itself is free software, but the apps aren't. this is just wrong. the apps deserve to be just a free as the player itself.
myself and many others will not tolerate such disrespect for users by giving us a free player, only to have proprietary add-ons. users who install the player taking notice of the only GPLv2 part of the license in support for freedom may come to think that since the player is free the apps are free, where in reality they are not. users have no idea what the apps are doing to their privacy or to their system to tie them up.
moreover, restraining the 4 freedoms that the GPL would allow for the apps hurts their rapid development. it is much more effective, efficient, and respectful if users were allowed to view, share, modify, and redistribute apps. at least compared to the apps being entirely managed by corporates.
it's a pity that i won't install it, as it looked like a nice player.
back to Amarok and Banshee!
:)
there's something screwy with the license. the player itself is free software, but the apps aren't. this is just wrong. the apps deserve to be just a free as the player itself.
myself and many others will not tolerate such disrespect for users by giving us a free player, only to have proprietary add-ons. users who install the player taking notice of the only GPLv2 part of the license in support for freedom may come to think that since the player is free the apps are free, where in reality they are not. users have no idea what the apps are doing to their privacy or to their system to tie them up.
moreover, restraining the 4 freedoms that the GPL would allow for the apps hurts their rapid development. it is much more effective, efficient, and respectful if users were allowed to view, share, modify, and redistribute apps. at least compared to the apps being entirely managed by corporates.
it's a pity that i won't install it, as it looked like a nice player.
back to Amarok and Banshee!
:)
I’m very disappointed.
4
people have this problem
I have this problem, too!
Tell me when someone solves it.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
-
Inappropriate?Wait, what? What apps? the add-ons you mean? They're just as free as Songbird...
I must be missing the point. -
Inappropriate?Correct me if I'm wrong, but all that states is that Add-on's contain their own license depending on what the Author choses and Songbird doesn't (and can't) force add-on developers to release under the same license. I released my add-on, LyricMaster, under the GPL v2 but I could see where others may chose differently. If you don't like the license the add-on uses, you still have the choice not to install it. -
Inappropriate?Yup yup, the add-ons are free too. That would be pretty sneaky if you had to buy them, but you don't! Happy day.
I’m no pricy add-on
-
Inappropriate?Laura, this is a "libre" issue, rather than a "gratis" issue. I don't believe heminder is concerned about cost, but about having some of his freedoms taken away.
Heminder, let me explain in more detail. I suspect the specific legal definition of "Songbird Add-Ons" within the scope of that document is something to look more closely at. It may need updating, but Legal Text isn't really my thing. I know that almost all of our internally developed add-ons which are licensed under the GPL. The two exceptions I am aware of provide MTP and iPod support, so unless you need device support in Songbird, I don't believe you'll ever encounter any non-GPL code. Of course, having said that, the license of third-party add-ons uploaded to our site is entirely the business of the add-on developer.
As to why we have closed source addons at all, that's not really something I'm super informed about. Personally, I am on the side of opening everything, but as a developer with an open-source bias, I am somewhat biased. My understanding is that at one point there were important business reasons for keeping that part of our source closed Still, we listen to you guys, and we'll keep talking about it at the 'nest.
Anyway, thanks for caring enough to post your message, and I hope that answers your questions. Feel free to ask for more follow-up, and if I don't know the answers, I'll try to drag in someone like SteveL, Ethan, or Rob who know more about this stuff than I do.
I’m not a lawyer.
-
Inappropriate?Just to follow-up to pvh's comment. Most of our (and by our, I mean developed by POTI - not third-party community developed ones) add-ons are actually even "free-er" than GPL, they're BSD-licensed. The ones that aren't are:
- Media core ones: Windows Media & QuickTime
- Device syncing ones: MTP, iPod
These are proprietary add-ons, due in part to two issues:
- Three of them (WMP, QuickTime, and MTP) link with SDKs that aren't free or open-sourced, and thus couldn't be GPL'd even if we wanted to.
- These provide a revenue stream for POTI
The second point deserves a little bit more explanation. POTI develops Songbird, and keeps us employed... as such we need to pay the bills, and pay salaries. Keeping those proprietary allows us to re-license them under standard commercial software licenses to partners who are interested in partnering with us so that they use and distribute Songbird and have those capabilities to play DRM'd content (WMP/Quicktime) or sync with devices (MTP/iPod). The revenue we derive from this helps fund further development of Songbird the player as well as all the additional BSD-licensed open-source add-ons we build (such as SHOUTcast, Last.fm, mashTape, & Concerts).
To address one more point heminder raised: a GPL'd player (like Songbird) forcing all add-ons to be GPL'd (whether developed by POTI, or by third party community developers) is, if anything, more restrictive.. and I can't think of any similar media player or browser that does this. Mozilla certainly allows proprietary add-ons or non-GPL'd (but still open source) add-ons to be developed and distributed for Firefox.
Hope that helps? -
Inappropriate?3. Proprietary Rights. The Songbird Media Player and Songbird Add-Ons are licensed, not sold. You agree that POTI owns all right, title and interest in and to the Songbird Media Player and Songbird Add-Ons, including without limitation all intellectual property rights therein. The Songbird Media Player and Songbird Add-Ons are protected by United States copyright law and international treaties. You will not delete or in any manner alter the copyright, trademark, and other proprietary rights notices or markings appearing on the Songbird Add-Ons as delivered to you.
So basically its only as free as the aforementioned 'POTI' deems for the moment. You do NOT own this "free libre" software, you are essentially just as bound as a M$ product. The only difference is here they do not have to pay the people writing the software for them. Take careful note that they reserve the right to own the so-called intellectual property (a completely bogus term) to the software you are writing for their product:
"You agree that POTI owns all right, title and interest in and to the Songbird Media Player and Songbird Add-Ons, including without limitation all intellectual property rights therein."
This line is his concern, stop beating around the bush. This doesn't hold up to the GPL form. This isn't a public release, this is a google license, a we will let you use this service for free so we can sell parts of it later and have no effort put in ourselves. All wrapped up in a pseudo-license from both GPL and BSD.
You want to earn the respect of the people who feel this way? Remove this part of the license.
EDIT: but as a developer with an open-source bias, I am somewhat biased......... LOLOLOLOL, I may be upset with the license but at least I got a smile from this line, I probably would have said something like this.
Also @stevel, I appreciate the work involved and understand you want to be employed but that does not give POTI the right to license it this way. You can re-sell the player, while leaving it open source, AND while leaving the so-called intellectual property (which is a bogus term) in the hands of the individual creators where it should lie.
BTW Intellectual Property is a crap term because as Thomas Jefferson (remember him, wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence for the U.S.A.?) stated, you let a thought out and its free to spread. Unless you find a way to make it an object, like a brick which has to be created one by one, it can not be property. For those dissenters out there, try and copy-paste a brick. Won't work.
For more information, contact Richard Stallman at www.fsf.org or www.stallman.org
If you actually read this far, thanks for listening.
I’m upset
CHAMP
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
