Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

My.MP3.com releases Beam-it Beta for Linux

Posted by Hemos on Fri Feb 04, 2000 10:38 AM
from the it's-like-dj-hernandez dept.
Media Music
kurowski writes "My.MP3.com has released a Linux port of its Beam-it software. It relies on a closed-source library, but the (command-line) Beam-it front end comes with source and is GPLed. Way cool! (By the way it acutally works, too.) " We've been playing around with something similar in our office for a while - it's a lot of fun to have.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

My.MP3.com releases Beam-it Beta for Linux 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I am quite curious as to exactly what this does.
  • If I reverse engineered this closed library. Would I get into trouble like that DeCSS chap? I would like to find, out of general interest, what attributes relate to which album by send lots of pseudo randomly generated data sets upto the server.
  • Is it safe to assume that the lawsuit against MP3.com about Beam-it didn't pan out? Or is it still going on, and mp3.com is just pretending not to worry about it?
  • MP3.com apparently is doing what the Big Recording Industry failed to do, which is create a market for music and audio entertainment distribution. They use modern technology to make the method of listening more flexible, rather than being confined to either tapes or a dozen songs per CD that can only be played in bulky, battery hungry players. They promote a market of listening to a large library of music on the run.

    Compared to what the Big Recording Industry had in mind for us (nothing,) its a great change.
  • The BeamIt software reads what CD is in your cdrom drive and then gives you access to MP3 files of the songs on the CD.

    The songs are then listed on http://my.mp3.com for your listening pleasure.

    Noel

    RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix [rootprompt.org]

  • Don't get me wrong or anything, I'm just as happy as the next guy that they released a linux version of their project, but I jsut feel that because they kept the best parts of the program hidden inside a library that even if someone chooses to exercise the right given them by the GPL, they won't really be doing much more than skinning. On the other hand, this is the area that will get the most work anyway, as people make various versions, some for X, some as a text gui, some for emacs and so on, but it'll never be more than just designing skins unless the library is GPL'd. I don't think it's as great a thing as it could be until then.

    Daniel

  • Does MP3.com's Beam-It software work with the studios' CD's or is it limited to MP3.com CD's? I tried to find this information on their Website when Beam-It was first announced, but everything was a little ambiguous.

  • Studios' CD's. Which is why they're getting sued.
  • It theoretically works with any CD (if MP3.com has a copy and has ripped the mp3's). I haven't used it for a couple of weeks because I was having trouble beaming anything. Might be high time to give it another go on my OS of choice :)
    .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*: ._.:*~*:._.
  • I think that this would be protected under the reverse engineering exception to the DMCA. See 17 U.S.C. 1201(f).

    In the DeCSS decision just released, the judge noted that the exception didn't apply because the exception applied only to software and there was no evidence that the program was written for te "sole purpose" of achieving interoperability. Since you are working on software and can probably put together some evidence of this (in the DeCSS hearing, they simply failed to send in their affadavits in time!) then you should be okay.

    I highly doubt that MP3.com would sue you under these provisions. They have a strong interest in not seeing copyright law strengthened, and it would be their technological measure that you would be circumventing...

  • Beam-It is software that reads the ID of audio CDs when you insert them in the drive and checks to see if that CD is present in MP3.Com's database. If it is, the tracks on that CD are added to your personal My.Mp3.Com account so you can listen to them in streaming MP3 and RealAudio format -- no file transfer is required, so you can "beam" a CD instantly. About 8 out of 10 CDs I own were known to Beam-It, so now I can listen to them anywhere through a Web browser.

    Another feature I tried out is Instant Listening. If you buy a CD from a company participating with Mp3.Com, it is added to My.Mp3.Com the moment you purchase it. Instant Listening is a great excuse to buy an album over the Net -- there's nothing like receiving instant gratification while shopping in your pajamas.

    The only downside to Instant Listening is that the MP3.Com partner I purchased from, Jungle Jeff [junglejeff.com], took 10 days to send the CD.

    Instead of suing MP3.Com, the RIAA should be looking at how My.MP3.Com facilitates impulse purchasing at online music stores. The recording industry already has a monopoly on the artists most people want to hear. They can reap even more rapacious profits on CDs sold electronically without the overhead of distribution, packaging, store promotion, and other brick and mortar costs.

  • From what I've experienced it only seems to work with some American CD's. Out of my (expansive) CD collection I only got The Verve: Urban Hymns [the-raft.com] to be recognised.

  • Cool but good? (Score:3)

    by powerlord (28156) on Friday February 04 2000, @06:13AM (#1305632) Journal
    Okay,
    I'll admit. Its cool to be able to go home, go through my CD collection and instantly have access to those same Songs at work (where I have a high speed connection). I do have a few problems with the service though:
    1) Why would I want some company to be able to catalog what CDs I have and which I don't? (I haven't seen their privacy policy yet... but should I expect direct mail asking if I want the "Latest CD from such and such"?)
    2) What about when I'm stuck behind a firewall somewhere and don't have easy access? I'd rather have a CD full of MP3's (I just finished burning one that had 15 CDs worth of music).
    3) Are small volume and no-name CDs going to be available? (or am I going to have to make my own MP3s of them if I want to carry them around?).
    4) How much bandwith is it actually going to take?
    They seem to have very little information available until you create an acount and give them your e-mail address. Something about that bothers me.

  • I think that mp3.com is creating the future of music.

    Let me explain my experience with them:

    I wanted to learn more about Baroque music so I went to their site searched on Baroque and found several groups that played that style of music. I downloaded example songs from their CDs. Decided I liked a group called Moscow Baroque [welcome.to] I ordered their CDs at less than what I would buy a cd for in a brick and morter. They arrived quickly. The CDs had both audio tracks for cdplayers and MP3 files.

    Now this is a group that is a group that is not big enough to be picked up by a big label and sold. But the MP3 people can sell their music, and allow me to preview it.

    BTW I do not have anything to do with mp3.com except as a customer.

    :)

    Noel

    RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix [rootprompt.org]

  • if you reverse engineered this lib, they'd send you to Norway and then the news hounds would keep bugging you for interviews and such.

    is THAT what you want? I thought not ;-)

    --

  • Re:Reverse Engineer? (Score:3)

    by technos (73414) on Friday February 04 2000, @06:15AM (#1305635) Homepage Journal
    Stay out of it.. The library is closed for a reason, namely keeping the RIAA off their back. (So far it hasn't worked, though) If we knew how it validated CD's, we could just throw random CD checksums at the server until it gave everything up. Instant piracy potential, and instant RIAA lawsuit..

    As for the DMCA and it's RE clause, thats for 'interoperability'. They've supplied a library to link against, so the interop argument is a short lived one.
  • As I understand it, beam-it reads your cd and sends an A-ok message to my.mp3.com saying that you have the ability and fair-use right to listen to said CD.

    Now, unless they're doing some good encryption inside the client, couldn't one just sniff one's local cablemodem neighborhood for connections going to the beam-it IP range and capture those packets, then send them out from your machine after a bit of modification and get rights to any CD your neighbors have rights to?

    Now, don't get me wrong--I'm all for a very powerful interpretation of what is fair use and what isn't; but MP3.com should take reasonable precautions.

    Side-note. What if, for every collection of unlicensed MP3s you downloaded by a particular artist, you send that artist a check for $10 directly, not through the record company.

    "Are you beginning to see the possibilities?" (Strange Days)
  • I know my understanding of programming and the GPL are both very basic, but it was my understanding that you couldn't do this. The GPL states that if a program that requires specific libraries to work is GPL'd, those libraries must _also_ be GPL'd, with the exception of the actual operating system -- yes?

    That would mean that a GPL front end on top of a proprietary environment that is not an operating system would be a violation of the GPL.

    Unless I'm wrong! I don't deny that I could be wrong! I'm not a programmer.


    +----------------------------------------------- -------

  • There's no uploading involved. It checks your CD-ROM drive & verifies if you have a physical copy of a CD. If you do, then it gives you (password protected) access to the MP3s of it.
  • Be careful! The DeCSS wasn't covered under the reverse engineering clause (according to the preliminary injunction). If the RIAA or mp3.com sees this as trying to circumvent a copy protection scheme, then you could get hauled into court. Granted just like the DeCSS you would (will) probably win either the first case or on appeal... but still if you are trying to avoid _all_ legal troubles.... I'd consult with a lawyer!
  • Maybe they released a linux version so it could be reverse engineered :)

    I was using Beam-It on Windows and there were alot of people having problems with it (according to the beta testers forum). Perhaps they are looking to the slashdot community for vision.

    Regardless, this is a wonderful step for MP3.com.

    .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._ .:*~*:._.

  • Possible GPL misapplication? (Score:3)

    by BigGaute (81475) on Friday February 04 2000, @06:20AM (#1305643)
    As far as I can see, either the original poster is wrong when he uses the wording "library" or the choice of GPL is not appropriate.

    What I mean by that is that since the GNU GPL does not allow linking to proprietary libraries, unless the library in question is a core part of the os, (and then only if the GPLed app is not distributed with the os itself), it would seem that nobody except for the copyright owners are allowed to distribute this app.

    I did not check this out on the website myself, since they apparantly wanted me to register, which I will not do on principle. So could someone with less scruples than me go and check this out?

    The net effect of this could be that eg. Debian will not distribute Beam-It, in the same way that they will not / can not distribute KDE.

    I would like to stress again that I could not check this out for myself, so could someone else please do it? For all we know, the orginal poster simply expressed himself inaccurately. Thanks...

  • Maybe I just don't get it, but from what I can read on the my.mp3.com site, the songs from your CD aren't really uploaded. I'm I wrong ?

    ***quote**
    Beam-it(TM) software is a revolutionary program that lets us instantly identify what CDs you own so that we can add them to your My.MP3.com account. With Beam-it(TM), you'll never have to upload song files or convert your CDs to MP3s.
    ***unquote**

    From what I understand, the client would send info on the CD (the same identifier used to recognize a CD when inserted and link it with a CD database?) and then the site would automagically, without upload, add the mp3 files of that album to your list @ my.mp3.com for your pleasure.

    Not that I would do something like that, but is it then possible for somebody who hacks the client to make it believe he has any CD he wants to have and magically have access to the mp3s for those CDs on my.mp3.com??

    Maybe I'm just totally out...

    Egoine

  • MP3.com, Freedom Fighting (Score:5)

    by Hnice (60994) on Friday February 04 2000, @06:21AM (#1305645) Homepage
    I was wondering how long it was going to take for MP3.com to do this -- given the fact that the Linux community tends towards a more zealous and open defense of the manner in which Beam-It approaches the issue of ownership of information, it really behooves them to support the OS.

    Also, I'm amazed at what a bunch of bad-asses they're being. Lawuit filed, they didn't run and hide, they ramped up their advertising and encouraged people to sign up their friends. Sure, this is good for their business, but I'd like to believe that it also shows some sense of the politics of turning people onto the issues of ownership that this all raises.

    Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but there seems to be a real understanding of the fact that their business is predicated on certain assumptions about who owns the music, and how they ought to be able to use it, that are pretty progressive.

  • The only problem with this from the music publisher's perspective is the fact that there is no confirmation of ownership involved. By this I mean that all that is required for me to gain access to the latest Offspring CD is that I have one in my drive when I first run the software to gain access to it via MP3.com - so nothing prevents me from taking my 100+ CDs over to your place and letting you use them to get access to them. Then you come to my place with your 100+ CDs and I get access to your CD collection. You could form "lending clubs" that brought together many CD owners to build a library of several thousand CDs and let everyone have access to them. Alternatively, I could set up an account and 20 of us could all input our collection to the same account building a huge collection and then we simply share the account.

    Its no wonder the music industry is upset at this - it threatens their existence if it continues as a trend. Basically they will be reduced to an industry of recording studios which produce the master recordings, distribution will be free of charge to most people, with only small percentage actually buying the CDs.

    This may be just the thing to put the profits back in the hands of the musicians though - something long overdue IMHO. I hate middlemen generally.

    Just my $0.04 Cdn

  • I am liking this program. Linux version works fine; I installed it and went through a stack of CD's with repetitions of the command

    beamit -e userid -p mypass ; eject

    It's a lot easier than ripping a stack of CD's, that's for sure. As to what it does... you can download some of the source and have a look. There is a binary-only shared library, no code for that, but the beam-it user program, says:

    In addition to code written in-house, Beam-it uses code from the following software packages:

    o cdparanoia, by Monty http://xiph.org/paranoia/index.html
    o Grip, by Mike Oliphant http://www.nostatic.org/grip
    o libcdaudio, by Tony Arcieri

    It appears that usually "beaming" works really quickly, and occasionally it's really slow with lots of net activity. I wondered if it's doing some kind of distributed cd ripping activity when it finds an unidentified CD. But maybe cdparanoia is just working hard on one sector of my scratchy CD's.

    A quick look at the shared library shows some interesting things

    nm /usr/lib/libmsp.so
    /usr/lib/libmsp.so: no symbols

    strings /usr/lib/libmsp.so
    ...
    msppGetAttributeValue
    msppEncryptMD5
    MD5Init
    MD5Update
    MD5Final
    ...
    Software has expired, please update
    ...
  • There's no uploading involved. It checks your CD-ROM drive & verifies if you have a physical copy of a CD. If you do, then it gives you (password protected) access to the MP3s of it.

    Are the passwords unique or do they change on a fixed schedule?
  • I just used beam it to upload a cd and now I can listen to mp3's without encoding them or using my own hard disk space. That kicks ass. On a side note you have to set up your netscape mime types. They give pretty good directions on how to do that. Although they are directed at windows users and tell you to use RealPlayer I found every thing works if you replace realplayer with xmms %s. That's not enough though. When you try to listen it will redirect you to a page that says your browser is not set up. If your mimetypes are setup all you have to do is click where it says that you do not want to be directed there anymore.
  • If you write the program yourself, you can use any license you like. For example, you could use the GPL, *with the exception* that the program can be linked to one specific library. This "modified GPL" is, however, not compatible with the GPL. For example, what they're doing now is probably OK (I don't know the software), but if they're using GPLed code like readline, then they're violating the GPL. If they wrote all code themselves however, there's no problem. Maarten
  • I think it's an overreaction. People have ALWAYS been able to share, borrow (from the library, even), trade CD's. Just because there is a way to get around security, doesn't mean the majority of people WILL.

    How about hidden cameras, magnetic strips, bag checks, etc. at retail stores. Just about anyone can figure out how to get around these security devices. But the majority of people still pay money for merchandise.

    The RIAA has nobody to blame for piracy than themselves. The only times I have taken part in music piracy is when I simply have to have a piece of music that is "too obscure" to be considered for widespread distribution. When I do pirate music, I try to contact the musicians to pay them directly because it is not their fault the RIAA doesn't consider them "mainstream".
    Okay, I think I'm done ranting now.

    .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._ .:*~*:._.

  • MP3.com and whining (Score:5)

    by Rambo (2730) on Friday February 04 2000, @06:44AM (#1305659)
    Never have I seen so much whining! A company puts its butt on the line, going up against the RIAA to provide this service. They provide huge amounts of bandwidth to accomodate full quality streaming (128kb/44KHz). Then they release a Linux client.

    And what do we hear? "Hey, they want my email address-- I won't use anything that requires an email address" "They released it under the GPL but kept a library closed-- I won't touch it!" And last but not least, "How can we crack it so we can pirate all these CDs?!"

    People, for once in your life stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and appreciate what someone has made available for you.

  • Re:Vulnerabilities? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A good idea, except that the music that everyone else listens to besides me is absoleute crap. Everyone is a bunch of unreasonable turds. My neighbors listen to crap, you listen to crap, the CEO of mp3.com listens to crap. CRAP! Crap for dumb turds ... kinda ironic, isn't it?

    But the question I have is what if I have multiple versions of the same album? If I have, say, the 1998 release of Dark Side of the Moon on CD am I entitled to listen to the 1987 release on mp3? What about more subtle differences, like the "remixed" version of The Joshua Tree? How does it tell the difference? Oh yeah, quit being a bunch of dumb turds!
  • What I want is the server portion so anyone and everyone can create their own server as MP3 broadcaster.

    you want live365 [live365.com]. (I am not affiliated, but it's amazing what kind of free advertising you can get from people who like your service...) here's the deeper link [live365.com]
  • Since x86 is by far the dominate way Linux is used, I think you are safe to assume that unless there is a platform specified, it is x86.

    Yes I know Linux is used on sparc/alpha/ppc/etc, but the reality is that x86 is what the vast majority use. No I don't have any hard evidence to back this up, do you have any to refute it?

  • I may be somewhat off course here, but it sounds to me like this would be an excellent opportunity for someone like myself to get back all of CD's that I've lost in the past due to scratches.

    Essentially, as long as my CD's (which was of course bought legally) contents track is intact, I can add it to my database on mp3.com, and then capture the stream being sent to my harddrive, and voila, I have the mp3's. If I want, I can then just uncompress and write the files to my CD Burner.

    I'll definately have to give this a shot.

  • Re:Reverse Engineer? (Score:3)

    by ColPanic (22062) on Friday February 04 2000, @08:14AM (#1305674) Homepage
    We have been trying to do the reverse engineering here today. They seem to have a pretty good verification process. Heres what we have figured out.

    The client connects to a text command interface on cdver.mp3.com:8094.

    User authentication is done in two parts first

    HELO mail=email@ddr ver=1.00 cver=LINUX100 sern=XXXXX

    The server provides the sern number on connection.

    Then:
    AUTH meth=md5 pass=XXXXXXXX

    Presumably this is an md5'd password for the user.

    Then to lookup the ID of a CD in their database

    MDID time=cdlength tkof=list,of,track,offsets

    This information is available publicly from CDDB.
    The MDID command will return an "mdid" number, used to identify the CD.

    Now for the CD verification process

    VFCD mdid=mdidnumber

    This starts a verify for the CD
    The server will then send a list of of requested track data in the form

    331 bits=16 trk=11 chnl=stereo nsec=7 encd=pcm size=8232 rate=22050 sect=49855

    This request is repeated for a number of tracks, in apparently random order.

    The client then needs to get this information off the CD, and send it up.

    RVDT trk=11 sect=49855 nsec=7 rate=22050 chnl=stereo bits=16 size=8232 [followed by 8232 bytes of data]

    So it seems that the only way to authenticate the CD is to be able to answer any query about the data on the CD, which would mean that you aready have the CD....

    So after looking at this, I'm fairly convinced that MP3.com should not only win their lawsuit, but that they seem to be in the right, having taken due diligence to ensure that someone does in fact have the CD before handing over access to them.

  • There are probably five different and intellectually valid interpretations of the GPL as it applies to this situation. Debian subscribes to the one that says you can't unless you include a disclaimer or additional exception. This certainly isn't the view of any of the other distributions, some of whome employ GNU members.
  • This is only a relevant comment for binary-only releases. Perhaps the dominant way Linux is used is now to run proprietary binary-only software, but it _is_ worth mentioning that for a long time the dominant type of software was redistributable, free source code, and with that you are safe to assume that if you have gcc then one way or another you can compile it on your platform.

    Naturally, there are caveats- for instance, I never did manage to get the Open Look window manager running on my linuxPPC system :) however, the basic point still holds, or used to.

    If we're in fact going to use proprietary binary-only x86 software for everything, why not just use windows and have lots more of it?

  • Re:Vulnerabilities? (Score:3)

    by dennisp (66527) on Friday February 04 2000, @08:26AM (#1305678)
    "couldn't one just sniff one's local cablemodem neighborhood for connections going to the beam-it IP range and capture those packets"

    I'll give you a cookie if you can find an MSO Cable provider who is this clueless. This is a major rumor that as far as I know, has never been true. The only major security hazard as such has been the allowance of broadcasts on the local network which allowed people to view network neighbourhood and other local network broadcasts. The vast majority of MSO's have fixed this problem within the last few years. Many modems also have encrypted communication from modem to cmts.

    I just wanted to clear that up. I am ignorant of my.mp3.com so I can not comment any further.
  • My question is, is it possible to be logged in from multiple locations at once under the same account? I would assume mp3.com has restrictions as such to prevent someone sharing their account with many people.

    "with only small percentage actually buying the CDs"

    Can you actually download the songs? If not, its use is limited to the computer. I think it's very useful in the process of buying CD's over the net because it brings instant gratification - at least, while you are at your computer.
  • There are several programs to convert Mp3 back into Wav which then can be burnt to a CDR -- If the File is at encoded at 128k (Which on my.mp3.com they have 2 settings 64k and 128k I believe) then that is CD Quality - It will sound identical to the CD when listened to with the human ear.

    I'm just glad that there is a linux version now - I only run windows at work and I've been bringing my CD's in a few at a time to 'beem' them -- now I can do it from home and listen to the MP3's at work! I hope this site does not get shutdown...

    Later,

    There is no spoon...

  • Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm getting this correctly:

    you can listen to them in streaming MP3 and RealAudio format -- no file transfer is required, so you can "beam" a CD instantly.

    When you say no file transfer is required I'm not sure what you mean. Is the mp3 not being streamed from Mp3.Com across the web?

    I can see that this is sort of neat, but it sounds like a nightmare to me in terms of centralized control of information. I'd much rather not have mp3.com knowing what I buy and how often I listen to it across the web. I'd rather make my own mp3s from CDs and send them to my box at work.

    Also what about the bandwidth problems that this will cause? Are mp3.com going to be responsible for all the sluggish transfers? I can see how it is great for them to use the net for their private gain, hopefully they'll be charged some whacking great fee proportional to the traffic that they inflict on this shared resource.

    he recording industry already has a monopoly on the artists most people want to hear. They can reap even more rapacious profits on CDs sold electronically without the overhead of distribution, packaging, store promotion, and other brick and mortar costs.

    Even better.

  • Follow up:

    I just signed up and checked it out. It seems that you can not download the files. You must stream the mp3's. This could be circumvented through the use of recording software at the client end. However, this is irrelevant as it would be easier to just create mp3's from your own cd and send them over to a friend.

    Also, it is 128k, which is not CD quality, and I can easily tell the difference between it and my original CD (although, those of you with crappy stereo's or computer speakers probably wouldn't).

    I have sent e-mail to mp3.com regarding the possibility of thievery by multiple simultaneous logins shared by multiple people. I await a reply. Hopefully it will be soon, so that I can reply on this story.

    I have done my own personal checking of this, and so far it seems you can not use from multiple locations at once. Here is what I got when I tried to access from multiple IP's.

    "We're sorry, we've noticed you are trying to stream from a URL that is no longer active. Please generate a new playlist and try again"

    So it does indeed seem that they do have protection from this. As soon as I tried accessing from somewhere else, my original stream cut, and the new one didn't work as well. So, basically, the direction of your comment is invalid.

    Bravo mp3.com.
  • I Forgot my password.. I have SO many to remember these days.. How about this.. Lets have one password for all the great slashdot readers.. lets make it somthing orginal. like cypherpunks and maybe the email could be root@slashdot.org and we will promise to only listen to the music for wich we barrowed CD's from our friends.. and unlocked. Good thing NO ONE works at a Sam Goodey or Maybe a Tower Record and has access to PC and alot of spare time or really extended breaks.. thats. I promise not to abuse the slashdot account.. and I know you wont either..

    nudge.. nudge.. wink wink.. .2 winks are better than a nudge ay ay ay
  • Duh, another follow up. Something occured to me after writing this: Question: How easy is it to change back and forth between accounts on my.mp3.com? If it is fairly easy, what the previous poster said would be easily achievable. I could just beam up 20 cd's change accounts, then beam them up to my friend somewhere halfway across the world. This would, in effect, "duplicate" the cd's (as long as you are at your computer). I have sent another message to them regarding this loophole. This one does seem a serious problem as there is no e-mail or other authentication after "beaming" a cd up.
  • I agree with you. I really don't understand why it is that people complain when core functionality is hidden. It's very like all that complaining that people did about TrollTech not so long ago. I mean, God, there giving us something free!!! Now we can spend more money on beer. The people that go on about needing access to information remind me of that Stallman guy....what is it that he says? something like:

    Since the purpose of GNU is to be free, every single component in the GNU system has to be free software. They don't all have to be copylefted, however; any kind of free software is legally suitable to include if it helps meet technical goals. We can and do use non-copylefted free software such as the X Window System.

    This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art.

    Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes.

    Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code.

    Maybe that's why people are whining. They want what they are using to be free. It is manifestly NOT, if the library is hidden, otherwise, as I pointed out in a previously down-moderated post, there is no difference between this program being GPL'ed and me modifiying it and me modifying a program written to the windows API.

    This is a shallow attempt to get the kudos of being free. Actually, I should rephrase that to allow for another possibility: this is either cynical or else half-assed.

    If you can't see that a program that depends on a hidden library is a problem then maybe you should check out this discussion of library licenses:

    LGPL [gnu.org], but in case you don't feel like reading it here's a quote about libraries:

    Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

    Don't you think that your line of argument will result in boosting the popularity of a non-free library?

  • First, one point. What 'hidden Windows API' are you now comparing this to? The thing the Beam-It authenticator uses (the CD-ID) seems to be a well-defined part of the standard for creating audio CDs. Until I understand that half of your question, I don't think I could provide an answer.

    Welllll, it seems to me that you're nitpicking trivialities. But I'll answer you anyway. I should have said the "hidden code of the Windows API", obviously I can actually write to the API which is it's purpose.

    So now that we've cleared up that obvious and trivial point. Let's address the problem. The question is whether or not a program which depends for its functionality on a library which I cannot access/modify/control/re-distribute myself is a piece of "Free" software. I don't think that it is. To take the extreme example what happens if I write a library, provide an API to it. This library contains one call, "RunProgram". I've published the API, you can stick whatever interface you like on it, you can GPL it you can feel that you've got freedom. I don't think that you have. Are you worried about it? Frankly your personal feelings are irrelevant. The point is whether or not this is Free.

  • To be honest I'm not sure that I get this discussion (the whole thing, not just your thread) at all. I've only relied on the /. report which says that the program is GPL'ed but there is a closed-source library. I'm assuming that their not talking about a "music" library but a programming library. Am I totally incorrect in this?

    If I am then it seem to me that you're making a sort of leveraging argument - we can use tools that possibly threaten and undermine our free-software to get access to free music?

    in spite of the not-completely-open status of a particular piece of software, any piece, that software can still provide the means for an advancement of access to certain other, distinct type of information. In this case, the contents of any such hidden proprietary functionality is far less interesting to me than the contents of the mp3s themselves

    But is it? It doesn't seem like it is if all I can do is stream it from mp3.com across the net. In fact I have a hell of a lot less freedom there than if I make my own mp3s. So, I'm not getting increased Freedom!

    Am I totally nuts for thinking like this? I understand that everyones happy that theres a Linux player and we're popular and being catered to and that this is new media etc.... but what are we really getting? Let's look right-down this gift-horse's mouth and then go around and check the other end too.

  • "Legally, there can only be one."

    True. But as of now, all we have are opinions. That's why I said "intellectually valid" as opposed to "legally valid", which would be innacurate.

    "...whether or not the restrictions of the QPL are sufficient to make it proprietary..."

    The issue is not whether the QPL is proprietary or not. It is certainly *not* proprietary. The issue is whether it is "compatible" with the GPL. Many point to Section 6, which talks about extra restrictions. Although the QPL has fewer restrictions than the GPL, a couple of them are *different* from the GPL, and are thus additional.

    Other issues that relate to this are: whether Qt is a module in KDE; whether dynamic linking to non-GPL libraries is or is not allowed; and whether the GPL is binding on third parties. Although the answers to these issues may seem obvious to you, there is by no means a unanimous agreement on them.

    "...may not be linked with GPLed code in this fashion (unless you're the copyright holder, of course)..."

    But KDE *is* the copyright holder for KDE :-) Again, that's not the problem. Debian can but won't distribute KDE because they are of the opinion that they do not have permission from KDE to do so.

    Of coure, KDE may have used some GPL code within its own GPL code, and some are claiming that this is illegal on the face of it, and are seeking an injunction against every distribution that contains KDE.

    "In this case, what we're talking about is almost certainly not the QPL."

    No, it's not. The announcement said "proprietary" and the QPL is 100% Free Software. But the same situation applies with Debian. Even though the authors of Beam-it have a written document saying that everyone and their grandmother can freely redistribute Beam-it, Debian still won't distribute it since they say they do not have the permission to do so (confused yet?). However, if Beam-it has an exception of some kind granting everyone the explicit permission to link to whatever proprietary code they used, then Debian would include it.

    Of course, lest you misconstrue my comments, not every Debian developer holds to this current view. But being a democratic-oligarchy, they can't include KDE until everyone important agrees to.
  • When I said "democratic-oligarchy", I was meaning that not every Debian user or contributor is allowed to vote. Only those that are Debian members. Both Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman have made major contributions to Debian, but as far as I am aware, they don't have voting rights for Debian. I didn't mean to be pejorative.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.