MusicCity's Morpheus violating GPL

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.

Comments

um

[kraf]

You have to make the source available upon request, not distribute it.

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.

I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting?

[Uller-RM]

Actually, I'm NOT paying for this. :P

In all seriousness, if /. wants people to pay for it, there needs to be some serious checking of stories before posting. The Internet may have partially obsoleted deadtree papers, but it hasn't obsoleted the concept of journalistic integrity - and integrity is what separates a legitmate newspaper from a tabloid.

Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting?

[japhyr777]

Since when has slashdot ever really been trying to be a newspaper? I don't see Slashdot being a source of the stories, just a place where news/'non-news' I might be interested in are linked to. Meta-journalism(meta- being the prefix used for search engines, not really the true meaning) if anything. I guess I'm only really replying since this post is marked at 5 for the moment, but the argument seems a little silly. This is a community for people to discuss articles linked, not a newspaper or a tabloid. So when the article is posted the community will correct the mistakes that might not be obvious at first. Don't bring journalistic integrity into this when this isn't a news source.

Re:I'm paying for this kind of shoddy reporting?

[drix]

Fear not, good friend, and let our legal system work its magic.

I just got out of a libel workshop on Friday for the newspaper I write for 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:Source Is Provided (for something)

[MajroMax]

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?

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.

CmdrTaco just made the decision easy

[msobkow]

I've been thinking about whether I would be willing to pay for a subscription or put up with advertising, but I have to agree with you -- this "article" just made the decision easy. If the "reporters" like CmdrTaco can't be bother to check something so trivial before splattering such a sensationalistic item like a supermarket tabloid, then I see absolutely no sense in paying for the "service."

Re:CmdrTaco just made the decision easy

[nusuth]

CmdrTaco made it easy the first time around, by making /. much more expensive for those who provide content for it ("just 3% of users" as Taco would prefer.)

Re:Get real.

[Pxtl]

As long as they post their source code and credit us in the program I dont have a problem with this, give the GPL the props it deserves. I dont even know what to think, I wish they contacted me or any of the other gnutella developers or protocol maintainers before doing this.

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.

GPL *NOT* Shown to ME

[Synic]

I was a previous user of Morpheus and on installing the preview edition I was *NOT* presented with the GPL license, nor any information as to the source of their new modifications... It is only because of my previous knowledge and beta testing of Gnucleus that I recognized the panels and went... "heyyy"... further inspection of the website www.gnucleus.com revealed that they had recognized the swipe of code as well, and I fired an angry e-mail to Morpheus for not recognizing where their code was from and that they were in violation of the GPL. Then I headed to Slashdot to see if others had found out, and lo and behold this topic here... Interestingly enough my experience is a little different from the initial news bearer....

Re:GPL *NOT* Shown to ME

[Anonymous Coward]

Do users of GPL'd software have to accept the GPL as a license?

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Rrrrr...does anybody actually read the thing? It's not that hard. You do not need to accept the GPL to use the software. Period.

You only need to accept the GPL to REDISTRIBUTE the software, because nothing else grants you that right.

Re:to be even more technical

[petard]

Wouldn't displaying the GPL license constitute a written offer to provide source? IANAL, but I would certainly consider it to be such an offer were I to encounter it... It would inspire me to request the source before screaming about a license violation. Now if the license weren't included, it'd be another story altogether.

Re:Note to the naysayers

[Waffle Iron]

Right. One is theft, the other is theft and fraud.

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.

Well, /. did bring the truth to light

[Analogue Kid]

It just amazes me how many people like to knock slashdot for its "lack of journalistic integrity". The fact is that every news publication makes mistakes every now and then. But on slashdot, those mistakes come to light quickly in the comments made to an erroneous article. Actually the headline usually gets updated, too. When's the last time you saw CNN post corrections to itself like that? Slashdot's comment system is great.

Re:Morpheus GPL violation won't be attacked

[Chanc_Gorkon]

According to someone who posted earlier, all that's missing it some icons and bitmaps. It is not surprising to not have those as DOOM is also GPL now, except the art isn't available unless you have the retail/registered version. Art is different then code. It, in my opinion, can't be covered by the GPL. If you the programmer want to keep your art for your program under your control, then that's your right. Different bitmaps and icons won't change the function of the program in any manner.

Re:This is just hype.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you be bothered to read any of the 300 or so comments that were posted here before you showed up? The story is not merely "hyped", it's completely false. The source was available for download hours before the Slashdot article was published. And the Slashdot editors don't have enough class to admit they were wrong, so in their update they make it look like the Morpheus people suddenly decided to make the source available after Slashdot called attention to it.

Anybody check variances between binary and code?

[stph]

I wonder how many people ever download source and verify that it is indeed the source for the GPL'd product, of the correct version and such. I've downloaded and compiled source when pre-compiled wasn't available. Additionally, I've downloaded pre-compiled binary versions of GPL'd programs. But I don't think I've ever done both for a GPL'd program and compared the behavior of the two pieces of code. The raw laziness of human nature leaves a lot of weasel room in the GPL.

let me explain this a bit further

[hawk]

Opposing copyright is righthink; supporting intellectual property is unrightthink.

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

The Link On the Home Page Is New...

[GeekLife.com]

As I couldn't even find the source code link until I emptied my cache. Looks like musiccity may have actually noticed the increased traffic and checked out the reason.

(though I still don't think they were in violation, it is nice of them to make the source code easily findable)