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

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what do you expect from a service that caters to freeloaders?

Re:Well

[MaxVlast]

Are you contending that the service doesn't cater to freeloaders?

Re:Well

[darien]

what's ESR?

God I envy you.

Source Availability

[Ada_Rules]

They don't have to post the source..They just have to make it available.. GPL does not require source to be distributed at the same time as binary (although you invoke the third party rule if it is not)

Re:Source Availability

[danielrose]

Correct. Perhaps they offer it for download (havent checked I am too lazeeeee :))

Re:Source Availability

[mother_superius]

I don't understand. What's the difference? How else would they offer it? Snail Mail of a cd?

Re:Source Availability

[SuperBug]

MusicCity's prior practices have set precedent for the way they will handle their code. They make the gnucleus source available, but not the morpheus source available it seems.

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

[linzeal]

Can we use braille printed yellow on a white background?

Re:Source Availability

[fferreres]

Seems like a very important bit. The XFree license would allow this. But GPL does not (I somehow limits the expansion of GPL, but on the bright side, it more protective).

Anyway, I'm now wondering the problem is the definition of "Derivative Work". To what extent is something a derivate? Because Morpheus is clearly something bigger than Gnucleus, but Gnucleus beign at the P2P core...

When you have a binary driver for Linux and you download it, you are happy you can now use the modem/3d_card/etc. But if, for example, Nvidia posted a Kernel source that they know works with the driver, along with a binary only driver, would that be ok?

What if they wanted to offer it in an embedded system they would like to sell (say a new console)?

I'm no expert, but am very curious. Anybody here knows? It would be nice to have a way of limiting Morpheus abusing the GPL but endorsing companies to take advantage of it also (so that it can catch up).

For preventing abuse i mean, for the sake of the argument, they become so popular that mostly everyone uses Morpheus and Gnutella dies and we have another propietary network & monopoly preventing Open Source from doing compatible stuff. Thus Open Source served the porpuse GLD wanted to defeat...

Re:Source Availability

[innocent_white_lamb]

Can we use braille printed yellow on a white background?

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

[ScepticalTech]

9 track magnetic tape should be acceptable.

Or a CD-ROM, of course.

Punched paper tape probably would be unreasonable at this point in time.

Re:Source Availability

[ScepticalTech]

And, of course, one person can order the snail mailed CD, then post it on his web site for everybody.

Re:Source Availability

[Niksie3]

somehow I don't think nvidea would mind if you use its drivers in a new console and sell billions of them... for if you want to use the drivers you also need the card...

Re:Source Availability

[Arker]

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

[essdodson]

This is correct, it's been verified by RMS himself several times.

Re:Source Availability

[essdodson]

The source available is the source for the morpheus client. Keep checking.

Re:Source Availability

[Stary]

But if, for example, Nvidia posted a Kernel source that they know works with the driver, along with a binary only driver, would that be ok?

Yes, because the Linux kernel is not GPL, it's a modified version of GPL done precisely to allow this kind of thing.

Re:Source Availability

[notsoanonymouscoward]

bah, even if they hadn't given the code out, I'm sure it would have appeared on morpheus in under a week.

Wrong!

[nikkelitous]

Actually, the source for Morpheous is available. If you just look down at the bottom of the menu on the left you see a link called "Source Code." If you click on that link it lets you download the source.

Re:Wrong!

[gregfortune]

Furthermore, at least some of the modifications are in the downloaded code. I just did a quick grep and musiccity and Morpheus Preview Edition both show up in src/resource files. Dunno how different it is from the original though. I guess there is a disadvantage to not having a running windows box handy ;o)

Re:Wrong!

[linzeal]

http://www.musiccity.com/source/mpesrc1.zip

People need to frigging check stories before going crazy! crazy!

Re:Wrong!

[linzeal]

I don't know, this news is almost so bleeding edge its raw and unpalletable sometimes.

Re:Wrong!

[SuperBug]

That is not the most recent source, which is WHY this story came out.

Re:Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man, why do you have to rein in on our Slashdot bashing?

Re:Wrong!

[fferreres]

It doen't really have to include the source together with the binary. I mean, mostly every GPLd program can be downloaded in binary or source versions. It's not fair to ask for source+binary downloads.

The only thing, I think more credit should be given when using someone else's work. And at least, I'd have hoped that Morpheus had done that (maybe they did, i haven't check but looks like they didn't).

Source Is Provided (for something)

[TheAJofOZ]

I downloaded the Morpheus client just after the previous story about it changing to the gnutella network and there was a link on the front page to the source code for the new client. I currently have a file "mpesrc1.zip" sitting on my desktop which contains source code. Admittedly the zip file then contains a folder called gnucleus1 so it may be the original, unmodified code rather than the morpheus code. Anyone else see this link or have the ability to analyse the code?

Re:Source Is Provided (for something)

[MajroMax]

Admittedly the zip file then contains a folder called gnucleus1 so it may be the original, unmodified code rather than the morpheus code. Anyone else see this link or have the ability to analyse the code?

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)

[TheAJofOZ]

Looks like the real deal, folks, and someone just jumped the lawsuit-happy gun.

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)

[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.

Re:Source Is Provided (for something)

[TheAJofOZ]

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).

Right you are - a very strange browser cache problem. It was there when I went to the page originally and I even downloaded the source code. A shift reload cleared it all up (normal reload didn't).

Re:Source Is Provided (for something)

[jesser]

Right you are - a very strange browser cache problem. It was there when I went to the page originally and I even downloaded the source code. A shift reload cleared it all up (normal reload didn't).

What browser are you using? If a normal reload doesn't validate frames with an If-Modified-Since, that's a bug.

Re:Source Is Provided (for something)

[TheAJofOZ]

What browser are you using? If a normal reload doesn't validate frames with an If-Modified-Since, that's a bug.

MS IE. It's a bug somewhere, but it may be a bug in the browser or any of the caches between me and the internet (I'm not entirely sure what kind of things I go through to get out of here). I've not seen the problem before though, so it may have just been something "funky" (ie: a bug but who knows where), particularly since the only time I've visited the page in the past couple of months the link was there.

Re:Source Is Provided (for something)

[itsdave]

somebody on crack?

Wasn't this already mentioned earlier today

[nigelthellama]

in the story about the new Morpheus release: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/02/141025 9

Minor, advertizing violation

[MajroMax]

MusicCity actually _does_ have a source code download link, on the main page even -- check the left toolbar, at the bottom.

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.

Re:Minor, advertizing violation

[Cheetah86]

Here is the fixed link.

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.

Re:So?

[Wheaty18]

I guess it's up to the author's of Gnucleus. It puts them in a very strong position in court.

time for change

[Anonymous Coward]

I now see the light.

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

Re:So?

[danielrose]

Or not... if you check and see you CAN download the source...

From the GPL preamble...

[Darwin_Frog]

You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code
(they being whoever is using the product).

The install puts a legal.txt file in the install directory. Contents:

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 date on which you downloaded the binary version of this software.

So maybe the GPL isn't being violated after all, and there's a bit of gun-jumping going on.

Not a violation. Just because most people include source doesn't mean it's a requirement.

Re:Wonderful, just wonderful. . .

[danielrose]

And I declare shenanigans on this story!

There is some irony here somewhere...

[Confessed Geek]

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...

[tswinzig]

Its ok to have software designed to "share" possibly copyrighted music, but God forbid they mess with the GPL copyright...

Except the article was not talking about the GPL copyright, but a GPL violation.

Re:There is some irony here somewhere...

[Trepidity]

Which is the same thing. As the GPL is not an EULA, violating it is not a license violation, since you never accepted the license. Violating it merely means you are in violation of the author's copyright, as nothing outside the GPL gives you permission to distribute his code.

Re:There is some irony here somewhere...

[infiniti99]

It actually isn't quite so hypocritical as you might think. Violating the GPL is almost like the reverse of violating traditional copyright. Trade copyrighted music, and you are doing something illegal. Refuse to trade GPL code, and you are doing something illegal. It is the lack of "sharing" source code that is a GPL violation. It is easy to see then, how someone could share copyrighted music yet still obey the GPL (sharing code). Sharing is the name of the game, and these people are strong believers.

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).

Re:There is some irony here somewhere...

[cappadocius]

The real irony is that if they had violated the GPL, it might be easier to sue them and win than for the record industry to sue them and win.

Re:There is some irony here somewhere...

[Zigg]

Not condeming, ...

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"?

Re:Well obviously...

[1g$man]

They can sue for whatever they want, but they wouldn't win a thing. Heh.

Re:Link to source

[hackersforjesus]

The source seems to be here:

http://www.musiccity.com/source/mpesrc1.zip

Fact checking please

[augustz]

PLEASE can we get some even borderline fact checking. The GPL -DOES NOT- require source code to be distributed, merely available, which it seems to be.

STOP with this rediculous everything is a GPL violation if you havn't actually read the gpl.

Re:Fact checking please

[1g$man]

What he's saying is, they don't even need a link to the source code. All they have to do is provide it upon request. Meaning they don't even have to post it to an FTP site. Just if you ask for the code, they have to give it to you. So if it wasn't posted, and i e-mailed and asked for the source they would have to either e-mail it to me or make other arrangements.

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?

[Evangelion]

Hrm, let's see...

• Little to no fact checking, other than "a story submitter told us so."
• Fear mongering and Sensationalist writeups
• Celebrity worship

Sounds like a tabloid to me.

(Hey, tabloids sell well, it's a valid buisness model.)

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

[fferreres]

Wasn't it readership? Last time I checked worked that way!

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

[Synic]

I think journalistic integrity has been on the way down in even "legitmate [sic]" newspapers.. (look at the coverage of mitnick in the new york times)

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

[Enry]

Sounds like a tabloid to me. Sounds like Fox News to me.

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?

[Dock]

Seriously, I would hesitate to pay for any site that priclaims itself as a news service mainly because reporting news is about getting important information out to people reguardless of who they are and what they do. This situation is a little unique as refusing to pay doesn't mean losing access to the news source, however you cannot expect someone to pay more just to get what they have right now, a tech-minded rant at best.

And as for this story specifically, the source was available as of early this afternoon when I looked around 8+ hours before this story was even posted. I realize that the eyes of the posters for this site buldge when anyone says the words "gpl" and "violation", but they should be careful not to be blinded. If you do not investigate news, you are nothing more than an anchor, and anchors who REGULARLY report incorrect news would be fired for this kind of thing, especially since it's basicly claiming a company has committed a legal offense. That's *serious* business and you cannot go around making unfounded claims like that, it's totally irresponsible.

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

[gmhowell]

Read my journal entries on how the charges are tallied (and updates are at another site). And look at this comment where I take the editors to task. As a paying customer.

I'd plonk CT, but then I'd lose half of the articles here.

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

[RedWizzard]

Actually, I'm NOT paying for this.

Exactly. No one is asking you to pay for Slashdot. You are being given the option of paying to avoid seeing advertising. Big difference. You want Slashdot to be something it isn't, e.g. a service where the editors check the facts of the stories. That's fine but it's got nothing to do with the subscription model.

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

[drix]

/. eds say fuck you [slashdot.org] to the readers.

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?

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

[damiam]

Comment's right here.

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

[Evangelion]

Cool, slashdot will eventually turn into hardcore pornography?

*shudder*

on second thought...

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

[Pinball Wizard]

Slashdots saving grace is that it is very popular amongst the people who use products made by companies it criticizes. For example 80%+ of Slashdot readers use Internet Explorer. If someone was to even threaten to sue, it would bring such a negative backlash against them that would be even more damaging than anything they could recover in a lawsuit. Microsoft once asked Slashdot to remove a post and the response was overwhelming. They backed down.

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?

[Linuxathome]

I know this issue at hand is a bit offtopic, but the parent post has opened up pandora's box. I'm not familiar with the law, hence I'm replying to drix for some answers.

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?

[sean23007]

But isn't it true that in order for any member of the media cannot be convicted of libel unless it is proved that not only was false and degrading, but was also printed with malicious intent? IANAL, but papers can say whatever they want about someone as long as they can prove it wasn't done with malicious intent. The lawyer who taught you guys was probably just being cautious (the paper still doesn't want people shooting their mouths off, it is a liability).

Although, Slashdot probably is printing this kind of stuff with malicious intent, especially when there is an infringement on Open Source or anything having to do with Microsoft. They certainly should be careful.

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

[RandomPeon]

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.


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 /. may be different. They add headlines, etc. and massively redistribute other people's libel. Maybe this is different.

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

[RandomPeon]

No, my understanding is that the "malicious intent" standard only applies to public officials. Since the Supreme Court established this standard, elected or appointed official has won a defamation lawsuit, and no government employee has won without probving they should not be considered a "public official". The standards are also somewhat relaxed for "public figures" but that's a far fuzzier term.

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

[aussersterne]

I think the issue is how Slashdot markets itself... that is, whether it claims to be disseminating facts or merely repeating the allegations of others.

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?

[drix]

I'm the original poster and IANAL either, by far -- I'm a full time college student and a part-time reporter. So take what follows with a brick of salt.

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:

Re-publication is not a defense for libel. Printing something libelous that was uttered or written by someone else leaves the paper open to libel just as much as the person who uttered or wrote it originally. Even stories that comes off the AP wire are not guaranteed to be libel free; if [we choose] to run stories from our wire service, we are completely liable for the content of those stores--even though we didn't right them.

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?

[wedg]

Actually, IANAL, but I think putting, "So and so writes,..." pretty much says straightforward that this may or may not include any fact what so ever. It would be considered heresay if it was tried to be used as fact. If you go read the article itself, that is often linked to, then that's a different story altogether.

I doubt VA would still run Slashdot if it were so risky as you make it out to be.

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

[sean23007]

So a reporter can be sued for slander/libel by anyone, but a public official can only win if it was printed with "malicious intent?" I thought malicious intent pertained to everyone, though I could be wrong, after all, I am not a lawyer. Seems to me, though, that it should pertain equally to everyone.

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

[FransUNC]

This could have been already pointed out in another post, but it says pretty clearly on the FAQ:

How do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories?

We don't. You do. :) If something seems outrageous, we might look for some corroboration, but as a rule, we regard this as the responsibility of the submitter and the audience. This is why it's important to read comments. You might find something that refutes, or supports, the story in the main.

Answered by: CmdrTaco Last Modified: 10/28/00

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

[druxton]

ripped straight out of our reporter's handbook:

...if [we choose] to run stories from our wire service, we are completely liable for the content of those stores--even though we didn't right them.

There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. Reading that for the first time really shocked me.

It really shocked me too - speaking of shoddy reporting, who does your proofreading?

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

[damiam]

Try reading it at a threshold of 0.

Re:Note to the naysayers

[FatHogByTheAss]

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

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Has anyone *asked* for the source?

[dangermouse]

Technically, the GPL only obliges a distributor to provide source if asked by someone who has received binaries from him.

Did anyone download the binaries and ask for a copy of the source before they started screaming?

Re:Has anyone *asked* for the source?

[ianezz]

Technically, the GPL only obliges a distributor to provide source if asked by someone who has received binaries from him.

Technically, if you don't provide access to the sources along with the binaries, you have to provide a written offer (paper) to everyone that received binaries from you. Since this is higly inconvenient for net downloads (tracking everyone), putting up a tarball with the sources is generally simplier.

I'm With You

[citizenc]

I couldn't have set it better myself -- I, for one, would definately pay for several thousand slashdot page views (I'm sure I view that many pages in a year) but I, like you, want to make sure that I'm getting reliable reporting.

They don't care?

[burtonator]

Hm...

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

Re:They don't care?

[deanpole]

How about a law to prosecute senders of baseless cease and desist letters for parody websites which are clearly permitted within the law.

Re:They don't care?

[Traxton1]

Ask these people:
Something Awful.
Read the legal section and you'll get the idea.

Fix the blurb.. the source is available

[prockcore]

The source is available right here

So fix the blurb before we get 4 billion posts talking about GPL violations.. oops. too late.

That being said, read the reviews on download.com, people are not happy at all with the new version. Although that doesn't say much since most of them are obviously clueless.. (half of them said "why fix it if it wasn't broken?" aparently missing the fact that it WAS broken.)

Why Are The Gnucleus Developers "Not Happy"?

[TheAJofOZ]

I have to wonder, why the author claims that the Gnucleus developers are not happy about it. The gnucleus home pages states As long as they post their source code and credit us in the program I dont have a problem with this which would indicate they don't mind so much and doesn't mention anything about not being happy.

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.

they make you keep updating too

[layingMantis]

This may be a bit off-topic, but the other day my old Morpheus program stopped working, because it "is too old to connect to the network". This seemed like bullshit, but I dutifully dl'ed KazaaMediaDesktop (same thing, only more adds). Now my question is this: why can't somebody design a prog that utilizes the technology that makes Morpheus usable and relatively quick, but without the (alleged) spyware, pop-up ads, and lousy interface? Music City doesn't control the network, right? It's weird, it's "peer-to-peer", but you always gotta hit their stupid add servers.........umm, obviously my understanding of P to P and whatnot is a bit shallow, so any illumination is appreciated.

Re:they make you keep updating too

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

Kazaa came out with an update for their client a few weeks back. The way that the updates for Kazaa and Morpheus work is that they slowly spread because whenever you connect to a node that has the updated version you are forced to update. Then if anyone happens to connect to you they have to update.

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.

Re:they make you keep updating too

[vertgo]

Also, musiccity has never made their own protocol, they used to host opennap servers, then they licensed kazaa's technology, but without installing adware apps, so they had a bigger user base. Now kazaa just "updated" without including morpheus in the mix, and on the kazaa page, they say "morpheus users,come on over, you'll feel right at home." pretty sneaky. However, there was an open source solution to it before, called gift (generic interface to fastTrack, or gift isn't fast Track, and now gnu internet file transfer). Fasttrack (kazaa) made everyone update back then so they would not interface with this public, non adware software, and locked out gift users like they morpheus users. So all this time, kazaa was spnging money off of morpheus, then screwed them. Genius, in a m1cro$oft kinda way.

Increased number of users

[gregfortune]

Now won't it be funny if MusicCity claims another 5 million users 'cause a bunch of scruffy nerds downloaded the source tonight . Who would have thunk that the ./ effect could actually *help* someone? :)

Re:Increased number of users

[Graspee_Leemoor]

The /. effect always reminds me of a story- I think it was called "Flash Crowds" and might have been by Larry Niven.

Basically, teleportation booths are fact, and when people hear of a disaster or something somewhere in the world you get a massive influx of people who just go there like vultures, for a bit of a look-see.

We should be grateful that people in our time just virtually go to hot sites.

If anyone can correct me on the author or title I'd be grateful...

graspee

Re:Increased number of users

[issachar]

It was Larry Nivan but the short story I read it in was called "The Last Days of the Permanent Floating Riot Club". It's probably published in many collections, but I read it in "A Hole in Space".

I'm mad

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Reading the reviews on CNET pissed the hell out of me. People think that this product is the hard work of the Morpheus team. Sure, it may be legal, but I don't like it. Taking another product and re-labeling it is cheap and wrong. They could have taken the time to actually make their own product (i.e. change the UI perhaps). I hope that the new "Morpehus" is a true fork - that it continues development on it's own and does not take any more code from the Gnucleus team.

Re:I'm mad

[deanj]

This is awful. Where do people get off taking someone else's hard work and basically stealing it? Man, oh man. Oh, and the Morpheus code thing is awful too.

Re:I'm mad

[Evangelion]

Excuse me, but why are you mad?

The Gnucleus developers knew perfectly well this sort of thing could happen when they released it under the GPL (someone taking it, renaming it, and releasing it as thier own, and honouring the GPL while doing so).

This isn't a problem under the GPL, and never has been. They released thier modifications to the source, commented even.

As an aside, getting mad about someone ripping off a program that is designed to rip off [ Artists | Music Companies | "It's a victimeless crime!" ] seems kind of... silly. Doesn't it?

Re:I'm mad

[MajroMax]

Taking another product and re-labeling it is cheap and wrong. They could have taken the time to actually make their own product (i.e. change the UI perhaps).

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.

Re:I'm mad

[j_rhoden]

Well, it is bad when someones just repackages something like that, but you have to consider that they were locked out of their current network and needed a quick way to get back up and running before they started to lose their installed user base. Now, if they'll improve the software further is anyone's guess...

Re:I'm mad

[justahack]

Not really - this was a rushed thing resulting from some kind of an 'evil variety' hack. They are asking for suggestions on their home page as to what people would like to see. Too much delay could easily disillusion many users maybe? It was something like 3 days from their having gone down that they got this out.

Re:I'm mad

[_Sprocket_]

This is so why I prefer BSD licensing.

In this case, BSD licensing would get them what? Their names mentioned in the Help|about window? ;)

Re:I'm mad

[analog_line]

I am sick and tired of people complaining about this, and I've only read halfway down the page.

If you don't want your code to be shamelessly stolen from you, DON'T GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO. The Gnucleus team released it under the GPL. To hell with them and anyone else if they have a problem with how it was used. The GPL gives people you despise the power to take your work and do stuff you hate with it. If you don't like that, keep your source closed, or create a new license that requires contact with the author or what the hell ever hoops you want people to jump through before they can take your code.

You don't have to like it, but don't be so self-righteous about this crap. The Gnucleus team created code that's primary purpose (and we can all nod our heads and _say_ otherwise, but we know what's up, I do it and you do it) is to distribute copyrighted music without the permission of the author, which is illegal, and getting moreso every day. Honor among thieves? Get real...

Re:I'm mad

[BasharTeg]

People think that this product is the hard work of the Morpheus team. Sure, it may be legal, but I don't like it. Taking another product and re-labeling it is cheap and wrong. They could have taken the time to actually make their own product (i.e. change the UI perhaps). I hope that the new "Morpehus" is a true fork - that it continues development on it's own and does not take any more code from the Gnucleus team.

How many different kinds of fool can you be ? That's what the GPL and opensource is all about. The stupid thing about the supporters of the GPL licence, and their argument against the BSD licence, is they think what they're really doing is keeping other people from making money off their source code. To these fools, making money is evil. What they don't get is with the BSD licence we expect (and hope) that someone will do something else useful with our code (even make money). The GPL community fools themselves into thinking (a) only the average open source developer is going to make use of their code, (b) that some corporation is going to want their GPLed code so badly that they are willing to open up their own source code to use it (hahahahahah), or (c) that no "evil" corporation is going to make money off someone else's hard work. Go buy yourselves a clue (or write one and GPL it so other derived clues must also be open). If you open your source code, other people ARE going to benefit from it. One of those possible benefits is MAKING MONEY. That would be the point of business. At least with the BSD licence you aren't being an ignorant fool by claiming you can change the world with the licence to your crappy program. If you don't want other people to make money off your code, don't release it. Sell it yourself. If you want to open source it, accept that the rest of the world could, in theory, make millions off it, and just live with it. I know it's pointless to repeat this to you kiddies over and over again, hoping that someday some sense of reality (or business sense) is going to kick in, but these childish fantasies of fighting the evil corporate empire with your GPL'ed source code seem to endure. BTW this is an honest statement, and not merely a troll or flame. Of course I'll get "troll" anyway from the first knee-jerk GPL and/or Linux zealot who gets a moderator point. I'm always tempted to post anonymous to save my karma from you people, but why should I have to ? Burn my karma if you like. I'll spend a little karma trying to help people wake up from this pseudo-war against the Evil Empire.

Calm down people

[Hall]

As has been mentioned more than once, the source code is available from musiccity's website here. If I were Musiccity, I'd just say "Request it from us and we'll provide it..." . That would satisfy the GPL ! :-)

Also, for those who have downloaded the zip file linked above, it contains a "gnucleus1" folder. Does the GPL allow GPL'd software to be used in "closed-source" software ?? Doesn't doing this "taint" the closed-source program and therefore make it GPL also ?? Or, is this simply ESR's dream/wish ?? Fact is, the GPL has never been tried in court. Until then, all you get is a bunch of non-lawyers spouting their opinion or interpretation.

Re:Calm down people

[danielrose]

I have the slightest feeling they left the gnucleus1 folder named the same and edited the source. Don't quote me tho.

Why GNU/GPL sucks

[gnu-sucks]

this is a prime example. the code is free as in costs nothing. but it is not liberated. And thus you have to meet requirements to use it. Pitty.

Get real.

[Anonymous Coward]

This story is completely wrong. The source is available
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.

[Evangelion]

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.

[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.

Re:Get real.

[maxpublic]

This story is completely wrong. The source is available 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.

Par for the course. Hey, if we pay for subscriptions do ya think we might actually get an editor or two that, well, edits?

Max

Re:Get real.

[vukv]

yeah, but thats GPL...they can do anything with it as long as they provide source...and they dont have to contact anyone about it

Re:Get real.

[gregorio]

I believe that the holier than thou part is:

Gnucleus is a honest, well writen client. Please dont let this action by StreamCast tarnish your impression of us. We will continue as usual working on the next version of Gnucleus. Thanks for your support.

"honest"? And how any action from StreamCast can change people's opinions about them? I believe that this comment changed more opinions than any of StreamCast action.

Re:Get real.

[Compenguin]

how any action from StreamCast can change people's opinions about them?

Morpheus forked before some things were stable. User's train of thought: This new Morpheus is all unstable and sucky, and since it is based on Gnucleus it must too be all unstable and sucky, I'll go try LimeWire.

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:CmdrTaco just made the decision easy

[Otter]

....or at least check out these "GPL violation!" before posting them! Errors in the reporting of the latest quantum computing vapor are one thing; these license violation stories border on libel and at least 90% of them turn out to be cases like this where the submitter either doesn't understand what the GPL requires or flat-out can't read.

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:CmdrTaco just made the decision easy

[fognugen]

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."

Poor Taco, getting bashed here for not taking the time to double check his facts. Gotta' take it easy on the engaged man, he doesn't have time for such things anymore.

It's all about china patterns, wedding invitations, caterers, formal wear, etc... etc... Hang in there big guy!! {*grin*}

Re:CmdrTaco just made the decision easy

[msobkow]

Actually, if his fiance is anything like those of my friends, she is teasing him far more about this than anyone is on this site. Not because anything she says is worse, but because no one has a knack for perfect delivery like an s.o.

Now if the wedding is leaving him that frazzled, just wait until he forgets that appointment to be fitted for his tux...

Subscribe now!

[dimator]

Yes, friends, subscribe to /. now for this kind of journalistic integrity and quality.

Re:Subscribe now!

[WhaDaYaKnow]

Yes, friends, subscribe to /. now for this kind of journalistic integrity and quality.

It's certainly silly that Taco would be the one to post this... There was no need to even verify anything. Anybody who knows the GPL a little bit knows that:

"It is currently being distributed without source in violation of article 3 of the GPL"

is a horseshit comment. It says nowhere in the GPL that a distribution of GPLd software MUST be accompanied by the source. All it says is that the source MUST be made available. And Taco should know that.

I mean, I didn't have to read the comments here to know that there was no story...

Re:Subscribe now!

[ThePlumber2]

Yes! Free bottles of snake oil to the first ten subscribers hehehe.. It's not a BBS, its a "news source".

Re:Subscribe now!

[cappadocius]

The theory of a free press is not that all will get it right, but that the truth will come out through many sources.

Not entirely true - read the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Section 3 makes it clear. The downloaded file does not need to include source. But if it doesn't, then it must include a written offer of source for no more than the cost of distribution. (Said offer can be from you, or else instructions for whereever you got it.)

Just having a link to the source on the original site might be infringment with the letter, if not necessarily the spirit, of the GPL. What you are distributed must be accompanied with source-code or the offer, and the link on the site doesn't accompany the download...

Re:Not entirely true - read the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

This is distribued with Morpheus, in the install directory, moron:

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.

to be even more technical

[Trepidity]

The GPL actually obliges the distributor to either provide the source with the binary or accompany the binary with a written offer to provide source. So while it's true that he only has to actually provide source to those who ask, he's still required to make a written offer to do so; just providing the source to people who ask isn't itself enough.

Re:to be even more technical

[deanpole]

Merely including the text of the GPL license does not mean an offer to provide the source, as it says nothing about what license the provider obtained the source code under.

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:to be even more technical

[danielrose]

I definately agree on that one. Anybody reading the GPL could reasonably infer said offer!

Re:to be even more technical

[Arandir]

Most GPL software that I have in my possession contain no explict offer of source code.

Re:to be even more technical

[roie_m]

That's because the source is usually available from the same place and on the same terms as the binary, and that's also accepted by the GPL. (e.g., click here to get the binary and here to get the source is all you need).

Whoa

[NitsujTPU]

I didn't say that either is right. I just said that there is a legal difference, so there might be a case for the FSF in this one. Also of note is that Morpheus only FACILITATES illegal things. It isn't in itself illegal, and it COULD be used for legal ends.

Besides, I was making a joke.

What if they don't accept?

[ghillie]

Does not accepting prevent the program from running?
The GPL does not require that you accept the license to use the software. It only requires you accept the liscense if you modify or distribute the program or its derivative works.

Not only that ...

[fferreres]

But the Gnucleus team is really happy with Morpheus. The "news rant" i think was due to the MusicCity attitude. They didn't even the contact Gnucleus team.

But they indeed are very proud, and happy. Take a look:

http://www.gnucleus.com/general/clones.html

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 ...

[Wolfier]

>The "news rant" i think was due to the
>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?

Re:If piracy's a non-issue, what about scalability

[Anonymous Coward]

This is well-covered in the previous slashdot story today. They're using a newer version of the gnutella protocol, one which allows for special "super-peers" which function similar to the supernodes on the KaZaa network. This means things should scale relatively nicely, theoretically. Go read the lengthy discussion earlier today, or just go read up on the recent versions of the gnutella protocol.

Re:So?

[MaxVlast]

The author's what?

And I highly doubt this would ever end in court. It's just too simple -- easily resolved and lawyers are expensive.

giFT

[Robotech_Master]

Let me just say it again. giFT. giFT, giFT, giFT. If you're into file-trading and you've got Linux (or some other Unixlike that will compile it), run it. If you're into file-trading and programming and you use some other OS, maybe you should consider writing a port.

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

[Robotech_Master]

You do not recall correctly, Anonymous Coward.

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.

Re:giFT

[lanner]

Some time ago I was searching for a good file trading/searching network access program, and I could not really find one for the win32 platform. I found Gnucleus and it was fairly good, but had some issues. It still does. Now I have something new to try. Thank you for sharing this and not simply adding to the typical post babel. And, thanks for it being moderated properly, as I am interested. Because it sticks out, I am more easily able to find this new resource and try it out myself.

That is the way it is supposed to work.

Re:giFT

[Robotech_Master]

Well, bear in mind that giFT is only available for Linux so far, not for Win32. It will be out sooner or later for non-Linux, but in order for that to happen there have to be people willing to write it first.

Re:giFT

[Alexander Poquet]

This is not technically true. A win32 port has been written, and is part of cvs. While cvs is easy for Linux folks, however, it's rather hard for win32 users -- as such, most windows people will have to wait until release to be able to use it.

This in no way precludes usage by the Linux community, however.

Re:giFT

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Try edonkey at www.edonkey2000.com.

The downloads are quite slow, but the file availability is good, and you can get crcs from sharereactor.com so you know you're getting good files.

I also sometimes use gnotella and find its downloads faster but it takes longer to connect to a host.

WinMX is also supposed to be good and have no spyware but I haven't tried it. (gnotella is spyware free and edonkey's is optional on installation).

graspee

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

[HoloShane]

There were two versions of this new client. The first one CNET carried for a while was the old one, which didn't display the GPL in setup, nor create any program shortcuts and had lots of images and funcationaliy missing in the program. A second one, which is now on CNET as well, fixes all the missing images in the program, creates start menu shortcuts and also displays all the relevant things in setup. Try updating if you have the original release still.

Re:GPL *NOT* Shown to ME

[damiam]

You don't have to accept the GPL as a click-through license, but nothing else gives you the right to use or distribute the software. So by using the software, you are implicitly agreeing that you will not violate the GPL by forking it without source code, etc.

I wouldn't say that visiting an Apache-served web site constitutes use of Apache. But even if it did, all you'd be doing is agreeing not to violate the GPL on Apache, which would be rather difficult if you don't even have a copy of Apache.

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:So?

[Synic]

yeah but not the source of morpheus... remember the whole "viral" license hubbub people made about the GPL?

Re:So?

[danielrose]

did you actually check the source in the gnucleus1 directory or are you speculating on it's contents?

has anyone compiled the source

[wazo2k]

I was browsing the source files, opened Gnucleus.plg with my browser. The file seems to be a build log, but one thing in it intrigues me:

Output Window
Compiling resources...
Compiling...
SearchToolbar.cpp
D:\gnucleus\Source\SearchToolbar.cpp(139) : error C2065: 'm_Preferences64' : undeclared identifier
D:\gnucleus\Source\SearchToolbar.cpp(143) : error C2065: 'm_SHARED64Bitmap' : undeclared identifier
Error executing cl.exe.

Results
morpheusp.exe - 2 error(s), 0 warning(s)

I didn't have time to install a compiler on my computer yet, but i wonder if these errors are still there.

Re:has anyone compiled the source

[vircum]

The source that Morpheus distributes will not build with Visual Studio. They don't bother to distribute the icon files or a .mak file.

Re:has anyone compiled the source

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, guys! Come on... You can easily get the resource files from the installed binarie (exe). Simply onpen it inside MSVC as resources. You then have access to all the ico and bmp. They'll get saved with their IDs rahter than their names though. Check inside the .rc and the resources.h to make the match.

Also, you'll find your missing 2 bmps. with IDS 128 adn 234. THose are the toolbars. Export the exe as resources, and bingo. You'll have all teh missing resources.

As for the comiplation errors, simply add the variables to the class. But I don't know if it's worth it... Since, even if I made it compile, it crashes upon startup...

Way to go, MusicCity!!! Not the same sources as the ones used for the distribution... Doesn't that break GPL?

Re:has anyone compiled the source

[vircum]

Gnucleus only works with Visual Studio. It is specifically designed with Visual Studio-specific tools and will not work with gcc.

See response to other respondant. (n/t)

[NitsujTPU]

This space reserved...

Re:GPL Bleh

[Synic]

sober up and come back

what an insentive to use GPL...

[hajmola]

to be bashed on slashdot.

Re:Bleh.

[evilpaul13]

No one forces people to use GPL'ed software, so if they choose to then they are bound by the license. If Microsoft says you can only use their software on one PC per license, then you can either agree to that or not use it. The GPL is more acceptable an agreement, in that you probably didn't even pay for the software it governs.

Don't bitch about a free lunch :-P

"Your version of Morpheus is too old..."

[Kaiwen]

I just downloaded, installed and attempted to run the new client, and received the message "Your version of Morpheus is too old to connect to the network. Please download updated [sic] version from www.musiccity.com"

WTF? Anyone have this problem?

Re:"Your version of Morpheus is too old..."

[Kaiwen]

Check www.musiccity.com. The symptom you're experiencing is the whole reason this fiasco exists (kazaa blocking them out).

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..."

[xX_sticky_Xx]

Are you using your old shortcut to launch the client?

Re:Note to the naysayers

[nelsonal]

Yeah, I make software but I only listen to music.

I hope the update is digitally signed?

[lightspawn]

Otherwise I could connect to the network and inject my own version of the client, complete with back doors etc?

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.

Begging for forgiveness

[The Smith]

Right, so this is another example of Slashdot's thourough checking of their sources. But imagine if they had been right. Would the copyright holders have been able to follow MySQL's example and ban Morpheus from distributing their program for all time, unless they got down on their knees and begged for forgiveness for their henious 12-hour violation of the GPL?

Am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of the GPL being used in an apparently spiteful and vindictive way?

They are complying with the letter of the GPL, but

[petard]

not really the spirit... I downloaded the source, and even rebooted into windows to give it a whirl. It's painful. When you first open the open the workspace in visual studio, you have many open files, and they have neglected to include all of the resources necessary for a build. (All of the source seems to be there, but icons and bitmaps are missing... VS won't even start a build without them.) To be fair to the Morpheus folks, though, it looks like they might have simply forgotten a directory in their zip file. I checked Gnucleus out of CVS and copied the "res" directory from their checkout to the Morpheus directory. It still didn't build, but I got the same (mis-)behavior with both projects. Morpheus clearly was in a hurry to get this source file up; the archive is a mess. Absolute paths (like d:\gnucleus\morpheuspe.exe) are hard-coded into the workspace, and the changelog isn't even updated. I'm too tired to play with it more tonight, but it looks like the essentials (for license compliance) are there, just in a shitty package.

Please don't smoke so much crack.

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

On running the Morpheus Preview Edition setup .exe, I am presented with the dialog box about how this will set up Morpheus on your computer, shut down all other programs, blahblahblah. Then after I click next I am presented with an Accept / Don't Accept dialog box which has

"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

followed by the rest of the GPL.

You are just plain wrong, sorry.

Re:So?

[BoneFlower]

I hear you there- Linux is Linux, it isn't just the kernel. Its the Linux Kernel, all those GNU utilities, X, KDE and/or GNOME ion many cases, dozens of utilities, packages, kernel modules, etc from people entirely unconencted to RMS or Linus Torvalds... Linux is the whole package. You could theoretically take the Linux kernel and replace all the GNU software with entirely different programs, and still make it compatible with the other Liux distros. Since its compatible, and effectively the same OS, does that one need to be called GNU/Linux too?? Granted, theres no reason to do such a project, but it is entirely possible to build a Linux version that is entirely free of GNU software. THats the big hole in RMS' arguments about the GNU/Linux name.

I just tried to compile it....

[penguin_nipple]

Set my targets in VC++, checked my paths, checked it all...

--------------------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....

[DanLake]

It's not just the Gnucleus.rc2 file that's missing. There is no resource directory in the zip at all. That means that all of the following resources are unavailable at build time. Does anyone know where I can get these? Are they making the full source available so that I can build it myself? I suppose I could just make bogus icons, but I have to have the res/Gnucleus.rc2 file.

Icons:
"res\\Gnucleus.ico"
"res\\Connect.ico"
"res\\Disconnect.ico"
"res\\Statistics.ico"
"re s\\Trashed.ico"
"res\\Routed.ico"
"res\\Broadcas ted.ico"
"res\\Incoming.ico"
"res\\settings.ico"
"res\\TrayOn.ico"
"res\\TrayOff.ico"
"res\\Sha re.ico"
"res\\Transfers.ico"
"res\\Search.ico"
"res\\Chat.ico"
"res\\Browser.ico"
"res\\Browser .ico"
"res\\Browser.ico"
"res\\Transfers_Partial .ico"
"res\\Transfers_Up.ico"
"res\\Transfers_Do wn.ico"
"res\\Search_Results.ico"
"res\\Search_A dvanced.ico"
"res\\Connect_Advanced.ico"
"res\\C onnect_Basic.ico"

Bitmaps:
"res\\Toolbar.bmp"
"res\\search_butto n.bmp"
"res\\logo_black.bmp"
"res\\share.bmp"
" res\\search.bmp"
"res\\chat.bmp"
"res\\transfers .bmp"
"res\\SurfBar.bmp"
"res\\bitmap1.bmp"
"Re s\\transfers64.bmp"
"Res\\connect64.bmp"
"Res\\s haredfiles64.bmp"
"Res\\disconnect64.bmp"
"Res\\ preferences64.bmp"

Re:I just tried to compile it....

[wazo2k]

check out this reply to one of my post from an anonymous coward here. Apparently, you can extract the resources from the .exe, but you will get compilation errors (missing identifiers). If you manage to correct the errors (adding the variables to the right class), you will get an application that will crash on startup. My guess is that the source code that is given isn't the same as the one for the distributed program. I don't know the GPL really well, but couldn't this be considered a license violation?

Re:I just tried to compile it....

[weezel]

The Gnucleus source distribution also has this problem (in addition to tons of warnings, at least under VC7). I think you'll find all the files that should be under res\ are actually in zlib\. You can hand pick them out and move them to res\ or if you just want to compile quickly just duplicate zlib\ over to res\.

Re:I just tried to compile it....

[MisterBlister]

Resources like BMP files aren't source code, so they don't fall under the GPL. Thus you're not entitled to them (though it would be nice if they included them in the source archives).

So its not a GPL violation.

Re:I just tried to compile it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you can. Open the exe in MSVC, and save save as... resources.

Re:I just tried to compile it....

[penguin_nipple]

I have successfuly built the Morpheus Preview Edition from their source

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.

I stand corrected. :)

GPL Never Violated

[metakone]

As far as I know the source code has been available from the music city website since the beginning of the availability Morpheus's New Preview Version. (I was one of the first ppl to download it) No GPL violation ever took place, I guess it took them some hours to add a link to the source (albeit not a very prominent link)

It's all so obvious

[Tal Cohen]

They made the source available, but well hidden, and then submitted a story to Slashdot saying "The source ain't there!". Result: free advertising on Slashdot.

Will paying for subscription also remove this kind of ads, guys?

i'm really scared of this...

[taco1991]

I fear this will give the GPL and free software a bad name. If Morpheus is ever shut down because of copyright violations, then maybe people will associate GPL and free software with distributing warez, mp3s, videos, etc... all these illegal things that Morpheus (and gnutella) let you do.

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...

[autechre]

So, according to you "IT IS ILLEGAL" if I want to distribute MP3s made of the track from my former band's CD, which we recorded ourselves? Or my recording (I play everything!) of my funk arrangement of "Amazing Grace"? There's no label involved, and I did all the recording myself, in an academic studio. All my recordings are belong to me, and I can distribute them however I choose.

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...

[taco1991]

Yes, if you own the copyright, you can do whatever you want to do with your material, like putting it on Gnutella and Morpheus. I'm referring to the program's most prominent use - transferring copyrighted material which the users do not own the copyright. Just how many downloads of your band's music have there been? I'm sure you know as well as I that the majority of files on those programs are illegal, and that your band's music probably hasn't propagated much around the net... (if it has, then congrats!)

taco

Re:i'm really scared of this...

[10am-bedtime]

no worries. the more normal people exercise their freedoms in ways that contrast starkly w/ the concept of "illegal", the more that concept is shown for the farce it is. let there be light. association w/ freedom is an exercise in freedom. let no one cower from this!

thi

Re:i'm really scared of this...

[gillbates]

maybe people will associate GPL and free software with distributing warez, mp3s, videos, etc... all these illegal things that Morpheus (and gnutella) let you do.

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...

[nathanh]

If Morpheus is ever shut down because of copyright violations, then maybe people will associate GPL and free software with distributing warez, mp3s, videos, etc... all these illegal things that Morpheus (and gnutella) let you do.

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.

Re:i'm really scared of this...

[3.1415926535]

I'm sure you know as well as I that the majority of files on those programs are illegal ...

I fail to see how this makes Gnutella itself illegal. Almost anything can be used to commit a crime, and yet cars, computers, crowbars, you name it aren't illegal. Why should software be any different?

Nice update T...

[zsmooth]

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...

Re:Nice update T...

[Fjord]

Regardless, the people at slash actually have a GPLed product (slashcode). Seemingly you would think that they would know that you don't have to include the source or even a link to the source. Just provide it if asked.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Offtopic but mod parent up

[Spiff28]

Because this is honestly the first accurate description of the way things are and should be with slashdot.

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. 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:So?

[Niksie3]

good luck finding a alternative to gcc

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:Well, /. did bring the truth to light

[nusuth]

Actually reality is CNN, so they can't make mistakes of this kind.

Re:Well, /. did bring the truth to light

[darkonc]

A couple of points:
First of all -- Slashdot was willing to put an update on their page that essentially seemed to say 'oops!'.. unlike many other news organizations which would probably just quietly change (or drop) the story. Secondly: I don't program in the microsoft vein, but when I extracted the .zip file what I ended up with didn't look like a complete program.

After moving all of the .cpp .h and .txt files to a directory called 'parts', I was left with the following>

% file *

• Gnucleus.aps: MSVC .res
  Gnucleus.clw: ASCII English text, with CRLF line terminators
  Gnucleus.dsp: ASCII English text, with CRLF line terminators
  Gnucleus.dsw: ASCII text, with CRLF line terminators
  Gnucleus.exe.manifest: XML document text
  Gnucleus.ncb: MSVC program database ver 2.00^M
  Gnucleus.opt: Microsoft Office Document
  Gnucleus.plg: HTML document text
  Gnucleus.rc: C++ program text
  parts: directory (where I put the parts)
  resource.hm: C++ program text

From the GPL:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

That last part seems to be missing here, if I'm not mistaken. As far as I'm concerned, it's a very important part.

To put it more suscinctly: Has anybody actually managed to COMPILE the sources that they distributed???, and shouldn't there be a source file for Gnucleus.aps ?

Re:Well, /. did bring the truth to light

[leshert]

I don't program in the microsoft vein, but when I extracted the .zip file what I ended up with didn't look like a complete program.

It is. I don't mean to be rude, but the fact that you don't program Windows is what kept you from seeing it. Don't assume that because you don't know how to compile it, that it's incomplete.

Has anybody actually managed to COMPILE the sources that they distributed???

Yep. Running right now. The did apparently forget to include the res directory (icons and bitmaps), but those were easily ripped from the executable, and I'm willing to believe that's just an oversight.

The "build scripts" you're talking about are the .dsw and .dsp files, which are the equivalent of Makefile on UNIX systems.

...shouldn't there be a source file for Gnucleus.aps?

No. It's an automatically generated file, created from the sources by the IDE.

Re:Oh, shut up already.

[mESSDan]

Well said, and something that needed to be said. I agree wholeheartedly.

Re:So? (this is totally OT, btw.)

[Alexander Poquet]

RMS does not have issues with calling Linux Linux. He simply has issues with people calling Linux kernel + GNU userland simply Linux, because it neglects the majority of the software required to build a full OS.

If you were to build Linux without any GNU software -- which would be rather hard, since I don't know of any free binutils toolchain to replace GNU's -- I very much doubt that RMS would care if you called it Foo/Linux or just Linux, or whatever else you wanted.

He wants GNU/Linux called GNU/Linux because it is GNU/Linux. Simple as that.

Morpheus GPL violation won't be attacked

[lowieken]

Not the entire source is provided, it seems. This DOES look like a GPL violation. Now the Gnucleus folks don't have the money to sue. The FSF probably won't sue. This gives powerful GPL opponents too much of a chance to associate GPL with pirating in the mainstream press. Even if Gnucleus has its fair uses... Seems like a very unhealthy situation to me. Morpheus knows this very well...

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.

You're right

[Aqua OS X]

I went to music city's home page, and a download for source code was right on the front page. Hell, it was easier to find then the compiled app they are dishing out.

It helps to read before posting doesn't it :)

ok everybody freakout......

[Chanc_Gorkon]

EVERYTIME I see some company do something like this, everyone freaks out. OMG THEY'RE VIOLATING THE GPL!!!! This is getting old people!! How about WAITING an hout or so or INVESTIGATING it further before posting a freakout story. SHEESH!

Business?

[Stevedust]

Now Morpheus is based on GPL software, how do they plan to make money from it?

Surely they can do nothing to stop anyone from re-distributing an ad-free, spyware-free version of the Morpheus client?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought the ads were their only *real* source of income??

This is just hype.

[juju2112]

This article is intentionally hyped up. It says Morpheus is 'currently being distributed without source'. It's only been a day for christsakes!! And probably a very hectic and frustrating day for the Morpheus programmers i'd venture to say. They probably had always intended to release the source, but i'd venture to guess that they were just a little busy last night.

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.

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.

Re:Oh, shut up already.

[juju2112]

For a great number of people, when technology news is posted on Slashdot it is their first exposure to it. When that news is distorted from truth because of editorializing, 250,000 people suddently have the wrong story.

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.

Re:There seems..

[ColdGrits]

Oh, there is a lot of this going round alright, just not what you are thinking.

What there IS a lot of, are stories posted on Slashdot without the editors bothering to check facts first.

Fact - the sources already WERE freely available on the site long before the "story" was posted.

Yup, this is just another in a loooooong line of unresearched, factually inaccurate non-stories posted to teh slashdot front page.

and they expect us to *pay* for this? :-(

There's no "journalism" to require "integrity"

[analog_line]

Slashdot is a public forum where people can excercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech (even if they don't have a right to free speech where they are from) which means they can be completely misinformed and/or outright lying to us to further some end of theirs.

If you're here looking for journalism or integrity in any way shape or form (aside from the links to news articles posted here) just wake the hell up. There has never been any here.

Re:Wonderful, just wonderful. . .

[analog_line]

Please check your facts before you blindly and stupidly agree with everything the little blurb has to say. It's been proven time and time again that Slashdot posters don't bother to check their facts before saying any of this stuff. Don't perpetuate their stupidity.

Re:hm

[hkmwbz]

The protocol switch wasn't intentional. It was forced. Some say that it was intentional by Kazaa to force users to abandon Morpheus and use Kazaa instead, so they could cash in on the ads (and spyware). Accidentally, Kazaa and the FastTrack network are now owned by a company which produces ad solutions.

These are probably of interest:

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/03012 00 2b.php

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/02282 00 2c.php

Strangely enough, the only thing Kazaa/FastTrack has to say about this is "welcome, Morpheus users". They sure know how to feast off of companies in trouble. And seeing as it is possible that Kazaa caused this, their actions are even more despicable.

The truth will surface at some point. I have a hard time believing that a company can be this corrupt, but then again, anything is possible, and Kazaa aren't exactly the company with the highest moral standards out there.

Re:FORK MORPHEUS

[hkmwbz]

Synic,

"The Morpheus network" is Gnutella :)

Re:So?

[mindstrm]

You cannot be forced to distribute source. As per the terms of the GPL, if you violate the GPL, you simply have to cease distribution.

That's because

[mindstrm]

the linux kernel license specifically exempts binary-only kernel modules that use an interface already existing in the kernel from the GPL.

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..)

But this is GPL

[mindstrm]

Right. But If I take gnucleus, change the name, re-do any graphics so it looks different, and put up a site hawking CD versions and not mentioning the original authors, that is my RIGHT under the GPL, so long as I follow the terms of the GPL.
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)

You may not like it..

[mindstrm]

however, the gnucleus people already gave permission to Morpheus to do this, under certain terms.

Those terms are known as the GPL.

Could defamation be right around the corner?

[Anomolous Cow Herd]

Wow, the editorial incompetence here has been reaching dangerous levels as of late. How long, CmdrTaco, until Slashdot gets hit with a defamation lawsuit for posting outright lies about a company and portraying them as fact?

Morpheus 'About' box

[sapone]

--- snip ---
Morpheus Preview Edition 1.3.1.1
Copyright(c) 2002 Streamcast Networks. All rights reserved.

Includes Gnutella, Gnucleus Technologies under General Public License.

Portions Copyright(c) 1995-2000 Microsoft Corporation.
Includes Microsoft Internet Explorer technology under license.
--- snip ---

I wonder if the Internet Explorer code still is included - and if so, if its source has been published. Else Morpheus really would be in violation of the GPL...

Which one is better...

[LazyBoy]

... FROM A USABILITY POINT OF VIEW?
(Don't say "Gnucleus because they're righteous;
those Morpheus guys are sneaky.)

Should I d/l the new Morpheus or Gnucleus?

Did you get the extra part?

[Sauron23]

My favorite part is Savenow which you agree to install along with the beta of Morpheus.
Windows started locking up. I'm kinda suprised it's been running fine. After I install morpheus beta, machine locks up, morpheus beta is not running, machine locks up. hmmm. check the run line in the registry, yes morpheus dropped more free "stuff" with the install. again.
Under windows 2000 it's:
hkey_local_machine\software\microsoft\windows\curr entversion\run\savenow.exe
and default install to:
c:\program files\savenow\ It's also in add/remove if you like doing things the easy way. I probably would have noticed sooner but the proxy is running a popup closer. The one good part in this is the savenow.db file. A great starting point for aspiring perl artist. mmm, A nicely comma delineated txt file, how tasty, and it's chock full of domain names I find less then appealing.

Begin Rant: Savenow.exe, good job Music City. Way to add value to your eventual selloff people. Which one were you marketing to? BMG? Sony? What? Were you guys thinking you could throttle the P2P golden goose for just one fucking P2P golden egg? Even a little one? Make yours off the freeloading, err free trading networks before legislation folded the whole sorry tale down the flusher? Too bad. Your not alone however, Napster couldn't pull it off either. Good luck extending gnutella. End Rant.

savenow.exe is scary, a legal, I assume, trojan horse, riding in on the back of some other app. If it's like the last time it won't uninstall when you uninstall morpheus. Can't verify as I've already uninstalled savenow manually, and no, I'm not reinstalling for testing purposes! engage karma flush... now.

Re:Did you get the extra part?

[MSZ]

My favorite part is Savenow which you agree to install along with the beta of Morpheus.

What do you expect? They are going crappy all the way.

For most people FastTrack was alternative to Gnutella, a better than "the real thing" alternative. Now MusicCity is going to lose customers big time.

I still remeber, what they promised - an integrated client for BOTH Gnutella AND FastTrack. That would be killer app. Now it's killed app.

Re:Did you get the extra part?

[Tantrum420]

My favorite part is Savenow which you agree to install along with the beta of Morpheus.
Windows started locking up. I'm kinda suprised it's been running fine. After I install morpheus beta, machine locks up, morpheus beta is not running, machine locks up. hmmm. check the run line in the registry, yes morpheus dropped more free "stuff" with the install. again.
Under windows 2000 it's:
hkey_local_machine\software\microsoft\windo ws\curr entversion\run\savenow.exe
and default install to:
c:\program files\savenow\ It's also in add/remove if you like doing things the easy way.

Uhhh... No. I didn't get it. Just installed it a couple of hours ago. No savenow. Anywhere. Period.

Not that it matters that I speak my piece. Nobody listens to me anyway. I get no score. Ever. Don't know why. Guess I should just make a new user ID or something.

T

Re:Did you get the extra part?

[Sauron23]

Uhhh... No. I didn't get it. Just installed it a couple of hours ago. No savenow. Anywhere. Period.

Somehow that almost makes it worst.

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.

Violations aren't negated because corrected

[dh003i]

The GPL license should be adhered to from the start, not just when people call them on violating it. And now that they *have* posted the source code, people seem to think this somehow makes their VIOLATION of the GPL OK. It does NOT make it OK. Thousands of copies of the Morpheus program were downloaded without the source...this means that the people who downloaded it may be under the impression that its not GPL'ed, which creates all kinds of problems (such as them redistributing it in violation of the GPL, and eventually a company getting ahold of it and trying to claim its not GPL'ed so they can rape it).

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?

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

Re:let me explain this a bit further

[1g$man]

I can see it in 20 years. All software will be GNU and there will be huge posters everywhere warning of GPL violation with a big image of Richard Stallman's face with the writing: "RMS IS WATCHING YOU!" underneath.

Re:let me explain this a bit further

[s20451]

if it were this picture, that would put the fear of God into me, I'm sure.

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)

Re:Note to the naysayers

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Better check again. Copyright violations are considered theft in much of the world. You don't think pirates get arrested over civil violations do you?

No, you better check again. Don't think that people all over the world are arrested for crimes other than theft, do you?

Murder isn't theft, and neither is copyright violation. Both may or may not land you in jail, depending.

Articles should not be flamebait

[msobkow]

My concern is not that C.T should be "objective", but that he should perform a minimal check of facts before posting accusations of GPL violation. Lately it seems a significant percentage of such articles posted by C.T. eventually turn out to be "oversights" or "errors."

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.

Re:So? (this is totally OT, btw.)

[Niomosy]

Well that's just too damn bad for him now isn't it? Just because his tools are being used, doesn't mean the title of the product has to honor him, his company or the source they've written in any fashion.

Acknowledge and penalize.

[hound3000]

-5 Karma points to dotslash for submitting an inaccurate story.
-5 Karma points to CmdrTaco for posting it.

The day slashdot realizes that they have to perform up to standards and they are just posting collected links around the Internet, priceless.

Paypal is not getting at my MasterCard yet.

Watch my Karma go -5 for this post...

Re:who cares?

[Wawazuzu]

Check out gift.

Re:So?

[mirabilos]

Errmm... I compiled my own distribution fully
with libc5, and if I still was using Linux, I'd
do so again, even with kernel 2.4.x - for IPv6
support there is libinet6(?) and who needs
LOCALE support anyway?
OpenBSD doesn't have it, either.

Re:So? (this is totally OT, btw.)

[mirabilos]

It has, because this product actually consists
of Linux and several packages of the GNU project.
An opersting system kernel alone (Linux) is no
operating system. (Neither is userland without
a kernel, as seen on GNU ;)

I wonder...

[mirabilos]

whether they also establish a index node,
such as public.bearshare.net or
connect*.gnutellanet.com(sp?)
Or do they just use the existing? Sh.t!

53,000.000+ downloads

[Pinball Wizard]

holy bejeezus thats a lot of people using Morpheus.

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

[Master Of Ninja]

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.

I have the opinion that instead of people going for the open source version, people will instead go for what is more convenient for them. When you say "people" I am taking that you mean non-techie people who do not know much about computers. They really will not care about the debate over open/closed source. They will just see that the new Morpheus is nothing compared to the old one.

These people want easy access to the their pirate MP3s, not having to wait ages for a Gnutella download to start. I've seen loads of people criticise the new Morpheus without really seeing what is going on regarding the Kazaa owner's in the background (oh yeah, i think that Kazaa had something to do with the morpheus blackout).

It would be good if people would stay with gnutella and help refine the system so that the downloading does become as good as the Fasttrack system is. But everyone is looking for short term gain - when Kazaa screws them over I'm sure they'll whine. They'll probably still not care over the open/closed source debate.

Re:53,000.000+ downloads

[Pinball Wizard]

Well the thing is, when the closed source Morpheus/Kazaa originally came out, they worked much better than gnutella. So yeah, if something is a lot better they will use it instead of the open source version.

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.

Re:From the who-jumped-the-gate-this-time departme

[danielrose]

Just one would do fine, thank you

Looks like both violate the GPL...

[tbf]

I took a look at the requirements for compiling Gnucleus. Now I'm wonderingif Gnucleus doesn't violate the GPL by itself:

What you need to build Gnucleus:
Microsoft Windows
Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 SP5

Microsoft Visual Studio... Doesn't look like "anything that is normally distributed [...] with the major components" of Microsoft Windows (quoted text comes from paragraph three of the "Terms and Conditions" sections of the GPL).

Re:Looks like both violate the GPL...

[matthewp]

But the text you quoted (at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) goes on to describe 'major components' as 'compiler, kernel, and so on'. Visual Studio *is* normally distributed with the (Microsoft) compiler.

It's quite clear that the GPL considers the compiler to be part of the operating system for the purposes of this condition. Windows is hardly unique in having a compiler that is not included with the base operating system.

Re:Looks like both violate the GPL...

[NutscrapeSucks]

There's a disconnect between the what the "major components of the operating system" cause SAYS and what they MEAN.

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).

article 3

[Pflipp]

...in violation of article 3 of the GPL...

Makes the GPL sound like the Ten Commandments or the Constitution. Not like it isn't for some of us :-)

Re:to be even more technical -- you are incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

Section 1 of the GPL already requires a copy of the GPL be distributed. Section 3b's written offer term is not a redundent copy of the Section 1 terms but an additional term above and beyond providing a copy of the GPL. Under your interreptation, the alternative terms in Section 3a and Section 3c are not needed since according to you following the required terms of Section 1 would in your rule-book be a defacto compliance with Section 3b. But, in reality, alternative term of Section 3a and 3c are provided because Section 3b terms is NOT defacto covered by GPL Section 1 compliance. Providing just the text of the GPL is NOT a written offer.

Delete Morpheus and install Gnucleus

[Von Rex]

"Fork" seems to grand a term for just taking someone else's code and adding annoying popup ads to it.

Answer me this: is there ANY reason to use the new Morpheus rather than Gnucleus? 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.

The released code is worthless!

[brendano]

(I just had to post this again...)

$ grep 'res\\' *|wc -l
grep: Debug: Is a directory
75

Unfortunately, there is no 'res' directory for these 75 references to it. The project descriptor files refer to dozens of files THAT DO NOT EXIST.

There are no makefiles, there are no .ico's or .bmp's.... No explanation how or where to get them, no instructions how to make the thing go. If all the "Source Code" link on a website does is give you raw, instruction-less code without data and descriptor files critical to actually _building_ something, the GPL hasn't been fulfilled.

For the sake of everyone, Streamcast, get this together!

Re:The released code is worthless!

[brendano]

What's an anonymous coward doing calling me a moron? And you certainly have _your_ facts wrong...

1) There are huge differences between the source code for each. Did you try running a diff? IT's huge! The GUI was changed, etc.

2) There is no zlib directory. THere is one in the Gnucleus source, but _not_ Morpheus's. In fact, there are no subdirectories at all.

Sigh.

So where's the linux version...

[Ixe]

I personally am a bit of a morpheus fan though I don't support piracy... NE one know a good MusicCity linux client?
I don't really like Gnucleus or gtk-gnutella which are all I've used both of which use only the the gnutella network...

Re:From the who-jumped-the-gate-this-time departme

[danielrose]

Moderators are fuckwits.
I posted this before all you other fucks, so don't mod me redundant, bitch. Check the FAQ fuckwits. Yet another reason why I won't pay for slashdot.

You want us to pay money for this crap?

[Beatlebum]

LOL. Pull the other one. All you guys do is aggregate other ppl's content. The only orginal content consists of unresearched commentary, which isn't even proof read.

Christ, it's not like this is the first time the headline has contained a major error... and not even an arcane error.

No. That is different.

[mindstrm]

ID can release doom under GPL with missing pieces because it BELONGS to them.

However, Morpheus is distrubing a binary that is a derivitave work of GPL code without complying with the GPL. Period.

Re:No. That is different.

[mindstrm]

Let me try this another way.
They distribute a binary that includes images and artowork, yes.

That binary, as a whole, is a derivitave work of gnucleus. The ONLY thing permitting them to distribute these binareis is the GPL, and by not including the FULL set of data required to build those binaries, they are violating the GPL to the letter.

I'm not bashing them as much as saying that the GPL fails here. Not releasing images is certainly not holding out on progress.. but it DOES Violate the GPL.

Why GPL clickthrough?

[Sloppy]

Upon installation Morpheus PE displays the GPL and asks the user to accept.

Does it take a different action (i.e. not install) if the user doesn't accept?

Why would someone want to get their users to agree to the GPL? Is it for the warranty and liability sections, or just ignorant habit, or what?

Re:Note to the naysayers

[FatHogByTheAss]

You're quite wrong. Copywrite is real property, just like your car. It's theft, regardless of how you try and justify it.