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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

[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"?

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

[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

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

[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: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.

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

[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.

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?

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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....

[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....

[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...

[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.

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.

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

[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: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? ;)

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!

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.

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: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: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.

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

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)

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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).