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

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)

[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.

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.

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?

[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.

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: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.

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."

Subscribe now!

[dimator]

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

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!"

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:to be even more technical

[petard]

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

Re:Note to the naysayers

[Waffle Iron]

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

Wrong. Neither is theft. One is copyrignt infringement, and the other is copyright infringement and fraud.

Copyright infringement and theft are not interchangeable legal terms.

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.

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....

[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....

[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. :)

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...

[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....

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: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.

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.

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.