Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Mint Diverting Banshee Revenue

Posted by samzenpus on from the getting-their-cut dept.

LinuxScribe writes "According Linux Mint founder Clement Lefebvre, the popular Linux Mint distribution has changed the Amazon.com affiliate code for the Banshee music player so that Mint, not Canonical or the GNOME Foundation, will receive the revenue from MP3 sales through Banshee. Though a trivial amount of money ($3.41 in November 2011), Linux Mint's actions still raise the question: how should revenue be shared between upstream and downstream FLOSS projects?"

9 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. They deserve it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Linux Mint 12 made GNOME3 usable. They deserve the $3.41.

    1. Re:They deserve it by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Linux Mint 12 made GNOME3 usable.

      That they did, but it was still buggy as hell for me. I'm still running Linux Mint but I'm on MATE for now. Thankfully thought, I can at least see that Mint's extensions at least take Gnome3 in a direction that I can agree with, once a few more of the issues are ironed out.

      At a minimum, Linux Mint seems to be at least TRYING to cater to their users, as opposed to Ubuntu and Gnome who just keep plowing ahead tell the entire userbase that they're wrong.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:They deserve it by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as $0.27 goes to X.Org, those guys do great work.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:They deserve it by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wayland is the way of the future.

      It has futuristic things like:
      * No network transparency!
      * Client side window decorations! This will offer the following futuristic features:
          * Every toolkit providing subtly different window decorations
          * Hung applications have immovable windows which get in the way and make life suck, like other popular operating systems
          * Impossible to use a decoration free tiling window manager to maximize screenspace
          * Impossible to use a window manager which adds useful extra window decorations and functions
      * And apparently, endless arguments about how copy/paste should work.

      But hey, at least it will provide a much needed performance boost for those of us still stuck on a Sun 3/60. Also, the .1ms latency introduced by a compositing window manager has really been bugging me recently.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:They deserve it by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      X11 is not the problem, the video drivers are...
      SGI machines were supporting multi head high speed setups using X11 in the days before x86 machines could even support multi head at all.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  2. Re:Control? by DarKnyht · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this what Open Source code is about. You put the code out there and allow anyone to tinker with it, as long as they give the tinkered code away? I could download Linux Mint's version and program it to deposit all proceeds into my bank account and make my own Distro called "Make me $0.50 Linux" and as long as I offer my code changes up, there is little that can be done.

    --
    Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
  3. Re:Find a better case for the discussion by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has nothing to do with software freedom. It's not a question of whether Mint should have the right to do it, but whether they are jerks or not by doing it.

    --
    Dilbert RSS feed
  4. It's free software. by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because they don't have the right?

    It's free software. They have the right to make whatever changes they intercoursing want as long as the end user gets the source code and the right to modify and redistribute it.

  5. Re:Find a better case for the discussion by fwarren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has EVERYTHING to do with software freedom. Per the GPL what they are required to do once they make their change to the affiliate link is make the source code available.

    End of Story.

    GPL covers copyright law, not ethics and the human heart. I can download RedHat and recompile with all references to RedHat removed and use Charlie Chaplin and call it the I-Hate-Chaplin distro. Does not matter if that is nice or ethical, What it is, is allowable by the GPL.

    I think any downstream project has the right to change the revenue stream stuff. As far as I am concerned it is like a TV Commercial, there is a *posibility* that it will lead to revenue, not a guarantee. The only thing they have to do is make the source code available. Beyond that, I would say if there is a graphic or text that says donations, or purchases go back to the project, that stuff should be removed or changed to reflect who it is going to. if it is not mentioned at all, then "Mint" and anyone else is free to do what they want.

    The current situation is interesting enough. What happens if the upstream affiliate code is out of date or broke? What if it causes the software to throw errors? Is it still sacred at that point?

    It would be "nice" if no one ever hijacked the link. It would be "nice" if they shared revenue. But they are not required to. RMS put nothing in the software freedoms about not tampering with upstream revenue. Being a dick is showing a picture of Jerry's Kids and saying that all purchases via the music store for the month of January will go to MDA and in reality you are just pocketing the money yourself. Modifying links in the source code is what downstream projects do. Deal with it.

    --
    vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.