Linux Mint Diverting Banshee Revenue

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Mint Diverting Banshee Revenue

Posted by samzenpus on Monday December 12, 2011 @02:40AM 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?"

16 of 178 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Simple by Kjella · 2011-12-12 02:44 · Score: 5, Funny

A dollar for me, one for you, one for me, one for.... oh well, here's 41 cents at least.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Find a better case for the discussion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 02:53 · Score: 5, Funny

A petty and small minded internet debate about software freedom? That's unpossible!
They deserve it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 02:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Linux Mint 12 made GNOME3 usable. They deserve the $3.41.
1. Re:They deserve it by MBGMorden · 2011-12-12 03:14 · 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 · 2011-12-12 03:32 · 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 · 2011-12-12 05:48 · 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 · 2011-12-12 06:21 · 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!
5. Re:They deserve it by serviscope_minor · 2011-12-12 11:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Not in the project's scope - Wayland is a display server; it makes sure that crap in memory buffers wind up on the screen in the correct order. You can always run an X server to get your network transparency (this is, after all, how Wayland is first going to be used).
  Sigh. No. Wayland's stated goal is to replace X. See for instance talks by the main authors about "Life after X". People are now making toolkits that target Wayland directly. History shows that if network transparency is not built into a windowing syatem from the beginning then it will suck. Dodging the issue by claiming it is not within the scope will not make the final result suck any less.
  Not necessaroly
  How did you work that out?
  Hung applications have immovable windows which get in the way and make life suck, like other popular operating systems
  Use your brain. If applications are responsible for decorating windows and therefore generating their own move/iconify requests, then a hung application won't respond. Just like hoe huing applications have immovable windows on OSX and Windows.
  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
  [citation needed]
  
  Again use your brain. If the application draws the decorations, how will the window manager augment them or completely change them without resorting to awful bodgery?
  Clipboard functionality is not trivial to implement in a robust and interoperable fashion. Copying and pasting is, for the time being, still hacked and duct-taped together under all major Unix desktops.
  [citation needed]
  Actually, you're talking rubbish. I have implemented copy/paste in xlib which interoperates with every program and datatype I tested it with. The X11 copy/paste mechanism is actually really sensible and well designed. It goes something like this:
  Prog 1: I have the clipboard!
  Prog 2: I want to paste.
  Prog 1: Well, I can offer you this list of datatypes which are now mostly MIME types
  Prog 2: Excellent. I'll have image/jpeg, please.
  Prog 1: OK, then. Here you go.
  That's basically it. There are some minor wrinkles, like the "here you go" part having a mechanism for chunking the data so the server doesn't have to hold it all, and programs don't have to do special things to avoid hanging with large pastes over slow networks. But basically, it's simple, robust and effective. It's also sufficiently flexible that XDnD was added without any server or API changes, just using existing mechanisms. And it's also sufficiently flexible to allow the sort of persistent clipboards which exist on other operating systems, which work as follows:
  Prog 1: I have the clipboard. ... same negotiation as above ...
  Clipboard manager: Gimme everything.
  Prog 1: OK.
  Clipboard manager: I have the clipboard! I can offer ALL THESE datatypes...
  Again, simple, ffective and robust.
  It's going to bring internal overhead to a minimum, by letting the kernel manage the hardware, take care of double-buffering and minimize the amount of work needed to actually draw anything - have you ever actually tried to write an X application?
  Yes. I've spent more time messing around with Xlib than with toolkits.
  You could also try taking a look at smspillaz's blog, where he regularly pulls his hair out over some brain-dead functionality or unexpected race-condition and deadlocks caused by X..
  That's curious. Given that X11 is single threaded, I wonder how he gets race conditions. I've never found one.
  Oh, and it's still not possible to get vsync working on a multi-monitor setup (and not even all single-monitor setups) under X.
  Works for me. The problem with more than one monitor is when they run at different refresh rates. There's nothing inherent in X which makes it any le
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Control? by DarKnyht · 2011-12-12 02:57 · 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.
Re:Find a better case for the discussion by icebraining · 2011-12-12 02:58 · 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
Re:Let the users choose... by gigne · 2011-12-12 03:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

If I had mod points...
"Thanks for running Banshee... From time to time online transactions generate a small amount of commission.
Where would you like any proceeds to go to:
[ ] Canonical
[ ] Mint
[X] Cancer Research Charity
[ ] A.N Other Charity
"

--
Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
Nothing really by ewanm89 · 2011-12-12 03:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

Okay, lets simplify this for all that don't want to read the articles.
Banshee's own link is dead so Canonical replaced it with their own in Ubuntu.
When Linux MINT saw this in the changelogs while repackaging, they did the same thing replacing it with their own.
I'm sure both would change this back if Banshee upstream started accepting donations again.
It's free software. by tepples · 2011-12-12 03:25 · 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.
Re:Find a better case for the discussion by fwarren · 2011-12-12 03:33 · 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.
They Don't Need It by Greyfox · 2011-12-12 03:37 · Score: 4, Funny

They're making a mint!

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Who cares? by Requiem18th · 2011-12-12 04:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

More importantly, who cares about Banshee? Okay I know a lot do since it's popular but I can't seriously understand why would you want a media player running on mono with the slugginess that such implies, with silly album galleries that hardly match the way we listen to music today and that pointlessly tries to also manage video file without actually making the commitment to being a media center.
The album galleries drive me crazy, this is almost as bad as the physical bookshelf in the iPad. Music players these days are search based *because* it was realised that music can be grouped into more categories than what physical disc they were published in. The files don't need to be in an specific hierarchy nor in the same computer any more.
Yet that doesn't make for pretty thumbnails, and because everything must be thumbnails banshee presents music in little graphical boxes with a thumbnail of a CD case that you probably don't have, successfully reproducing the experience of browsing a physical music library from 1995 in 2011!
I have my complains about Rhythmbox but exactly what has Banshee (or Exaile) that Rhythmbox doesn't?

--
But... the future refused to change.