4 ms·

I don’t trust that people who know how to delete telemetry code are also people who know how to build and maintain advanced audio/signal processing code. It se

I don’t trust that people who know how to delete telemetry code are also people who know how to build and maintain advanced audio/signal processing code. It seems more reasonable to try to work diplomatically to get the changes the public wants to see upstream instead of forking and crossing one’s fingers that the fork is kosher.

Tepix 5y ago
Audacity is GPL, they can merge the upstream commits after removing the tracking.
- Hamcha 5y ago
  This is only valid as long as the project remains GPL licensed. Musegroup has a new CLA and said that they made it sign to all past contributors, which allows them the right to relicense the product as they fit. While the fact that their privacy policy/telemetry infringes on the GPL (since it restricts use for people under 13) might not be enough to warrant a license change (though I guess it should? It's infringing it after all), they have their hands permanently on the rug we're all standing on and they can pull it whenever they want. Popular example of this happening is Aseprite, it was relicensed from GPL to EULA. The code is still open source, but the FOSS fork cannot just take the new changes and port them over.
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    If they do this, and improve the program enough, then it seems like a reasonable outcome that in exchange for using non-GPL versions of the code you have to agree to their tracking. And if the people that are now freely contributing code to that project to handle audio decide that they don't want their changes to be licensed in a proprietary way, well, we get a new LibreOffice... people maintaining GPL software for free/cheap seems a lot more likely than maintaining software that is proprietary and owned by some company that is uninterested in sharing the improvements they submit.
  - nemetroid 5y ago
    > Musegroup has a new CLA and said that they made it sign to all past contributors, which allows them the right to relicense the product as they fit. Wow, adding a CLA is much more egregious than adding telemetry. I'm disappointed that it hasn't received nearly as much attention on HN. I wish they'd gone for a DCO. https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/12/DCO.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/12/DCO.html
woodrowbarlow 5y ago
i don't think the fork maintainers intend to do active development. i assume they intend to stay up-to-date with upstream, with only enough modifications to remove the tracking code. as for legitimacy, there really is no question that the fork is within the rights of the license.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Would the fork, accepting changes from upstream, also accept changes that originated from telemetry information? I can imagine a principled stand which says the fork would not commit any changes driven or informed by telemetry data, though it is not clear how that could be done. Failing that, it sounds more like "don't track me, but I'm happy to benefit from those who are" (which is effectively the same situation as opting-out of the telemetry).
iseethroughbs 5y ago
The original Audacity is open source, so the fork maintainers don't need to be good at audio code.
loxias 5y ago
Hear Hear! Solidly agree. You'd be amazed how much can go into "simple" resampling... if you care about being accurate, anyway. Though... and I say this with a mischievous grin, as someone who writes signal processing code (specializing in audio) for both leisure and employment, I've been wanting to get Audacity squarely in my emacs, and just go nuts, with both mathematically cogent improvements and plenty of unnecessary petty stylistic refactoring, for YEARS (decades). Now, perhaps I have some protective cover. ;-) (unless Monty beats me to it...)
- CharlesW 5y ago
  > You'd be amazed how much can go into "simple" resampling... if you care about being accurate, anyway. Audacity is "My First Audio Editor", and people use it primarily because it's free. Quality is not a concern. Audacity is a great entry point for people who are new to audio production, but those users eventually graduate to better, more fit-for-task audio tools.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    You are correct about Audacity being used primarily because it's free, and it's certainly very far from professional audio software. But I think it's pretty unfair to say that quality isn't a concern, because I'm sure that the developers care very much about quality.

Tepix 5y ago

Audacity is GPL, they can merge the upstream commits after removing the tracking.

Hamcha 5y ago
This is only valid as long as the project remains GPL licensed. Musegroup has a new CLA and said that they made it sign to all past contributors, which allows them the right to relicense the product as they fit. While the fact that their privacy policy/telemetry infringes on the GPL (since it restricts use for people under 13) might not be enough to warrant a license change (though I guess it should? It's infringing it after all), they have their hands permanently on the rug we're all standing on and they can pull it whenever they want. Popular example of this happening is Aseprite, it was relicensed from GPL to EULA. The code is still open source, but the FOSS fork cannot just take the new changes and port them over.
- neltnerb 5y ago
  If they do this, and improve the program enough, then it seems like a reasonable outcome that in exchange for using non-GPL versions of the code you have to agree to their tracking. And if the people that are now freely contributing code to that project to handle audio decide that they don't want their changes to be licensed in a proprietary way, well, we get a new LibreOffice... people maintaining GPL software for free/cheap seems a lot more likely than maintaining software that is proprietary and owned by some company that is uninterested in sharing the improvements they submit.
- nemetroid 5y ago
  > Musegroup has a new CLA and said that they made it sign to all past contributors, which allows them the right to relicense the product as they fit. Wow, adding a CLA is much more egregious than adding telemetry. I'm disappointed that it hasn't received nearly as much attention on HN. I wish they'd gone for a DCO. https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/12/DCO.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/12/DCO.html

woodrowbarlow 5y ago

i don't think the fork maintainers intend to do active development. i assume they intend to stay up-to-date with upstream, with only enough modifications to remove the tracking code. as for legitimacy, there really is no question that the fork is within the rights of the license.

nescioquid 5y ago
Would the fork, accepting changes from upstream, also accept changes that originated from telemetry information? I can imagine a principled stand which says the fork would not commit any changes driven or informed by telemetry data, though it is not clear how that could be done. Failing that, it sounds more like "don't track me, but I'm happy to benefit from those who are" (which is effectively the same situation as opting-out of the telemetry).

iseethroughbs 5y ago

The original Audacity is open source, so the fork maintainers don't need to be good at audio code.

loxias 5y ago

Hear Hear! Solidly agree. You'd be amazed how much can go into "simple" resampling... if you care about being accurate, anyway. Though... and I say this with a mischievous grin, as someone who writes signal processing code (specializing in audio) for both leisure and employment, I've been wanting to get Audacity squarely in my emacs, and just go nuts, with both mathematically cogent improvements and plenty of unnecessary petty stylistic refactoring, for YEARS (decades). Now, perhaps I have some protective cover. ;-) (unless Monty beats me to it...)

CharlesW 5y ago
> You'd be amazed how much can go into "simple" resampling... if you care about being accurate, anyway. Audacity is "My First Audio Editor", and people use it primarily because it's free. Quality is not a concern. Audacity is a great entry point for people who are new to audio production, but those users eventually graduate to better, more fit-for-task audio tools.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  You are correct about Audacity being used primarily because it's free, and it's certainly very far from professional audio software. But I think it's pretty unfair to say that quality isn't a concern, because I'm sure that the developers care very much about quality.