3 ms·

IIUC both were projects spawned after Audacity added telemetry to their release builds. The telemetry in Audacity is behind both a build flag, and a runtime op

IIUC both were projects spawned after Audacity added telemetry to their release builds. The telemetry in Audacity is behind both a build flag, and a runtime opt-in setting (although it was originally going to be opt-out, hence the uproar (I need to go fact-check this, it's been a while)). So, if you install Audacity through your distro's package manager, you're probably not getting any telemetry, opt-in or otherwise. With that in mind, I'm not sure I understand why these forks exist exactly. If I was a windows or macOS user, I might be interested in telemetry-free builds, and I'd be very thankful for anyone providing them, but I'm not sure why a whole fork is needed to do that. Looking at the git tree, it's clear that these forks have diverged significantly from upstream Audacity (simply from looking at commit counts and screenshots etc.), so it's apparently not a simple build-config-change and rebrand. However, the marketing blurb on https://tenacityaudio.org/ https://tenacityaudio.org/ does not make it clear which features are distinct from upstream. Edit: You can read about the telemetry options currently present in Audacity here: https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop-privacy-notice/ https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop-privacy-notice/

dspillett 4y ago
> I'm not sure I understand why these forks exist exactly. A large part of it is mistrust of Muse, over the initial opt-out nature of the new telemetry and over other past decisions, unrelated to Audacity, that people have found questionable.¹ Fool me once, and all that. > Looking at the git tree, it's clear that these forks have diverged significantly from upstream Audacity That in itself would be a reason, certainly from a dev's PoV, on top of that trust thing. If both projects fit what they want, but the downstream ones do it in a way they prefer, that is enough difference even if > [sic] the marketing does not make clear the difference from upstream implies that there is no major difference² from an end-users PoV³ at this point. -- [1] I've not looked into the latter in much detail, my use of Audacity is so infrequent currently that I don't think I've updated (or, obviously, switched to something else) since before the hoo-hah. [2] Yet, at least. [3] beyond the telemetry and potential trust issues
teawrecks 4y ago
> I might be interested in telemetry-free builds, and I'd be very thankful for anyone providing them That is the definition of a fork.
- Retr0id 4y ago
  No it isn't, it's a build config change which IMHO falls under the scope of package management/maintenance. The "Firefox" that runs on my system has a bunch of custom config tweaks and small source patches[1] applied by my distro/package maintainers to make it work with the rest of the system, and I don't call it a Firefox Fork. [1] https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/tree/151d14e349c82f107008b38a54d852cd36457444/extra/firefox https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/tree/151d14e349c82...
app4soft 4y ago
> IIUC both were projects spawned after Audacity added telemetry to their release builds. Even more, Muse Group (owner of MuseScore and Audacity) is affiliated with Russia and has two offices in Kaliningrad and St.Petersburg, so for security reasons it better to not use those apps.[0] > Another controversy in July 2021[1] resulted from a change to the privacy policy which said that although personal data was stored on servers in the European Economic Area, the program would "occasionally [be] required to share your personal data with our main office in Russia and our external counsel in the USA"[2] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27748261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27748261 [1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/23/audactiy_apology/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/23/audactiy_apology/ [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57721967 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57721967
jraph 4y ago
> Edit: You can read about the telemetry options currently present in Audacity here: https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop-privacy-notice/ https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop-privacy-notice/ Seems pretty reasonable actually. I remember that the situation was more arguable when there were the push backs against the privacy issue, The Muse seems to have responded appropriately to the criticisms. The community split is unfortunate and sad but I sympathize with people wanting to avoid having to sign a CLA. One of the benefits of contributing to a GPL project without a CLA is that for the project to get rid of the GPL, it has to go out of its way asking for permission to every contributor or to remove the concerned code, which ensure your code does not risk ending up in a future, proprietary version of the project. The reasons given for the existence of the CLA are reasonable too and I empathize (ability to release under GPLv3 and to release an version in Apple's App store, citing the example of VLC), but the CLA gives way too much right to The Muse which has all the rights to say "thank you, now we will actually make Audacity proprietary". Ideally its scope should be reduced.
- duped 4y ago
  Muse group has a history of acting as a bad actor, eg UltimateGuitar.com. They don't have much goodwill to deserve the benefit of the doubt here.
  - jraph 4y ago
    They sure take concerning decisions. The MuseScore 4 release is otherwise awesome (and we must credit them for this!), but they include a non-free (but gratis) optional sound renderer, Muse Sounds, and don't make it very clear they do it (edit: and Muse Hub too, same thing). They also encourage users to save their work in the cloud way too strongly. I'm not interested in their cloud. I would be interested in Muse Sounds, but there is no way I'm going to start to rely on non-free software today. The whole point of MuseScore, besides it being beginner-friendly, is that's it's free software and Tantacrul sells this aspect very well in its first video about MuseScore by the way. I actually told them my concerns about Muse Sounds at their FOSDEM stand after they asked me if I saw issues with the new version. Maybe if there are enough voices about this…
btown 4y ago
With Muse Group's ownership and Tantacrul/Martin Keary as Head of Product of Audacity [0][1], Audacity will be moving in a radically different direction from a UI/UX perspective. I happen to think this will be a good thing, and I happen to think that (opt-in) telemetry is a perfectly good way of ensuring that a consumer-facing open-source project doesn't just build for its loudest users, especially in the context of large interface redesigns. And with MuseScore 4, the creative team struck what I think is a great balance between streamlining the interface and avoiding the removal of complexity/advanced features. But I can also see why a fork can and should diverge, for those who want a more stable and slow-moving evolution of the software. I hope the Tenacity project succeeds! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMWNvwLiXIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMWNvwLiXIQ [1] https://uk.linkedin.com/in/martin-keary-88a5a7159 https://uk.linkedin.com/in/martin-keary-88a5a7159
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > for those who want a more stable and slow-moving evolution of the software. As I recall, Tenacity started with some significant reworking of the development toolchain. But I get your point: that's not something end-users normally care about.
  - btown 4y ago
    Not sure about Tenacity's situation, but there are certainly ways in which development toolchains can be reworked to lend themselves towards predictable performance and reliable release management!
    - wizzwizz4 4y ago
      While true, this doesn't mean slow-moving evolution of the project. A project can have predictable toolchain performance and reliable release management and rewrite the whole thing every six months.

dspillett 4y ago

> I'm not sure I understand why these forks exist exactly. A large part of it is mistrust of Muse, over the initial opt-out nature of the new telemetry and over other past decisions, unrelated to Audacity, that people have found questionable.¹ Fool me once, and all that. > Looking at the git tree, it's clear that these forks have diverged significantly from upstream Audacity That in itself would be a reason, certainly from a dev's PoV, on top of that trust thing. If both projects fit what they want, but the downstream ones do it in a way they prefer, that is enough difference even if > [sic] the marketing does not make clear the difference from upstream implies that there is no major difference² from an end-users PoV³ at this point. -- [1] I've not looked into the latter in much detail, my use of Audacity is so infrequent currently that I don't think I've updated (or, obviously, switched to something else) since before the hoo-hah. [2] Yet, at least. [3] beyond the telemetry and potential trust issues

teawrecks 4y ago

> I might be interested in telemetry-free builds, and I'd be very thankful for anyone providing them That is the definition of a fork.

Retr0id 4y ago
No it isn't, it's a build config change which IMHO falls under the scope of package management/maintenance. The "Firefox" that runs on my system has a bunch of custom config tweaks and small source patches[1] applied by my distro/package maintainers to make it work with the rest of the system, and I don't call it a Firefox Fork. [1] https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/tree/151d14e349c82f107008b38a54d852cd36457444/extra/firefox https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/tree/151d14e349c82...

app4soft 4y ago

> IIUC both were projects spawned after Audacity added telemetry to their release builds. Even more, Muse Group (owner of MuseScore and Audacity) is affiliated with Russia and has two offices in Kaliningrad and St.Petersburg, so for security reasons it better to not use those apps.[0] > Another controversy in July 2021[1] resulted from a change to the privacy policy which said that although personal data was stored on servers in the European Economic Area, the program would "occasionally [be] required to share your personal data with our main office in Russia and our external counsel in the USA"[2] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27748261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27748261 [1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/23/audactiy_apology/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/23/audactiy_apology/ [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57721967 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57721967

jraph 4y ago

> Edit: You can read about the telemetry options currently present in Audacity here: https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop-privacy-notice/ https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop-privacy-notice/ Seems pretty reasonable actually. I remember that the situation was more arguable when there were the push backs against the privacy issue, The Muse seems to have responded appropriately to the criticisms. The community split is unfortunate and sad but I sympathize with people wanting to avoid having to sign a CLA. One of the benefits of contributing to a GPL project without a CLA is that for the project to get rid of the GPL, it has to go out of its way asking for permission to every contributor or to remove the concerned code, which ensure your code does not risk ending up in a future, proprietary version of the project. The reasons given for the existence of the CLA are reasonable too and I empathize (ability to release under GPLv3 and to release an version in Apple's App store, citing the example of VLC), but the CLA gives way too much right to The Muse which has all the rights to say "thank you, now we will actually make Audacity proprietary". Ideally its scope should be reduced.

duped 4y ago
Muse group has a history of acting as a bad actor, eg UltimateGuitar.com. They don't have much goodwill to deserve the benefit of the doubt here.
- jraph 4y ago
  They sure take concerning decisions. The MuseScore 4 release is otherwise awesome (and we must credit them for this!), but they include a non-free (but gratis) optional sound renderer, Muse Sounds, and don't make it very clear they do it (edit: and Muse Hub too, same thing). They also encourage users to save their work in the cloud way too strongly. I'm not interested in their cloud. I would be interested in Muse Sounds, but there is no way I'm going to start to rely on non-free software today. The whole point of MuseScore, besides it being beginner-friendly, is that's it's free software and Tantacrul sells this aspect very well in its first video about MuseScore by the way. I actually told them my concerns about Muse Sounds at their FOSDEM stand after they asked me if I saw issues with the new version. Maybe if there are enough voices about this…

btown 4y ago

With Muse Group's ownership and Tantacrul/Martin Keary as Head of Product of Audacity [0][1], Audacity will be moving in a radically different direction from a UI/UX perspective. I happen to think this will be a good thing, and I happen to think that (opt-in) telemetry is a perfectly good way of ensuring that a consumer-facing open-source project doesn't just build for its loudest users, especially in the context of large interface redesigns. And with MuseScore 4, the creative team struck what I think is a great balance between streamlining the interface and avoiding the removal of complexity/advanced features. But I can also see why a fork can and should diverge, for those who want a more stable and slow-moving evolution of the software. I hope the Tenacity project succeeds! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMWNvwLiXIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMWNvwLiXIQ [1] https://uk.linkedin.com/in/martin-keary-88a5a7159 https://uk.linkedin.com/in/martin-keary-88a5a7159

wizzwizz4 4y ago
> for those who want a more stable and slow-moving evolution of the software. As I recall, Tenacity started with some significant reworking of the development toolchain. But I get your point: that's not something end-users normally care about.
- btown 4y ago
  Not sure about Tenacity's situation, but there are certainly ways in which development toolchains can be reworked to lend themselves towards predictable performance and reliable release management!
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    While true, this doesn't mean slow-moving evolution of the project. A project can have predictable toolchain performance and reliable release management and rewrite the whole thing every six months.