I’d like to suggust that there be detailed instructions for building for all platforms but with a disclaimer that no support beyond the instuctions can be given (except for a price? ) The linux instructions don’t even perform a ./waf configure --optimize build . How about a clean live ISO that can be downloaded with all the correct dev packages so anyone interested can have a better experience trying to build? I for one would love to succeed in building a Win64 and/or MacOS Ardour binary just to check it off my bucket list
@freeyourbuilds signed up for a US$1/month subscription, and cancelled it before paying, utilizing a “weakness” in our subscription mgmt system that lets subscriptions in this state count as “active”.
I’m unconvinced of this. I think Paul understated the rarity of the conditions Ardour is currently experiencing as a FLOSS project, its positioning is so unique that I have never seen anything like it in the nearly 15 years I have been using GNU/Linux and following FLOSS projects. Changing how they deliver binaries would almost certainly destroy the current financial state of the project. I don’t know the true intentions of “freeyourbuilds”, so I don’t really want to go into a lot of detail here. That being said, I also don’t think they mean the project harm. To me this looks an act that was done out of good intention but very naively.
in the rest of the open source world desirable e.g. posting binaries on file sharing sites and creating torrents to reduce server load, making great software even more well known and thereby increasing the userbase.
What is desirable depends on the specific project, there is no blanket solution for the success of a project and increasing the size of a user base does not objectively mean the project will gain more funding, or that the quality of it will improve, or that it will even be able to continue existing.
From my perspective, the true success of a FLOSS project like Ardour relies on its ability to compete effectively with proprietary alternatives while maintaining its independence. The more viable an alternative it is seen to proprietary software, the more people will be attracted to it. That inherently relies on funding for the developers to spend time working on it. Right now Ardour is receiving the funding it needs to support quality development time, and I see zero reason that the team should risk disrupting that. Maybe when the Ardour user base is thrice the size they can consider providing free binaries without it being seen as risky at best.
making users feel guilty for doing what is 100% legal
Let me be clear with my opinion here, this is not okay. From my perspective anyone hosting binaries on a public mirror is directly at odds with the current method of funding for the project and is going against the wishes of the developers. That would be seen as uncouth regardless of what method is used by a large portion of FLOSS developers, who would not be anywhere close to as reasoned as Paul has been.
Playing devil’s advocate here but it is ok because the GPL license says it is ok. In a sense the wishes of the developers have nothing to do with it if they subscribe to the GPL. If we tell people that they can’t do this it directly contradicts the freedoms provided by using such a license.
There’s a big difference between can’t and shouldn’t. Yes, the GPL license is nonrestrictive and because of that it allows for many unrestricted actions, even actions that can be seen as detrimental to the very projects that use that licensing—it provides that freedom. When we think of freedom, when appreciate it, we must also recognize that freedom itself allows for actions of good, but also maliciousness, for freedom to be used for good it relies on faith in the decency of human beings not to abuse it. There are many free actions you can take in society, in the world of FLOSS, even on stage in a live performance, that you absolutely have the right to perform, but will quickly lose the respect of your peers none the less. And an action like this certainly loses mine.
If you can show me in the GPL where it says you shouldn’t distribute software, I’ll eat my hat
The difference that you glossed over in your comparison to other walks of life is that freedom to distribute software is inherent to GPL (written as the 3rd term/condition). Software can be caged behind a paywall, of course, but once a copy is “released” that party can do whatever they want with it. Isn’t this the whole reason the FSF and GPL-style licenses came about in the first place to fight for the right to treat software just like any other object you might buy and have the right to adapt, sell, give away etc? The majority of users in this thread seem to be claiming Ardour should be an exception and that distributing copies to friends and family is something to be frowned upon.
There’s the ever-so-slight impression that we are on a rather murky edge of something that doesn’t feel quite right.
My stance has nothing to do with what the GPL says you shouldn’t do.
freedom to distribute software is inherent to GPL
Yes, and like I’ve stated, freedom can be used for ill or good intent. How you use it is up to you. You can do whatever you want with your object under the guidelines GPL proposes, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything you do.
Anyone suggesting there is any problem with giving a copy of Ardour to family, neighbors, friends, associates, fellow students etc. etc. is completely out of line.It might be going slightly too far to say that I would encourage this behavior, but that’s more or less my position.
However, from my perspective, there’s a huge difference between posting 9 release files on archive.org and posting about it at ardour.org (notice that I’ve left the post up and visible), and giving copies to individuals you have some relationship with.
I share the same view. I don’t have anything strongly against distributing it to family or friends, but hosting it on a public mirror and advertising it at the official source isn’t something I’m okay with personally. I also wouldn’t really be okay with advertising it on any large platform.
EDIT
Just to clear up any confusion all of my opinions are super subjective and based on my own experiences and understanding, I am just another user of Ardour. I would never hate someone or consider them an enemy for disagreeing with me over something like this.
Of course not. It’s just healthy debate I actually wish the developers all the success in the world (including making money) and my responses were an attempt to separate the emotion from the facts of the GPL. I don’t think the OP was trying to act like the official source but just, in their words, “freeing the builds” because they believe the binaries, like the source code, should be free as in beer as well as in speech. I’m not personally rushing to judge them because I don’t know their circumstances at all. Also, you never know as a result of their actions if some random youngster will be inspired by finding an Ardour 6.7 binary on archive.org and later become a major force in the open source community. Life can be funny like that.
Peace, goodwill etc and long may Ardour development be fruitful (and produce MIDI lollipops ).
You could always throw 20$ on the bug tracker for MIDI lollipops or some equivalent functionality! I’m SURE it’ll get taken seriously.
To address the issue @tqel raised, the GPL is a great thing and the original user is not in violation of the legal rights around the binary, but this isn’t exactly about that. This is about how to be a good neighbor. Yes, it’s illegal for me to sneak my entire trash into the neighbor’s trash can at night - I shouldn’t do that. No, it’s not ILLEGAL for me to park every day in front of their house on the public street, even though there’s space in my driveway … that’s just a dick move.
What the OP did, is in my opinion, a dick move to the developers of the project.
I was joking about the MIDI lollipops as I know it is a popular thing to request. I have no horse in the race But good joke nonetheless! We will have to agree to disagree on the rest.
Guys, let’s forget about the FOSS legal intricacies here for a moment and talk about F* manners. This guy subscribes but cancels subscription before paying, uploads everything and then comes back to take a laugh on the faces of the people he knows he will piss off? and we are really pretending to have a serious discussion within that context?
I think if we all take a step back, remove the emotion from the situation, it doesn’t really matter by what mechanism the OP did what they did. If the user truly believes that all software should be set free then see their completely legal actions through that lens. Maybe see it as a form of non-violent protest?
I’ve been a subscriber (just for the nightlies before I started to build for myself) but also donated larger sums to Ardour and other open source projects as well as contribute ideas for new features because I truly embrace the philosophy of open source software. It may come as no surprise that while I love the idea of users making donations, I do personally have an issue with a paywall for binaries, or, more accurately, the grey area it produces after a binary has been “released”. And, as per a previous post, the expectations generated are unwritten, from within the community and not in keeping with the GPL.
While I chose not to use the same tactic as the OP, I have happily shared various Ardour binaries with my students and colleagues in the same way back in the day I used to order 50 Ubuntu discs at a time and hand them out to anyone I could. It felt like I was helping change the world for the better in my own very small way. I have zero guilt for doing so and will continue to do so as I see fit. That said, as per @GMaq’s comment, I do always ask people to donate financially or consider giving their time in other ways (reporting bugs etc) but whether they end up following through isn’t really my concern.
Now, having given the advice to step back and remove the emotion, I am going to do the same #doublestandards
That is perhaps not correct either as the GPL does give the right to charge for building and distribution, the act of subscribing, downloading and canceling before paying is effectively theft. If the person had let the payment go through that at least would no longer be true.
That does not make posting the binaries on a public archive correct either. While not illegal in itself, it shows total disregard for those who actually put the effort into maintaining the build site. It actually goes against the “spirit” of GPL which allows the author to have some control over their own software, giving them reason to change the license to one more restrictive. There is really not much difference between what this person has done and the buyers of Audacity or Freenode. It is more the act of a religious extremist.
I hadn’t looked at it like that before, but after thinking about it, I’m inclined to think this may be the case.
I’m not so sure about this part. The spirit of the GPL is fundamentally about the user’s rights, isn’t it? and that includes the right to share.
Putting aside the actions of the OP for a moment, I think it’s fair in general to presume that sharing is endorsed, or at least tolerated, by an author who chooses to license code under the GPL.
Exactly this. Whether it be sharing with a friend, family member, acquaintance, enemy or torrenting to complete strangers, it is very much allowed and, yes, I would say in the spirit of the GPL. Such software should not be under the control of any developer once released thereby giving the user the freedom to do what they want with it within the bounds of the GPL.
I understand where the comparison comes from but I wouldn’t consider what OP has done as disagreeable or on the same level as something like taking over the Freenode network. I’m sure they probably love the GPL and free software and I think their act stems from that, which is not a terrible thing by any means. Circumventing the payment system to host binaries being offered by the build service and advertising those mirrors on the forums or a large platform isn’t something I see as respectable but they certainly have the right to do that.
) The linux instructions don’t even perform a 
. How about a clean live ISO that can be downloaded with all the correct dev packages so anyone interested can have a better experience trying to build? I for one would love to succeed in building a Win64 and/or MacOS Ardour binary just to check it off my bucket list 
