I think that’s a very forgiving way of looking at it. From what Paul described they exploited a flaw (or a weakness) in the system, which then is more like a hack. The GPL doesn’t prohibit what was done, but, for example creating their own builds and making them independently available would be more in the spirit of the license (and just general better behaviour) than exploiting a weakness in the system to take ardour.org’s own builds and post a link to them on Ardour’s own forum. If one were to consider that Paul is offering a service by providing ready-to-run builds, then it might seem as if such actions amount to taking that service and not paying for it?
1 Like
I try to be forgiving as much as possible 
Like I said previously, we don’t know the user from a hole in the wall. We do not know what motivates them.
If there was a way to separate build process from the binary itself, I could get on board but unfortunately it can’t be done. Moreover, it’s not like a bespoke build is happening every time someone throws in some money. Again, if that were the reality, I might be able to sign on to this paywall in some regard. This said, I can appreciate a subscription for just the nightlies as there are actual nightly development builds happening and it’s worth paying to get the very latest if you are that way inclined and maybe don’t want to compile on your own machine. This feels very different to a paywall for an official binary.
No, but I imagine there is a cost involved (however small) in providing each download, and Paul has chosen to assign a value (or a minimum value) to that process. From his earlier comments it appears as if intentionally or otherwise the builds were obtained by subverting that process. I guess that’s what is at issue.
Yes, I can definitely see that. It certainly brings to the forefront the limitations of using the Paypal system. I’m assuming there’s no subscription option for something like Liberapay. I wonder if the developers have considered Patreon? It seems to suit Chris from airwindows very nicely indeed.
Patreon is a benefit for the payer, not the payee. There is no micropayment option, so the fees are the usual charged by most payment processors. A large chunk of Ardour’s revenue comes in the form of $1 payments, and PayPal’s micropayment free structure saves US$0.23 on every transaction.
Payers/Patrons on Patreon like the “agglomerated” model is presents, but for the recipients, it offers nothing that we don’t already have.
Actually, the original poster did not meet the license requirements:
“For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.”
The archive.org page and 7zip file does not contain a copy of the license, does not contain a copy of the source code, does not even point to the location of the source code, so seems to be in breach of section 6 of GPL v3: GPL v3 text
4 Likes
For me it’s more than that, I see hosting binaries on a public mirror and advertising those binaries on the forums or large platforms as something that could harm the way the project is receiving funding. I don’t think it will do much at the end of the day, but it’s a still a possibility. I would be much more okay with it if someone who did this asked the developers why they aren’t providing a free build service in the first place, there’s definitely a very valid reason for it. If they did that and still disagreed with why, then at the very least they showed some courtesy and I would see the situation in a very different light.
And even that is really dependent on the project itself, while I wouldn’t consider Ardour’s user base small I also don’t think it’s on the level of a project like Krita. There are no huge grants from game publishers like Epic rolling in to support the project. If the project was in those shoes I’d be on the other side of the fence entirely.
According to @Paul the user would only need to link to ardour.org and not even to a specific source code page. There’s no requirement to host the source code or include it with a download as far as I’m aware. That being said, I left a review reminding them to provide a link. Given I’ve been defending the liberties afforded with GPL I can’t exactly sit there and not take action if said GPL requirements are apparently not being met in that regard.
The license is included with the binary release and you have to agree to the terms of it before installing the software. From my understanding you don’t need need to include a copy of the source when it is already available publicly. An example of a situation where it would need to be included is if you know that it only exists privately and the person you’re giving the licensed software to can’t get access to it otherwise.
1 Like
I don’t think I would be okay with it at all, the developers have a legitimate business model and I don’t think they or anyone else have to justify what they charge. You could make your own builds and charge what you want for them, including nothing.
I don’t think that matters. It seems to me (from what’s been said previously) as if the binaries were obtained without going through the payment process. If I have a physical product and someone wants it, and I set a price, I really don’t care what they do with it once they have it - they can smash it up, set fire to it or give it to someone else for free, but before that its not theirs to take. Maybe I’ve misunderstood this, but if the binaries were obtained legitimately then one could perhaps excuse distributing them as the license permits (though at best that would still be impolite to do so via the project’s own forum). But the implication is that they weren’t, and I don’t think such actions are more or less excusable based on how much funding a project has.
That’s what I’m saying here, I think even if they were obtained legitimately it would still be impolite to host them on a public mirror and then advertise them on the forums or any large platform. But if they at least had a conversation with the developers as to why they aren’t distributing the binaries freely and simply disagreed with them, I would consider it less impolite.
It would be better etiquette to talk to the developers, sure - but to me its still not justifiable even if someone disagrees with them - that’s my point, the developers have a business model and they are under no obligation to have to justify it to anyone. Its not acceptable to smash a shop window just because you had a conversation with the store owner and still thought they were charging too much.
To be absolutely truthful, while I dabbled with Ardour off and on for years, I only started completing professional projects from start to finish with version 5.12 (for me, Mixbus came before my regular use of Ardour). At the time I was using Windows and found a binary of Ardour 5.12 W64 on archive.org. I didn’t think twice (and certainly didn’t feel guilty) because I knew Ardour was GPL and up to that point I hadn’t even tried to download from Ardour.org given the readily available versions on Linux repositories. The rest, you might say, is history.
So, to an earlier point, perhaps others will also discover Ardour through the same mechanism. Who are we to say what good can come from legally hosted binaries on platforms other that ardour.org? And, perhaps more importantly, who are we to judge?
As a commercial developer, I could hardly justify piracy… (and I realise that’s not what you are advocating) but, its been increasingly recognised across various different industries that the ‘myth of lost sales’ exists, and that er… ‘free’ content can act (intentionally or otherwise) as free publicity for the genuine product. In that instance its just down to numbers - and I think Paul alluded to, or has alluded to the ‘radiohead’ experiment. It seems that their album was still uploaded to many file sharing sites despite being available for free - or pay what you want - legitimately, but in the end still one of their most successful. For that business model, often what matters is not that everyone pays, but that enough people pay to make it viable. Ardour is already available through many distros for free - so in that regard, this shouldn’t change things much
1 Like
The developers also licensed the software under the GPL and no one has an obligation to justify actions which are perfectly allowed by it.
Its not acceptable to smash a shop window just because you had a conversation with the store owner and still thought they were charging too much.
I don’t see it like that. If the builds were legitimately obtained or done personally, it would be more like setting up shop next to the store, and then selling replicas of the same objects for a lower cost, but without putting in any labour into the design or development of those objects. Now, that is perfectly allowed, but it’s not very respectable. Still, I try not to look at things as black and white, if someone attempts to have a conversation with the store owner and at least tries to reason their own viewpoint then I’ll certainly lose less respect for them than if someone hadn’t.
Well, these things sometimes aren’t simple issues, and even simple issues should be given due thought. While you did find freely available binaries, there’s a big difference between using that binary, distributing it amongst colleagues and friends, and advertising that it’s available on the forums or large platforms to many people that you have no relation with.
Right. I actually own all your plugins (they are great!). You as a developer chose a closed source route (perfectly legitimate) and so your wishes should be respected. Ardour on the other hand is fully GPL and so, in a sense, the developers have to respect all the possible ways that their source code and binaries can be “freed”. To coin a phrase, they have to lie in the bed that they themselves made.
As a related aside, there is a well-known linux developer of open-source audio plugins and software who gets a bee in his bonnet any time someone forks his code. I mean, come on. Why the heck did he create GPL code if he’s going to get cranky about that kind of thing? It makes absolutely zero sense 
They have to allow it, I don’t necessarily think they have to respect it.
1 Like
Good point but see my paragraph above about the overly-protective Linux developer of fine open-source audio software. If they don’t respect it, why go GPL in the first place?
I thought long and hard about which license to use for my music recordings on Bandcamp and chose to allow people to pay what they want and also go for a creative commons license.
Because they believe in the general principles of the GPL and free software. This again goes back to my previous point of how freedom can be used but also abused. With my understanding of CC, because you’ve licensed your music under it I can rightly take that music, put it up onto a popular source and only give you credit by name, without actually having to link to your bandcamp. That’s not something I would personally consider respectable, it’s very different from simply using your music and giving due credit in a video. I certainly respect people more who go the extra mile and also link to your official sites and distribution sources.
In fact I find it a little disrespectful for people who use CC music without providing links to the official sources or the author’s site. I think something like that is seen as a common courtesy by a lot of people and it’s looked down on to not do that. Of course that’s all based purely on subjection, maybe the author doesn’t care at all, but I think on a human-level it would best to ask them if they do.
It’s a good job I find it respectable otherwise I wouldn’t have chosen it. I do consider attribution important but there’s absolutely no need to link back to the bandcamp page. I find there are important differences between “free” software and “free” music in the same way there is a separate style of license for written documentation etc.
At risk of saying the same thing again, I do not see how sharing binaries in any manner is an abuse of freedom. It’s the very nature of the GPL. I believe it is in our DNA to share freely and paywalls and related mechanisms will hopefully one day be a thing of the past.