So Audacity needs forked
-
@jaredbusch said in So Audacity needs forked:
Audacity open source audio editor has become spyware
One of open source software’s biggest strengths is, naturally, its openness, which brings other benefits like freedom of use, security through scrutiny, flexibility, and more. That is mostly thanks to the open source-friendly licenses these programs use, but, from time to time, someone comes along and tries to make changes that infuriate the community of users and developers. Sometimes, those changes can even be illegal. Such seems to be the fate that has befallen Audacity, one of the open source world’s most popular pieces of software that now comes under a very invasive privacy policy.
Oh, the audacity of these people! How dare they follow in the footsteps of every other big tech company? Who do they think they are?
-
-
I thought that it was forked. People have been talking about whether to use the original project or the fork.
-
@scottalanmiller said in So Audacity needs forked:
I thought that it was forked. People have been talking about whether to use the original project or the fork.
There has been no fork backed by an organization yet.
-
Audacity owner Muse Group responds to ‘spyware’ claims
Muse Group has now responded to these concerns, stating that they’re “due largely to unclear phrasing in the Privacy Policy”. It says that no data will be shared with third parties (“full-stop”) and that only very basic data - IP address, system info (OS and CPU type) and error reports - will be collected.
Muse says that it does not collect any data beyond this for any purpose, including passing on to any government or law enforcement agency. What’s more, it says that data will only be shared if a court compels it, and that IP addresses are only held for 24 hours.
https://www.musicradar.com/news/audacity-spyware-claims
Clarification of Privacy Policy by the audacity team
https://github.com/audacity/audacity/discussions/1225 -
@pete-s said in So Audacity needs forked:
Audacity owner Muse Group responds to ‘spyware’ claims
Muse Group has now responded to these concerns, stating that they’re “due largely to unclear phrasing in the Privacy Policy”. It says that no data will be shared with third parties (“full-stop”) and that only very basic data - IP address, system info (OS and CPU type) and error reports - will be collected.
Muse says that it does not collect any data beyond this for any purpose, including passing on to any government or law enforcement agency. What’s more, it says that data will only be shared if a court compels it, and that IP addresses are only held for 24 hours.
https://www.musicradar.com/news/audacity-spyware-claims
Clarification of Privacy Policy by the audacity team
https://github.com/audacity/audacity/discussions/1225So... WHY are they collecting this if it is so unused? Why lose so many customers and make people so upset if that's all that they are doing? Things don't add up.
-
@jaredbusch said in So Audacity needs forked:
@scottalanmiller said in So Audacity needs forked:
I thought that it was forked. People have been talking about whether to use the original project or the fork.
There has been no fork backed by an organization yet.
Was Audacity backed by an organization before? It's getting it backed by an organization that triggered the current need to flee it.
-
@pete-s said in So Audacity needs forked:
Audacity owner Muse Group responds to ‘spyware’ claims
*Muse Group has now responded to these concerns, stating that they’re “due largely to unclear phrasing in the Privacy Policy”.
Seems damn clear...
-
@scottalanmiller said in So Audacity needs forked:
Seems damn clear...
It was not clear, it has been modified again to my understanding.
What you posted is basic legally required bits. I actually have nothing against this.But this step on top of the previous commits around data collection that were brought up in march or so make this one thing too many.
-
@scottalanmiller said in So Audacity needs forked:
Was Audacity backed by an organization before?
No it was trademarked by a single person, who sold the trademark to Muse.
Better open source projects are backed by an open organization that keeps clear where funding comes from and keeps direct control away from the funders.
-
From what I'm reading the opensource community are fuming about this and forks are already starting to happen.
-
@stuartjordan said in So Audacity needs forked:
From what I'm reading the opensource community are fuming about this and forks are already starting to happen.
Over 50 have happened. That's Jared's point. No clear, well backed winner. Just lots of pissed people. That's exactly what Muse wants, fractioning.
-
@scottalanmiller said in So Audacity needs forked:
Over 50 have happened. That's Jared's point. No clear, well backed winner.
Welcome to Linux.
-
@obsolesce said in So Audacity needs forked:
@scottalanmiller said in So Audacity needs forked:
Over 50 have happened. That's Jared's point. No clear, well backed winner.
Welcome to Linux.
Here Bloody Here!!
-
Muse Group Continues Tone Deaf Handling Of Audacity
Our last post on the subject ended on a high note, as it seemed like the situation was on the mend. While there was still a segment of the Audacity userbase that was skeptical about remote analytics being added into a program that never needed it before, representatives from the Muse Group seemed to be listening to the feedback they were receiving. Keary assured users that plans to implement telemetry had been dropped, and that should they be reintroduced in the future, it would be done with the appropriate transparency.
Unfortunately, things have only gotten worse in the intervening months. Not only is telemetry back on the menu for a program that’s never needed an Internet connection since its initial release in 2000, but this time it has brought with it a troubling Privacy Policy that details who can access the collected data. Worse, Muse Group has made it clear they intend to move Audacity away from its current GPLv2 license, even if it means muscling out long-time contributors who won’t agree to the switch. The company argues this will give them more flexibility to list the software with a wider array of package repositories, a claim that’s been met with great skepticism by those well versed in open source licensing.
-
Things seem to be solidifying on Tenacity, but early days still.
-
They have an issue discussing governance.
https://github.com/tenacityteam/tenacity/issues/28 -
Fingers crossed. The 4Chan crap there did them the favour of getting them a LOT of attention.
