Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spotify Releases a Linux-Only Client Library

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the you-and-you-and-definitely-not-you dept.

Music 96

f0rk writes "Spotify, a popular music streaming service, has just recently released libspotify. An official, binary-only, only for subscribers, library to 'enable and inspire you to build some really cool stuff.' The first release only has support for x86-32 Linux, the only major platform Spotify does not run on. It looks like the Spotify team is trying to be nice to the Linux community and hope someone will use their restricted binary-only library to write a Linux client."

cancel ×

96 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Perfect editorial! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27552761)

"Spotify, a popular music streaming service, has just recently released libspotify. An official, binary-only, only for subscribers, library to 'enable and inspire you to build some really cool stuff.' The first release only have support for x86-32 Linux, the only major platform Spotify do not run on. It looks like the Spotify team is trying to be nice to the Linux community and hope some one will use there restricted binary-only library to write a Linux client."

Wow, that are some insanely tight proofreading they're, editors.

Re:Perfect editorial! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27553027)

What would I do without Slashdot to provide me with a non-stop source of neurotic undertakings to complain about? By way of introduction, let me just say that Slashdot's memoranda are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that Slashdot has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature and they promote the mistaken idea that it is its moral imperative to impose bad-tempered new restrictions on society just to satisfy some sort of raving drive for power. Slashdot has lost sight of the lessons of history. But let's not quibble about that.

Please don't misread my words here; the reason Slashdot wants to force me to play right into the hands of amateurish lugs is that it's completely footling. If you believe you have another explanation for its incorrigible behavior, then please write and tell me about it. What does Slashdot have to say about all of this? The answer, as expected, is nothing. I want to weed out organizations like Slashdot that have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us. That may seem simple enough, but we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Slashdot's mendacious comments and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment.)

Slashdot likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of poststructuralism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, it invariably instructs its confidants to equip uneducated upstarts with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Slashdot's hectoring pranks. As a parting thought, remember that the ineluctable outcome of Slashdot's suggestions is a world in which passive-aggressive, pretentious Huns worsen an already unstable situation.

Re:Perfect editorial! (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553031)

I know, it sounds like an oh-so-generous library.

Re:Perfect editorial! (1)

f0rk (1328921) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554387)

Nice edit =P
My story in Firehose is quite correct (I'm not perfect but still better)

Re:Perfect editorial! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554713)

I propose "ediots".

Re:Perfect editorial! (3, Funny)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556361)

'Wow, that are some insanely tight proofreading their, editors.'

Fixed that for you.

Re:Perfect editorial! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27560333)

'Wow, that are some insanely tight proofreading there, editors.' Fixed that for you.

Re:Perfect editorial! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27563119)

Whoosh!

Re:Perfect editorial! (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27643305)

You didn't get the joke and you answered your own post with a redundant "Wosh". You have failed in life.

Re:Perfect editorial! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27566251)

'Wow, that is some insanely tight proofreading there, editors.'

Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Perfect editorial! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27594827)

'Wow, that are some insanely tight proofreading thar, editors.'

Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Perfect editorial! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27667265)

'Wow, that are some insanely tight proofreading their, editors.'

Fixed that for you.

'Wow, that are some insanely tight proofreading there, editors.'

Fixed that for you.

Re:Perfect editorial! (1)

Squeeonline (1323439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557313)

Yeah there's a joke in there somewhere about the quality of their library but I just cant find it.

wine? (4, Insightful)

meow27 (1526173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552765)

So to run this in windows I'm gonna have to use Wine on windows? Thats just massed up

Re:wine? (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552781)

Wish I had mod points, that's so funny

Re:wine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27552799)

Wish I had mod points, that's so funny

no it's not. it doesn't make sense. wine is a windows compatibility layer for linux/bsd/solaris/etc. so wine on windows wouldn't really translate into much in terms of getting a linux only program to work on windows

Re:wine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27552817)

No, but you could use AndLinux which would offer actually far better compatability & performance with Linux apps than wine does for Windows apps on Linux.

captcha: paranoia

Re:wine? (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27563779)

The WINE libraries are moving into their own right as a development platform, it would seem. Take, for instance, Picasa - it uses WINE as well.

I don't know much about the whole affair, but considering that some applications will run better under Linux + WINE than in Windows, and that this case is also likely true in Windows, it's hardly all that surprising. The code is likely better, and it's easier than (say) using Mono/.NET, and better than Java, for Windows/Linux development.

Re:wine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27552829)

mass increased by how much?

Re:wine? (2, Informative)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553135)

Cygwin did something like that.

Re:wine? (4, Insightful)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553825)

From their help page:

On what platforms can I use Spotify?
        Mac OS X 10.4 or later and Windows XP or later. You can also run Spotify in Wine on Linux.

So it looks like you can already run it in windows on Wine. Seriously though, at least they seem to be catering to us 1%, more than what most do. We should be thanking them for this token effort, keep applying pressure to open it sure but at least they bothered to test on wine and make a blob.

Meanwhile (2, Informative)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552787)

ACME Foods has requested all christian children wear their free plastic novelty devils horns and tail found in every packet of Crunchy Choco Monkies white having breakfast.

ACME Marketing Droid "what it's free!! and children love it, I cant see what everyone is complaining about"

Slashvertisement (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552791)

Yup, I've never heard of Spotify and I can't imagine why I'd be interested in this. But hey, I always love it with people release "binary only" libraries. They typically provide a nice big fat header file and a .so file. Sometimes they even strip the .so file, that's what I like to call "a challenge". Today I am not sufficiently bored to reverse engineer this crap, but I'm sure someone, who knows what Spotify is and actually gives a shit, will be. How hard something is to reverse engineer is determined by three things:

1) Armoring
2) Symbols
3) Relocation information

When it comes to Linux stuff, no-one ever does armoring, so we might as well not even think about that. All the interesting symbols for this library have come from the header file.. but ELF binaries leak lots of symbols, even when you strip them, so yeah, no problem there. Finally, relocation information, makes the so called "hard problem" of reverse engineering, separating code from data, pretty easy.. and .so files require you to provide them.

So I don't know why they bother. If there's secrets you're trying to hide from developers by not giving out source code, you're just failing.

Re:Slashvertisement (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27552907)

Watching Idiocracy and posting on Slashdot at the same time is, umm, spooky.

There you go with that fag talk, again.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554191)

Shame you got modded down, I thought your comment was funny.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554781)

Note to mods: the above post isn't a troll, it is a reference to the film mentioned in the quoted signature.
-1 off-topic, yes.
-1 troll, no.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553041)

they may use licensed code which they can't release. Or they may be using unlicensed code and don't want to be caught. Or the code quality may be shit. Or maybe it sends back interesting things. Yep, lots of reasons not to release the source code.

Re:Slashvertisement (2, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553127)

they may use licensed code which they can't release.

Yes, because often you can release code in binary form that you're not allowed to release in source form. That happens, umm, never.

Or they may be using unlicensed code and don't want to be caught.

Which is fail for the exact same reasons.

Or the code quality may be shit.

I almost guarantee it is.. but that will be evidenced by the binary also.

Or maybe it sends back interesting things.

That might be one of those secrets that I was alluding to, yes. It's pretty obvious that such a thing will be discovered in just as short an amount of time as it would in source code and be much more interesting due to the fact that they tried to hide it.

Yep, lots of stupid reasons not to release the source code.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Slashvertisement (3, Insightful)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553225)

Yes, because often you can release code in binary form that you're not allowed to release in source form. That happens, umm, never.

err.. that can and does happen, depending on licensing agreements, you can buy licenses to use some libraries in your product X, but if you then released source to your product AND proprietary library so you could compile it, company you bought it off would rip you to shreds.

Prime example being punkbuster for q3, had to be removed for the source distribution because punkbuster library isn't owned by ID software but by some anti-cheating company

Re:Slashvertisement (0)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553241)

Yeah, good point, but it's certainly not the case here.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553253)

Why isn't it the case here?

I'm not sure anything has been provided so far to indicate that wouldn't be the issue other then someone doesn't want it to be. Is there something we are missing?

Re:Slashvertisement (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553361)

Yes, my self-important proclamation is all you have to go on.

Unless, you know, you do some of your own research. But what's the likelihood of that?

Re:Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27553689)

I researched it. My research shows that it might still be the case.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553753)

It doesn't matter what research I do. You made the statement and I ask what you have to back it up outside you saying so. If you have nothing then the answer isn't what you claim because you made the claim.

Anyways, what this means is that the possibility is still on the table. Despite you wanting to remove it. And it means that we aren't missing anything that you are privy to which caused you to make that statement.

As for me doing my own research, well, as you would know, research involves taking the claims other people make and evaluating them for legitimacy. Don't try to discredit my question because I asked you to back up your own shit. As far as you know, I am doing my own research and was inquiring into what you knew that everyone else seems to no know. You made a statement with no facts to back up, me calling you out on it only means I wanted to know what you know. And as of now, I do which is why your statement is bunk.

Re:Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27553809)

Yup, I've never heard of Spotify and I can't imagine why I'd be interested in this.

...

Yes, my self-important proclamation is all you have to go on.

Unless, you know, you do some of your own research. But what's the likelihood of that?

To sum it up, you made a very specific claim about some software you knew nothing about when you were proven wrong about licensing issues, and accuse others of not doing research?

Way to go.

Re:Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27593059)

Probably about the same as giving even cursory consideration on your part before making idiotic comments such as:

Yes, because often you can release code in binary form that you're not allowed to release in source form. That happens, umm, never.

Or they may be using unlicensed code and don't want to be caught.

Which is fail for the exact same reasons.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554265)

Spotify runs great and uses very little resources. I doubt there is much, if any, shit code in it.

They've made a program that run exceptionally well under Wine. The only problem I've found is the banner ads don't let you click through (no big loss there) to their web site. But I'm sure there are Linux people that want more than that and they're trying to give it. The fact that they are being relatively friendly towards Linux means there is probably a good reason they're releasing the binary only. For all we know there is some sort of agreement with music companies not to completely open it up and they're at least trying to give us the next best thing.

Yes it could be better but they're at least catering to our small group. There's no need to be a completely ungrateful shit about it.

Re:Slashvertisement (-1, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554295)

As I said, I don't care about their stupid music sharing crap. I care about people thinking that binaries hide things. They don't.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557869)

Of course they don't. Why don't you tell that to Spotify?

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27562987)

Yes because a company trying to take Linux seriously and include it in a legit music product is stupid.

If binaries don't hide anything then why not bring it up with Spotify. They may very will tell you exactly why they've done it the way they have.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556059)

> Yes, because often you can release code in binary form that you're not
> allowed to release in source form. That happens, umm, never.

No, actually, in the proprietary world that does happen. When id released the Descent source code, it lacked sound support, because they didn't have source-release rights to a sound library they'd used. (The D1X folks then proceeded to get sound support working, of course. But it took a few months.) Very early versions of OpenOffice.org didn't have spellcheck, I think because Star Division hadn't developed their own, though I was never totally clear on the details of that one. Pegasus Mail can't be easily ported to Linux, at least partly because David Harris doesn't have the necessary rights to release or port the editing control widget that it uses pervasively.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27586149)

Or maybe, they have got a license for playing MP3s and other audio types, and can't release the source for it? That's a standard part of lots of patent licensing.

Re:Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27553085)

It is semi amazing people try to 'hide' code this way.

If they would stop and think about it for 2 seconds they would realize it doesnt work to 'hide' an algorithm this way. There are people out there who can make viri in asm for Gods sake and figure out how to break your code ONLY with the asm you gave them... There are people out there who can figure out bugs in old video games and fix them. What makes them think that the secret they are trying to hide here will stay hidden?

Also many times these awesome algs usually are not. Once had a dude who tried to do this with an alg and tried to present it as his own. He comes in and starts describing it. Took me a few mins to realize he was giving an alg from a well known book. I then asked which of the three books that I knew it was in did he get it from. He looked at me like as if I was a piranha. I let him off the hook with 'well dude you probably will get your patent but do not be surprised if it doesnt hold up in court due to prior art'.

It is almost as if decompiling never even occurred to them. Even though they do it every day with a debugger.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553483)

Yup, I've never heard of Spotify and I can't imagine why I'd be interested in this.

Amazing. Where have you been the last months?

It's just the most amazingly fast-growing music-site.

Oh, but it's not an american site. No wonder you haven't heard about it.

Re:Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554703)

I haven't heard of it either. And if your implication is that that makes me an American, I am afraid you're mistaken.

(And just to "prove" it, I know the difference between "then" and "than" and "you're" and "your", I do not pronounce "due" like "do" and I spell things like "colour" properly ;)

As to whether the guy you were responding to is American, I have no idea.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

Xabraxas (654195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556119)

Oh, but it's not an american site. No wonder you haven't heard about it.

Of course American's haven't heard of it, you can't even use it in the US so why would there be any buzz about it here? You are being naive and condescending at the same time. Congratulations.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27582969)

I don't see why there shouldn't be any buzz about a service that has been launched other places, but not in the US yet. You mean you american guys never hear about products before they're launched in the US ?

sheez. Talk about having ones head stuck in the sand.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

Xabraxas (654195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27592473)

Head in the sand? Now you're just being stupid. I don't know why or how I would come across a site that I cannot even use unless I was searching it out with prior knowledge of its existance. It's not like it is some kind of earth shattering new technology. It sound very similar to Last.FM and Pandora.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557617)

Wow, it's amazing that an American might not have heard of a site that's not even available in the US! Quick, better act like we're all idiots, instead of checking on that.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553777)

Yup, I've never heard of Spotify and I can't imagine why I'd be interested in this.

I've completely changed to use spotify for my usual music listening. They have amazing library of music and it feels like you're listening normal mp3 files from your computer. Its also easy to share links between friends, like we do on irc and im's with my friends and on facebook with my gf.

Theres also both free ad supported version (that is usually one audio ad every 4-5 hours or so) and premium for 10e/month.

Its really revolutionary really. If you havent tried yet, you should.

Oh yeah, its not available in the usa. Enjoy your iTunes.

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

dr_d_19 (206418) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553955)

So I don't know why they bother.

Spotify: So, we can release the source, right?
Music Industry: Nope. That would reveal our ROT13 DRM.
Spotify: But they'll figure that out eventually, why can't we j...
Music Industry: Do you want to license our music or not?

Re:Slashvertisement (2, Interesting)

f0rk (1328921) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554171)

They stream there music in OGG Vorbis, and no DRM is involved.

Proof, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554373)

Or were you bugging their offices.

There's likely NO REASON not to release source. It's just that since they've gotten used to not having to, they think they are giving away their copyrights by producing source.

This is not true.

Copyright still stops you from making an unlicensed copy. It still stops you from making a derived work.

Releasing the source allows the public domain to be enriched when the copyright expires.

Which was why copyright was made.

Re:Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554175)

Well if they think they could have it their way, they were too often at Burger King (whose slogan is "have it your way" ATM over here).

Not Available in the USA (1)

Subgenius (95662) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552801)

Too bad it is not available in the United States; it looks like an interesting competitor to Slacker.

I wonder why... (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552809)

In making the library binary, Spotify presumably desires to "protect" the music being streamed, some aspect of their service's technology, or both.

I find this curious. In terms of "protecting" the music, the cat is already out of the bag. Even if you can't crack the binary(and we know how long those usually last) pulling the music via virtual sound device or analog hole is trivial. Further, there are already (legal, accepted) music streaming services that don't do much at all in that direction. Pandora, for instance, dumps mp3s in a known temp directory. They don't have any ID3 tags; but that is their only defect. Given that, I'd be rather surprised if Spotify is legally against the wall here.

The protection of their methods/technologies/whatever argument seems equally odd. With most of these streaming services, the major value lies in a combination of having access to all the music and having(and doing useful things with) metadata concerning all the music. All that occurs on the server side of things. To the degree that anybody pays for expertise in compression and network transmission of music, they are paying for patent licences, not implementations(since there is at least one free implementation of any major codec in common use). Any UI expertise wouldn't be protected by closed sourcing the code, and wouldn't be relevant to a library like this in any case.

I can't think of any other good reasons. Access control for the service is, obviously, server-side, only an idiot would build a "trust the client" access control mechanism. The only thing I can think of is that they, like Adobe with Flash, want to make Spotify support free as in beer on the deskop; but make people pay for it on portables and such(hence the restriction to x86). Anybody have any ideas?

(Please note: I respect Spotify's right to release or not release whatever code of theirs they want, under whatever licence they want. That is their right. I find it odd, though, that they would go to the effort of supporting Linux; but do so in a way that precludes adding that support to any of the GPLed media player software, restricts support to a single platform, and generally complicates integration into distros and so forth.)

Re:I wonder why... (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552945)

It's possible to use binary-only plugins in GPL music players. You just won't be able to distribute this combination.

Re:I wonder why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554733)

The software has already been completely reversed engineered by a group of Swedish hackers/computer researchers who created despofity.se it's open source and rewriting parts of it to save the songs instead of playing them is not hard.

Time to run 'strings' and look for GPL (3, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552841)

That would be amusing if it turned out to have significant GPL components and force them to release the source.

Re:Time to run 'strings' and look for GPL (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554577)

It's a common settlement offer (play nice from now on and we'll forget the past) but never a requirement - if any GPL violator don't want to release the source, even caught redhanded they can simply stop distributing and pay damages after copyright law. Stop making that silly argument, it's a piece of FUD thrown around by anti-OSS people like that if Microsoft got 200 lines of GPL code in Windows 7 they'd have to GPL the whole shebang. If that really was true the GPL would be viral in a dangerous sense, but it's not. Compliance is like a free "get out of jail"-card for companies, follow the GPL and release source now or violate the GPL and maybe release source later. why the FSF like it so much I'll never understand.

Re:Time to run 'strings' and look for GPL (2, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554893)

But it is a requirement to stop violating the GPL. I was rather hoping they'd turn out to be in serious violation, just to serve them right for this "we'll let you do the open work, and benefit from it, but keep our guts closed". NVidia does this with OpenGL in their drivers, and it really bothers me. And Spotify could conceivably be using their own code from scratch, or more likely be working from a BSD licensed original code base: I'm not saying they need be in violation of anything. It would simply be fun, and ironic, and help force them to play the open source or free software game properly, if it turned out they were in GPL violation. This "we'll just publish a binary blob" thing is too common.

The FSF likes the GPL for powerful, historical reasons: it prevents the tragedy of the commons that happened with UNIX some time ago, and look at what's been created successfully and protected from proprietization of various sorts with it. The FSF likes it because it _works_, as effective legal akido using the proprietary secret software's creator's own rules against them.

Awesome-This will change the face of online music! (2, Funny)

gavron (1300111) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552871)

I'm SO excited! A binary-only blob is much better than nothing! It's like getting herpes instead of having no diseases anyway. Sure we'd rather have a-cure-for-herpes but hey, getting a quarter of that is better than nothing!

What is spotify anyway? Anyone ever heard of it? Other than the illiterate OP did anyone care? Slow day in slashdot editor land?

E

Re:Awesome-This will change the face of online mus (1)

Explo (132216) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553957)

I'd guess that a significant part of people in western Europe have heard about it, at least it seems to be sufficiently mainstream to get mentioned every now and then in (non-IT) newspapers. Elsewhere the answer is probably "not many", due to the geographical restrictions the service current has.

Personally, I think it's a quite nice music streaming service with a rather impressive set of available albums, even though running the client under Wine seems to occasionally crash my window manager (while it does restore the desktop pretty much immediately to the pre-crash state, it's still somewhat disconcerting).

English: Do you speak it? (2, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552881)

... the only major platform Spotify do not run on. It looks like the Spotify team is trying to be nice to the Linux community and hope some one will use there restricted binary-only library...

No, it's not life-or-death [youtube.com] , but it IS AN EDITOR'S FUCKING JOB TO NOTICE AND FIX THINGS LIKE THIS.

Huh??!!?? (1)

Quantos (1327889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552941)

The first release only have support for x86-32 Linux, the only major platform Spotify do not run on.

So, they'll support what it won't run on?
Linux is a major platform? Or do they mean that 32 bit Linux is major compared to 64 bit?

I even ran it through some translation software and I still don't know what they're trying to say.

Re:Huh??!!?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554209)

I think it's Linux as an OS/Platform. As Windows and Mac OS X is supported by there official client. They then go and release libspotify, for Linux only. They probably think it's a good idea as all Linux media players will now incorporate it. Problem is, it's binary-only, not so much of a problem if every one is using x86-32 Linux, but every one is NOT. If it would be open source, people would have recompiled it into all thinkable architectures and platforms over night.

Re:Huh??!!?? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27555035)

I would be willing to bet that, if you discount servers (i.e. machines where this is not of interest) there are more Linux/ARM machines out there than Linux/x86 machines. Apparently Spotify is some kind of music streaming thing, and a large number of the kind of device that might want to use this have ARM chips. You can probably run the x86 binary in QEMU's single-process mode, but a lot of ARM devices won't have enough RAM to do this.

Despotify (4, Interesting)

lixee (863589) | more than 5 years ago | (#27552943)

Why would anyone use their geo-restricted binaries when open-source Despotify is out there?

Re:Despotify (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553283)

Perhaps they want a working solution to at least use the service to avoid the entire "it doesn't work on X so we made it work" as a defense/reason for other programs that defeat protections they thought was necessary.

IF I offer access on linux, then open source programs that defeat my copy protection or whatever pretty much can legally be viewed as just that in their intent. It gives them a legal foot to kick around should it be necessary in their minds.

Re:Despotify (4, Insightful)

xkcd150 (1527245) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553405)

I think this is Spotify's response to Despotify.

When Despotify was released, they had a full office going "f*ck, our business is screwed".

They could have gone the route of lawyers and trying to silence or stopping the project, but instead they just fixed the security issues that came up, and let the open source project be for a while.

And now they release this. They're trying to reach out to the open source community, but their hands are tied because of where their money's coming from.

Same reasons they have to put geographic restrictions on the music in the first place.

Re:Despotify (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27553761)

Mod parent up.

Spotify and Despotify have had lots of talks and they told Despotify that they like open source but can't release the source.
This is the next best thing.

What about x86_64 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27553101)

The application that uses this library probably can't be licensed GNU GPL right?

And then, is there a library for easy thunking from x86-64 to x86-32 under Linux? And also legally compatible?

FUCKING BATSHIT CRAZAY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27553155)

It looks like the Spotify team is trying to be nice to the Linux community and hope some one will use there restricted binary-only library to write a Linux client.

It looks like the Spotify team is trying to be nice to the Linux community and hope some one will use there restricted binary-only library to write a Linux client.

It looks like the Spotify team is trying to be nice to the Linux community and hope some one will use there restricted binary-only library to write a Linux client.

It looks like the Spotify team is trying to be nice to the Linux community and hope some one will use there restricted binary-only library to write a Linux client.

It looks like the Spotify team is trying to be nice to the Linux community and hope some one will use there restricted binary-only library to write a Linux client.

Re:FUCKING BATSHIT CRAZAY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27553229)

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=&cid=

linux slashvertisement (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27553365)

fuck open source. fuck it up it's faggot ass.

most open source articles that appear on slashdot are either blatant ads, squabbles over minor revisions of the three open source projects that have more than 12 people who care about it or aren't open source at all but rather a way for open source bitches to try to clasp their favorite religious mantra on to anything that even remotely looks like open source (free as in [beer/speech/a five minute jimi hendrix guitar solo])

the fact is that there really isn't much left to open source at this point. it's dead and needs a fork stuck in it but there are loons out there who haven't found a new cause to tattoo on their foreheads so we're stuck with their endless ravings about how there is a brave new world of technology at all of our finger tips but musicians should have to go around playing on the street corners like some old time bards to earn their daily bread.

jesus christ, it's a fucked up movement.

Re:linux slashvertisement (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553471)

is that you Bill ?

Re:linux slashvertisement (1)

cephalien (529516) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553485)

I don't think so. Whoever it is is holding a chair over their head and he looks angry. ...

Re:linux slashvertisement (1)

cephalien (529516) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553475)

Do not feed the trolls.

I'd rather (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553507)

I'd rather cut off my penis with a rusty butter knife.

Re:I'd rather (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554503)

I'd rather cut off my penis with a rusty butter knife.

Meh. That's so 2008.

Why linux will never be mainstream. (0, Troll)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553563)

You guys are all way too busy arguing about how the library is not GPL. Guess what? It's still a free world and the copyright holder can still choose whatever license or distribution method he/she wants because it is their "right" to do so. None of you have the right to dictate which license software you had no part in writing should be distributed. Linux will never become mainstream as long as fanatics sit around talking about the GPL rather than actually writing good software. The average end user does not give a crap about open source other than seeing it as a way to get "free" as in beer software.

I would bet that the vast majority of you advocating or discussing the GPL have probably never written code that is in use by someone other than yourself if any code at all. Stop being such posers. You are great "fans" of linux and open source but would probably never lift a finger to help develop software.

If you expect people to take open source software seriously then you have to take copyright holder rights seriously and get over the illusion that the GPL somehow removes rights from the original author which it does not. No license can do that other than selling of the actual copyright to another party.

BTW. I just love how so many of you automatically assume that they must have stolen GPL code in there. Bloody hypocrites.

Re:Why linux will never be mainstream. (3, Insightful)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553791)

I didn't get the same impression from the comments at all, so decided to look closer:

You guys are all way too busy arguing about how the library is not GPL.

"all"... I found no posts saying this. I did see two posts complaining about binary-only, but there are other possible reasons for that and.

None of you have the right to dictate which license software you had no part in writing should be distributed.

Again, finding it hard to locate the posts this refers to.

You have to ... get over the illusion that the GPL somehow removes rights from the original author.

Wow. where does this come from? I have no idea.

I just love how so many of you automatically assume that they must have stolen GPL code in there.

Zero, it seems. There was one guy who would find it funny if there was GPL code in there.

For all the groupthink accusations you spouted, the only evidence of groupthink that I see here is your moderation: +5 for whining based on nothing at all?

x86-only (4, Insightful)

ManiaX Killerian (134390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27553729)

This is getting bloody ridiculous. Everyone releases a piece of binary crap for 32bit linux and that's - OK, are you saying your code is so crappy you can't recompile it at least for x86_64 (which is starting to get comparable in size to the ix86 crowd). Heck, our stuff (which is about 300MB of source) got recompiled for x86_64 in 6 hours (took two-three compilations and some tweaking, the diff was less than 30k).

So, please, people that release binary stuff for Linux, etc., take a bit of time, compile for something else, or you'll start looking really bad.

Re:x86-only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554021)

Calling x86-32 Linux a major platform (compared to x86_64) is ridicules. Apart form netbooks, it's now hard to find any non-64 bit computers.

Re:x86-only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554091)

other than the many many computers that people own that are a couple of years old and 32 bit, cos not everyone upgrades there PC every other year

oh and most laptops in the UK were still 32bit for most of last year, and a lot of people with core2duo's etc... still run 32bit OS'es as they dont know the difference

Re:x86-only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554947)

Windows has troubles with 64-bit and seems to be avoiding it. Linux does as well, but much less so. As far as I know, every x86 processor on the market except the Atom has had 64-bit support for a while now.

Re:x86-only (1)

nmx (63250) | more than 5 years ago | (#27555961)

Windows has troubles with 64-bit and seems to be avoiding it.

I don't think this has been true for years. And the only problems I recall were some hardware vendors not putting out 64-bit drivers, but they seem to be on board now.

Linux does as well, but much less so.

What the hell are you talking about?

Re:x86-only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554179)

There are enough in the basement.

Re:x86-only (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#27555025)

And virtualization.

Porting software between 32 and 64 bit architectures is not just recompiling: there are error conditions. Depending on whether the source is C or Java, elementary components (like 'long long' in C) may have rather different behavior and require cautious code review. And most 32-bit compiled software, even with shared libraries, can run on 64-bit operating systems: the reverse is certainly not true. So if you can only publish one set of libraries, it's safer for now to make it i386 compatible.

Muting adverts (or not as it turns out) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554069)

It would not surprise me to see that when you mute and an advert is playing it pauses the advert, basically blocking playback until you have listened to the ad which was what their windows client did.

Re:Muting adverts (or not as it turns out) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27554591)

this lib was only for paying costumers that dont have to listen to ads

Spotify T & Cs (2, Informative)

zmower (20335) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554807)

Looked at their terms and conditions a while ago when it came up on a newsgroup I'm no longer subscribed to. Firstly, you become part of a P2P advertising network. Then they can change their T & Cs by altering their website and your continued use of their product means you've accepted their new terms. No, thankyou.

When I mentioned this on the newsgroup their answer was "But it's free". Hence why I'm no longer subscribed.

Binary only linux software? Pffft.

Co-existence, please (1)

CHJacobsen (1183809) | more than 5 years ago | (#27554819)

I really don't mind the binary-only release of the API. Even though i believe that open-source is the best way to do software, i realize that Spotify is in a very sensitive position right now, and i'd rather hope for them to release the source at a later date. They are open-source advocates, and as long as they continue down that path, i'm willing to turn a blind eye.

The real issue here is the platform-restriction. I don't know if the spotify-team or the music industry is to blame for this, but the explicit ban of mobile spotify-applications is just bad marketing. Especially since the third-party applications are subscriber-only, and the spotify-team has explicitly stated that they need to maximize the number of subscribers to be successful in the long run.

Why Linux Only (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27555085)

This seems like an easy path for failure.

1. Consumer Level closed source products have never really sold well for Linux. Business/Enterprise level software is a different story.

2. Close Source Libraries cut the development of GNU software. Linux Development has a much higher level of GNU only developers. Finding good close source developers to make a client for you for Linux is a bit more difficult, especially for free.

3. Close Source Developers would probably be concerned about legal recourse if their app outsells Spotify. Or if they are going to make a Free as in Beer or Mostly Free as in speech (Open Source with links to closed source libraries) and their app is that much better then their app.

4. Linux Developers tend to really Stink at front end work. I think they would be happier if Spotify released the Front End and the Linux developers make a compatible back end.

Re:Why Linux Only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27562327)

1. Spotify doesn't sell apps.

2. They don't have to find closed source developers. People making frontends that are open source but not GPL (eg BSD, MIT etc) should be perfectly fine.

3. That doesn't even parse in English. Anyway, Spotify doesn't sell apps.

4. Releasing the back-end as open source is not possible. The music companies simply won't allow spotify to license the music if the client is fully open source.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>