Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Linux Mint Diverting Banshee Revenue

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the getting-their-cut dept.

GNOME 178

LinuxScribe writes "According Linux Mint founder Clement Lefebvre, the popular Linux Mint distribution has changed the Amazon.com affiliate code for the Banshee music player so that Mint, not Canonical or the GNOME Foundation, will receive the revenue from MP3 sales through Banshee. Though a trivial amount of money ($3.41 in November 2011), Linux Mint's actions still raise the question: how should revenue be shared between upstream and downstream FLOSS projects?"

cancel ×

178 comments

wuh (3, Funny)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342622)

Revenue? In my Linux? It's more likely than you think.

They deserve it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38342764)

Linux Mint 12 made GNOME3 usable. They deserve the $3.41.

Re:They deserve it (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342964)

Linux Mint 12 made GNOME3 usable.

That they did, but it was still buggy as hell for me. I'm still running Linux Mint but I'm on MATE for now. Thankfully thought, I can at least see that Mint's extensions at least take Gnome3 in a direction that I can agree with, once a few more of the issues are ironed out.

At a minimum, Linux Mint seems to be at least TRYING to cater to their users, as opposed to Ubuntu and Gnome who just keep plowing ahead tell the entire userbase that they're wrong.

Re:They deserve it (5, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343166)

As long as $0.27 goes to X.Org, those guys do great work.

Re:They deserve it (1)

knuthin (2255242) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344188)

We'll come back to this when Wayland becomes usable.

Re:They deserve it (1)

diego.viola (1104521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344472)

Agreed. Wayland is the way of the future. I hope we'll be able to use soon for real.

Re:They deserve it (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344926)

Wayland is the way of the future.

It has futuristic things like:
* No network transparency!
* Client side window decorations! This will offer the following futuristic features:
    * Every toolkit providing subtly different window decorations
    * Hung applications have immovable windows which get in the way and make life suck, like other popular operating systems
    * Impossible to use a decoration free tiling window manager to maximize screenspace
    * Impossible to use a window manager which adds useful extra window decorations and functions
* And apparently, endless arguments about how copy/paste should work.

But hey, at least it will provide a much needed performance boost for those of us still stuck on a Sun 3/60. Also, the .1ms latency introduced by a compositing window manager has really been bugging me recently.

Re:They deserve it (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344510)

We'll come back to this when Wayland becomes usable.

Or, we'll come back to it when Wayland gets adopted and removes so many of the nice features that X11 users have been enjoying since 1987.

Re:They deserve it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344874)

Could you please name them? X11 Font rendering and drawing arcs most certainly isn't used today. And networking is only doable if you have some serious Local Area Network. At least all the really successful FullHD setups I have heard were using gigabit optical fiber. Last time I tried my home gigabit ethernet was pretty bad with just running one windowed X11 application over it, and the fact that it was a video editor didn't help the least bit.

Re:They deserve it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344952)

Where I work, networked X gets used fairly frequently, and works just fine over gigabit ethernet. We used to do in over 10M ethernet back in the day, but that was pretty slow.

Networking is the whole point of X. If you're not going to do that, why are you bothering with such an insanely complex windowing system?

Re:They deserve it (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344988)

Could you please name them?

Sure: network transparency is 1. I find it much better than your experiences, personally. It depends on having well written programs of course. The best fix would be to adopt an X12 protocol which puts proper font rendering back in the server and modifies the features which cause high latency. NX client is heavily based on X, but is the best remote GUI system available by a wide margin.

The second is flexibility in window managers. The geniuses in charge of Wayland seem to be trying to do client side window decorations. That kills flexibility and also makes hung programs hang around in a really annoying manner.

Re:They deserve it (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38345410)

The best fix would be to adopt an X12 protocol which puts proper font rendering back in the server

X11 already has proper font rendering on the server via the XRender extension. The server handles the rendering, the client provides the glyphs. This is superior to the old approach of making the server provide the glyphs because it means that you can install an application + fonts on a machine and use it anywhere without having to install the fonts on every X server (which is hard if they're dumb terminals) and means that you can do things like embed fonts in documents.

The second is flexibility in window managers

And compositing managers. Wayland uses a one-size-fits all approach to both, while X11 is modular.

Re:They deserve it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38345120)

X.Org? You mean the piece of shit system that can't even handle multiple graphics cards at full performance?

Re:They deserve it (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38345358)

X11 is not the problem, the video drivers are...
SGI machines were supporting multi head high speed setups using X11 in the days before x86 machines could even support multi head at all.

Re:They deserve it (1)

MurukeshM (1901690) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343754)

Yeah, right. You do know that most of those extensions were already available on Rico's or webup8's PPAs? In fact, I think the only addition from Mint must be the Mint Menu extension, which is really useless considering the Dashboard is way more powerful. I think one of them even had a Places Menu extension which Mint didn't include.

Simple (5, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342632)

A dollar for me, one for you, one for me, one for.... oh well, here's 41 cents at least.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343104)

Or the Bert and Ernie Method:
One for me, one for you. One, two for me, two for you. One, two, three for me, three for you...

Re:Simple (3, Funny)

galaad2 (847861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344554)

One for me, one for you. One, two for me, two for you. One, two, three for me, three for you...

i think that's might be the official RIAA/MPAA accounting method.

Find a better case for the discussion (3, Insightful)

SplatMan_DK (1035528) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342636)

Though a trivial amount of money ($3.41 in November 2011)

Trivial? No shit!

Seriously: find a better case for this discussion. Arguing over less than 4 bucks is going to make everyone involved seem petty and small-minded.

- Jesper

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38342722)

A petty and small minded internet debate about software freedom? That's unpossible!

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (5, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342788)

This has nothing to do with software freedom. It's not a question of whether Mint should have the right to do it, but whether they are jerks or not by doing it.

Kids argue over 3,41 (2, Insightful)

SplatMan_DK (1035528) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342836)

This has nothing to do with software freedom. It's not a question of whether Mint should have the right to do it, but whether they are jerks or not by doing it.

Perhaps, but my original comment still stands in that case.

In my book nobody is a "jerk" if the amount involved is 3,41 USD - unless children under the age of 7 are involved.

- Jesper

Re:Kids argue over 3,41 (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343184)

Nobody's arguing over the $3.14, that's just the number that happened to have been donated as of November. It's an ethical question that applies to any possible amount.

Re:Kids argue over 3,41 (2)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343364)

> Nobody's arguing over the $3.14

you kinda "rounded" the amount.
3,41 dollars: that's gangsta.

Re:Kids argue over 3,41 (0)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344360)

3,41 is a commonly accepted way of expressing money in a lot of countries which should have been obvious based on the post.  Expand your world and investigate a culture beyond your own. :-D

Re:Kids argue over 3,41 (3, Funny)

atisss (1661313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344726)

He actually rounded more, as it was supposed to be $3.141592..

Re:Kids argue over 3,41 (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343362)

What if they ended up becoming popular and actually making decent money? It sounds like it should be spread around a few different groups, no matter how much it is. I use Mint and have donated, but I think it's not really fair for them to take all the donations from a group project.

Alright, I take that one (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343456)

I hereby impose a flat-tax for 3,41 USD per day for every human being not in the western nation to be payed out to the western nations as compensation for all the western tech that benefits non-western people.

Am I a jerk yet?

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342904)

Well, Canonical started it by doing this in Ubuntu. This doesn't make it right, but it *does* show how lame the U1MS (Ubuntu 1 Music Store) was. \

Banshee was sending their revenues from Amazon purchases to the Gnome foundation. Seems to me that Mint has done more than $3.41 worth of work making Gnome usable again, so why not let them continue for the time being?

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38342962)

Because they don't have the right? Swapping affiliate codes in cases like this doesn't seem far removed from swapping in your bank account # for someone else's deposit.

It's free software. (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343082)

Because they don't have the right?

It's free software. They have the right to make whatever changes they intercoursing want as long as the end user gets the source code and the right to modify and redistribute it.

Re:It's free software. (1)

thesh0ck (1983948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343118)

ya, you can even put your own affiliate code in there.. or your friends so that people you know make the money.... its just a default.

Re:It's free software. (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343212)

That's legal right. There are others.

Re:It's free software. (3, Insightful)

chuckinator (2409512) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343982)

Legal rights are the only ones with teeth unless you can drum up a torch-and-pitchfork-bearing mobs.

Re:It's free software. (1)

atisss (1661313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344802)

How about PPA that provides deb package for swapping it back to Gnome Foundation? And another one for FSF?

Btw, it is not all that different from money paid by Google to keep default search engine.

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (3, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343108)

First, if you had actually RTFA, you'd know that they've offered the Banshee developers a better revenue-sharing deal than Ubuntu did ... and they're not saying "take it or leave it or we'll say 'screw you' and disable it entirely" like Ubuntu did when people complained.

Second, affiliate marketing must DIE DIE DIE! Kill it off, and you get rid of a LOT of spam.

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343282)

They can be better than Ubuntu and still be wrong...

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (1)

fwarren (579763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343208)

Source code is Source code.

Hate the game, not the player.

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (4, Insightful)

fwarren (579763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343186)

This has EVERYTHING to do with software freedom. Per the GPL what they are required to do once they make their change to the affiliate link is make the source code available.

End of Story.

GPL covers copyright law, not ethics and the human heart. I can download RedHat and recompile with all references to RedHat removed and use Charlie Chaplin and call it the I-Hate-Chaplin distro. Does not matter if that is nice or ethical, What it is, is allowable by the GPL.

I think any downstream project has the right to change the revenue stream stuff. As far as I am concerned it is like a TV Commercial, there is a *posibility* that it will lead to revenue, not a guarantee. The only thing they have to do is make the source code available. Beyond that, I would say if there is a graphic or text that says donations, or purchases go back to the project, that stuff should be removed or changed to reflect who it is going to. if it is not mentioned at all, then "Mint" and anyone else is free to do what they want.

The current situation is interesting enough. What happens if the upstream affiliate code is out of date or broke? What if it causes the software to throw errors? Is it still sacred at that point?

It would be "nice" if no one ever hijacked the link. It would be "nice" if they shared revenue. But they are not required to. RMS put nothing in the software freedoms about not tampering with upstream revenue. Being a dick is showing a picture of Jerry's Kids and saying that all purchases via the music store for the month of January will go to MDA and in reality you are just pocketing the money yourself. Modifying links in the source code is what downstream projects do. Deal with it.

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (1, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343254)

Per the GPL what they are required to do once they make their change to the affiliate link is make the source code available.

We're not talking about what they are required to do, but what they should do.

GPL covers copyright law, not ethics and the human heart.

But we're not talking about the GPL, but about ethics.

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (2)

fwarren (579763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344392)

Well then if we are talking ethics why are we running Mint anyways?

  • Questionable leagal status of codecs
  • Questionable if we should include flash since the end user did not accept the license agreement
  • They already use affilate links for search
  • Clem has made anti-semantic remarks

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38345246)

There is NOTHING worse than being ANTI-MEANING!

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (0)

ynp7 (1786468) | more than 2 years ago | (#38345698)

What does ethics have to do with it? A piece of software was released with the source code and a set of guidelines under which that source code can be used and redistributed (GPL). By releasing their code under these terms the original creators have implicitly given their permission for anyone to do anything they want with that code, so long as the terms of the GPL are met.

Were you dropped on your head as a small child or something? There's nothing difficult to understand about this, nor is there any ambiguity regarding the "ethics" of making this change.

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (1)

Enry (630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342742)

In the 'what is your time worth' category, the amount of money spent just posting this to /. and having eyeballs look at it is WAY WAY more than $3.41.

(me typing this in is likely more than that).

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343062)

Typing that took you all of 30 seconds, or less. Does that mean you make ($3.41 * (60 minutes * 2)) per hour?
(for those without calculators, it's $289/hour)

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343436)

May be he is a slow typist and/or a slow thinker?!

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (2)

Enry (630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343552)

I do spend a bit of time making sure my thoughts are down properly. Too many comments that come out wrong because I wrote faster than I thought. Also had to wait for the preview to come up, make sure I didn't type anything wrong.

And no, I don't make $289/hour, but I do make a pretty decent amount. Meaning I should get back to work.

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343694)

I would hope that how long it took him to come up with that thought is inversely related to how much he makes

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343064)

You must be very slow writer and reader then.... Or then get over 1000 dollar a hour...

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (2)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343480)

Do you know how much free and open source software that would buy?

Re:Find a better case for the discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344848)

It would have been more correct to say nominal, but hey, this is Slashdot.

Control? (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342694)

I am confused?
Why would they have control of that in the first place?
If Mint owns Banshee, and Canonical and GNOME do not, then they should get the revenue.
And if they are able to change the code then does that non demonstrate that they have the right to?
And even if money should be shared with those other two, if Mint is the primary owner would it not make sense for it all to go to them and then they split it up themselves.

Re:Control? (2)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342768)

Just because something is legal does not mean it is socially desirable behavior. I wouldn't choose to legally prevent them from changing the code in this way, but that isn't the question. The question is, is it polite to do so? Are they being rude?

Classic big business blunder. It's legal, and it increases our profit, so it must be the right thing to do.

Re:Control? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342882)

just having a ref coded store link in a foss app is.. well. dunno, counter foss. it's pretty obvious thing to change if you do the distribution for the app anyways, even more obvious if you do some changes to the app.

maybe it wouldn't be so bad if they had a config option for changing it to whatever and had some popular projects as preconfigured choices?

though honestly banshee shouldn't have implemented it in the first place.

Re:Control? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342956)

Firefox has (had?) $100 million/year worth of google ref codes. Chrome is nothing but google ref codes.

Re:Control? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343022)

ref codes are not shops... shops get money from the user, ref codes do not.

Re:Control? (1)

markkezner (1209776) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343042)

I'm not trying to snark, but please clarify: How is just having a ref code counter FOSS in your opinion? Do you find something wrong with a FOSS project raising money?

Re:Control? (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#38345198)

just having a ref coded store link in a foss app is.. well. dunno, counter foss. it's pretty obvious thing to change if you do the distribution for the app anyways, even more obvious if you do some changes to the app.

I do rather agree with this.

maybe it wouldn't be so bad if they had a config option for changing it to whatever and had some popular projects as preconfigured choices?

That would've definitely been a better change. And instead of wondering whether or not it was ethical, I'd be fully behind it. As it is, given that the ref code exists, I can't decide if they were being rude or not by changing it, but still not making it configurable in the UI.

Excerpt from changelog (2)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344820)

Did anyone take a gander at the changelog?

         // We ask that no one change this redirect URL. ALL (100%) revenue
         // generated by this Banshee Amazon integration is sent directly to the
         // non-profit GNOME Foundation.
-        public const string REDIRECT_URL = "http://integrated-services.banshee.fm/amz/redirect.do/";
+        public const string REDIRECT_URL = "http://redir.linuxmint.com/mp3amazonstore/";

Wow, blatantly doing exactly the opposite of what the authors have kindly asked and redirecting funds to themselves. Completely within the terms of the GPL, completely within the bounds of what makes someone scum. I've heard the complaint that Ubuntu always takes from the ecosystem and never gives back, but this is cold, even for them. Well, this is a kick in the face for anyone who said that you can make money through making open source software, nomatter how you think of sharing your code while still covering your costs, someone's just going to rebrand it.

Apologies for my message looking terrible, I switched on slashdot's "code" format, I promise not to do it again.

Re:Excerpt from changelog (1)

Bananas (156733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38345536)

Well, this is a kick in the face for anyone who said that you can make money through making open source software, nomatter how you think of sharing your code while still covering your costs, someone's just going to rebrand it.

And to think, I just posted an anonymous reply to this(below) and was marked down. All because I didn't want to make a buck. I'm tired. Tired of "me-too" get rich quick bullshit. Time for me to go home. There are bigger, pressing issues that are worth my time, compared to watching people get pissed about some neckbeard (me) pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. To those who just can't seem to get their head wrapped around the original concepts behind OSS, good luck deluding yourselves. To those who think that everything can be solved by increased quarterly corporate profits, well, enjoy eating dollar bills. Lastly, for the professional astroturf accounts out there - and yes, they do exist, I have seen them actively over a decade right here in Slashdot - well, you can fool some of the people some of th etime, but not all of the people all of the time. And I have a long, long memory of who you are. Goodbye, good luck.

Re:Control? (2)

DRJlaw (946416) | more than 2 years ago | (#38345320)

Just because something is legal does not mean it is socially desirable behavior. I wouldn't choose to legally prevent them from changing the code in this way, but that isn't the question. The question is, is it polite to do so? Are they being rude?

Answer #1. No. Answer #2. No.

Here's another question: Is it socially desirable behavior to impose 'social obligations' which directly contradict the terms and conditions of the license selected by an author of the program?

Bertrand Lorentz : That being said, my position on this subject hasn't changed, and the
following text from the code comments is still valid :
We ask that no one change this redirect URL. ALL (100%) revenue
generated by this Banshee Amazon integration is sent directly to the
non-profit GNOME Foundation.

MIT license:Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in
the Software without restriction
, including without limitation the rights to
use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies
of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do
so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Pick a different license. Don't hide the ball. Don't explicity grant permission to do something and then complain when someone does it. That is socially undesireable behavior. If you can write complex computer code but can't figure out how to create a custom license rather than burying a contradictory comment within the source, that verges upon being rude.

Re:Control? (4, Insightful)

DarKnyht (671407) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342776)

Isn't this what Open Source code is about. You put the code out there and allow anyone to tinker with it, as long as they give the tinkered code away? I could download Linux Mint's version and program it to deposit all proceeds into my bank account and make my own Distro called "Make me $0.50 Linux" and as long as I offer my code changes up, there is little that can be done.

Re:Control? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38342826)

Mint is altering the code in the version included in the Mint distro.
Canonical did the same in the Ubuntu version previously.
It's a rude thing to do, but obviously permitted by the license.
A pox on all their houses, anyway--Banshee depends on Mono!

"Mint-diverting banshee"? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342734)

How does one make money with a mint-diverting banshee?

Re:"Mint-diverting banshee"? (1)

SlashdotWanker (1476819) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342810)

How does one make money with a mint-diverting banshee?

put it in front of a girl scout troop selling thin mint cookies. Banshee steals cookies as people buy them and offer to return the cookies to them for a fee :-P

Re:"Mint-diverting banshee"? (2)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342892)

Hey, once you've diverted the mint, you can make your own money!

Let the users choose... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38342736)

really, would it be that hard to let users choose?

Re:Let the users choose... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342814)

Sure, they just need to install Banshee from their PPA instead of the Mint mirrors. But it's common knowledge that most people don't care and will use the defaults.

Re:Let the users choose... (2)

fwarren (579763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343356)

It is also common knowledge that most people do not purchase their music via Banshee.

Since most folks will never purchase music this way, there is not much point in them being concerned in who gets the revenue.

Re:Let the users choose... (5, Interesting)

gigne (990887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342822)

If I had mod points...

"Thanks for running Banshee... From time to time online transactions generate a small amount of commission.
Where would you like any proceeds to go to:
      [ ] Canonical
      [ ] Mint
      [X] Cancer Research Charity
      [ ] A.N Other Charity
"

Re:Let the users choose... (3, Interesting)

Squiggle (8721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343016)

Exactly. The only sane way to resolve conflicts like this is to let the users choose (and provide smart defaults).

By "smart" I mean something that doesn't disadvantage any of the choices.... off the top of my head, an interface something like the Humble Bundle, perhaps equal or random distribution of money to start and randomize the order of choices. Then record (anonymously) the choices of anyone who adjusts the defaults and start setting the defaults according to general community preference once enough samples are taken. That can be gamed, but it seems like too much work for *way* too little gain. :)

Re:Let the users choose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38345576)

Still unethical: Where is option to donate Cowboy Neal?

In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38342792)

The Mint takes all the money!

Nothing really (5, Interesting)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38342830)

Okay, lets simplify this for all that don't want to read the articles.
Banshee's own link is dead so Canonical replaced it with their own in Ubuntu.
When Linux MINT saw this in the changelogs while repackaging, they did the same thing replacing it with their own.

I'm sure both would change this back if Banshee upstream started accepting donations again.

Re:Nothing really (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38342938)

According to the article, the link is not dead (even though Mint thought it was). It just works only from within Banshee.

Re:Nothing really (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343342)

as far as they knew at the time it was, now if someone at Gnome/Banshee is playing silly buggers with the link redirect and not allowing other user agents (much as certain DRM systems did, BBC iPlayer *cough*) then well, that was their fault to some degree.

Re:Nothing really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343008)

You are wrong, the link isn't dead. What about trying to pass some actual parameters to the url? so http://integrated-services.banshee.fm/amz/redirect.do/US/do doesn't look that dead anymore.

Re:Nothing really (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343464)

Whatever the facts about what has happened here, the question has still been raised, "how should revenue be shared between upstream and downstream FLOSS projects?"

So let's just look at it as a hypothetical: CompanyA has a revenue stream from an Amazon affiliate program. CompanyB takes CompanyA's project and includes it in their own product, according to proper licensing terms. Can CompanyB simply change their referral program so that they receive the revenue, or do they have a moral/ethical/legal responsibility to preserve that revenue for the original product? If they have a responsibility to share, on what terms, and how do you work it out?

It only gets hairier when you consider that the problem could be several layers deep. It might be that CompanyA builds a piece of software which gets included in CompanyB's product, which gets altered and distributed by CompanyC, which in turn gets adapted by CompanyD. So if you're CompanyD, what's your responsibility to companies A, B, and C?

I mean, let's say CompanyD in this situation looks at the affiliate code, and it's the affiliate code for CompanyC. Do you just leave it? Let's say they know that CompanyC didn't actually do anything to improve CompanyA's project. Should they instead change the affiliate code back to CompanyA? What if CompanyB made some real improvements to the project?

the user (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38342838)

The right thing would be to let the user decide. That is the spirit of open source. That and full disclosure of what information is being sent to whom, before any is actually sent.

Re:the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343102)

I think you're confusing "open source" with "free software" - a point Richard Stallman could educate you on much better than I. Take a moment and give him a quick read

Re:the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343746)

The right thing would be to let the user decide. That is the spirit of open source. That and full disclosure of what information is being sent to whom, before any is actually sent.

The user has decided by choosing Mint over Ubuntu.

Re:the user (1)

farrellj (563) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343764)

I agree! The first time the program is run, it should pop up a box and and give the user a choice!

ttyl
          Farrell

Revenue and Open Source... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343198)

They are mutually exclusive!! You nerds need to understand that. You wrote something and released it for free, it implies $0 in revenues.

I know Nerds don't necessarily understand business but that's the reality geeks!

Re:Revenue and Open Source... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343864)

As a geek, I agree. When OSS is released, it should be about "fuck you and your bloated, overpriced buggy half-baked shovelware that will be rammed down our throats by corporate edict", not "we're gonna be Bill Gate's deep-throat bitch for money, bring lube and a towel".

P.S. yes, I understand business. And 90% of business is bullshit. Only the last 10% of it really makes any profit, the rest is all "who you know" and "how you know them", lots of political posturing, pandering, cronyism, and network market effects. Fuck all, if I could get rid of the world's software sales force, I could probably cut the cost of software by 40%, or increase software revenues by 25%. Either way, the "old model" of having a warm body put on a smile and eat the customer's shit is probably coming to an end, given how many geeks are cutting out the middleman.

They Don't Need It (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343228)

They're making a mint!

Who cares? (2)

AntEater (16627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343402)

The folks writing Banshee released it with a Free license of their own free will. As long as Mint or Canonical or whoever complies with the terms of the license, what difference does it make? It's not like the little commission was part of the license agreement. If Mint wants to repackage Banshee as "The Banshee Sucks" media player and send all income from it to support Alfred E. Newman for president, it's their business.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343610)

Is Alfred running on the independent ticket for 2012?

If so, good for him. He could fix the US economy faster than anyone else.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343816)

Is Alfred running on the independent ticket for 2012?

I doubt anyone would notice if he were on stage fielding questions in the GOP debates.

Re:Who cares? (1)

AntEater (16627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344434)

You mean he's not the Republican front-runner??

Re:Who cares? (4, Interesting)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343828)

More importantly, who cares about Banshee? Okay I know a lot do since it's popular but I can't seriously understand why would you want a media player running on mono with the slugginess that such implies, with silly album galleries that hardly match the way we listen to music today and that pointlessly tries to also manage video file without actually making the commitment to being a media center.

The album galleries drive me crazy, this is almost as bad as the physical bookshelf in the iPad. Music players these days are search based *because* it was realised that music can be grouped into more categories than what physical disc they were published in. The files don't need to be in an specific hierarchy nor in the same computer any more.

Yet that doesn't make for pretty thumbnails, and because everything must be thumbnails banshee presents music in little graphical boxes with a thumbnail of a CD case that you probably don't have, successfully reproducing the experience of browsing a physical music library from 1995 in 2011!

I have my complains about Rhythmbox but exactly what has Banshee (or Exaile) that Rhythmbox doesn't?

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38345002)

More the other way around. Rhythmbox has frequent segmentation faults. Banshee seems much more stable objectively, on Fedora 16 at least.

I'm just shocked (3, Informative)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38345482)

everyone doesn't use the Swiss Army Knife of media players: VLC. It wouldn't shock me much if that program could make a spreadsheet sing a tune.

firSt post... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343698)

Serious Cognitive Disconnect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343766)

...is what I'm experiencing.

So, we write open source software to put food on the table now? Sounds like the movement has failed. If you're not selling your services, then OSS is going to be fail for you - because it's not really OSS anymore, it's shareware. The commercial software interests are chuckling all the way to the bank. Looks like they've one this round, because they've pretty much convinced you that OSS is about making a buck, not about doing something better.

I was always a little leery of Banshee, especially with its "hot pocket" approach to software. Now I'm going to actively boycott installing it, not because they are making a buck, but because of their attitude towards making a buck. It reeks of "we are de coderz of Silly-Con Valley, gimme monies".

Once upon a time, OSS was about making the vendors actually give a rat's ass about the shitty, low-quality products that they foisted upon us in return for ungawdly revenue margins. Now, it's been co-opted to just another Indy Shareware scene.

Re:Serious Cognitive Disconnect (0)

the entropy (1331573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344370)

I hate it when people use "-1 overrated" to mod something down because they don't agree with it. As far as the above post is concerned both "offtopic" or "troll" apply, why use "overrated"? And even if troll and offtopic didn't apply, why mod it down then? Simply disagreeing doesn't cut it.

Re:Serious Cognitive Disconnect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38345212)

Actually, it wasn't a troll. It was a serious point - that OSS is now effectively 1990's shareware, if we're going to be fighting over table scraps. The mere fact that it was marked troll indicates to me just how out of touch people are with the "roots" of original OSS. And yes, I am the parent poster.

Re:Serious Cognitive Disconnect (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38345496)

I love how the slashdot moderation system really thinks people care about the difference between "interesting" and "insightful" and "troll" and "flamebait". Seriously, on what possible earth can this actually matter to you? Every other place uses simple +1 and -1, and many places are ditching the -1 because of the abuse.

Really? (1)

Ximok (650049) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344238)

Well, if the bank is 20 miles away, we can safely assume that the cost to drive the money to the bank is $3.58...

The truth is out (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38345164)

Though a trivial amount of money ($3.41 in November 2011)

Lately, all one hears about is how Mint is more popular than Ubuntu and the top distro on Distrowatch. Well, maybe the trivial amount of money taken through Banshee shows how popular the distro really is.

Woah... (2)

DeeEff (2370332) | more than 2 years ago | (#38345224)

People still BUY music!?

Whatever happened to that confunded P2P thing that everyone was crazy about a couple years back?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...