I worry now for Jamulus future.

[AndyMcProducer]

I say I worry as in any updates just go to make others money and maybe it would be better starting or joining
a similar project that doesn't financially benefit others.

This image for me isn't progress but exploitation, so any additions liek a relay and so on is just going to be beneficial to
others making money from Jamulus.

[ghost]

Jamulus' future is actually not jeopardised by its popularity. There are linux apache and more, that has lined the pockets of Redhat, Ubuntu, IBM and others. They simply must adhere to the GPL license.

[AndyMcProducer]

Two wrongs don't make a right, it's basically over charge for using a free software and jamulus server. The charge for 1 person alone is enough to pay for 3 to 4 servers. Point is if something is open source you can't then go take the code and make a money earner with it, even if you started the code and did most of it. So, anyone who contributed can sue them and claim copy, even though who suggest things implemented into the source. What money has Ubuntu, redhat and others made from linux, I think you may be mistaking of what they actually made money from. Also if that is a fork of Jamulus is it also meant to be open for anyone?

…

________________________________ From: DavidSavinkoff <[email protected]> Sent: 09 March 2021 17:58 To: jamulussoftware/jamulus <[email protected]> Cc: AndyMc <[email protected]>; Author <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [jamulussoftware/jamulus] I worry now for Jamulus future. (#1213) Jamulus' future is actually not jeopardised by its popularity. There are linux apache and more, that has lined the pockets of Redhat, Ubuntu, IBM and others. They simply must adhere to the GPL license. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1213 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64GYIGRE2WZ6GEIZOXWSTTCZHSBANCNFSM4Y35TAOA>.

[gene96817]

@AndyMcProducer please DM me. I have a few related topics to share. You can find me on Discord.

[AndyMcProducer]

I searched for gene96817 but didn't find no user on Discord, if you have or know me on their message me and ill add you.

[ann0see]

As far as I know, the people providing this hardware are some of the main WorldJam organisators? @chrisrimple and @softins might be able to confirm this.

Of course, this doesn't change your argument. But as far as I know, some of them also contribute to the Jamulus project, so I'd say it's ok in general unless they violate the GPL?

Nobody from the Jamulus developers is taking money at the moment (and I think most of it - if we took money - should go to corrados and long term contributors).

[dcorson-ticino-com]

Unless these services can provide something that simply downloading Jamulus for free and using it doesn't they won't be very successful. Convenience and a good connection are 2 possibilities. If they can hold that promise, why not? Server capacity is not free for anyone.
But I think there are too many reasonably tech competent people out and about for these things to really take off.

[softins]

As far as I know, the people providing this hardware are some of the main WorldJam organisators? @chrisrimple and @softins might be able to confirm this.

I believe that's true, but I don't know the details of the project, and haven't been involved or following it. There are in fact various business projects based on Jamulus, aimed at people who don't have the expertise or inclination to set up their own systems or servers. I don't think they detract from the Jamulus community or project.

Nobody from the Jamulus developers is taking money at the moment (and I think most of it - if we took money - should go to corrados and long term contributors).

In fact, after Volker announced he was stepping back from Jamulus, one of the WorldJam regulars in Seattle organised a collection of money from the WorldJam community to say a big thank you to him for Jamulus. It raised $3500 (announced on the last WorldJam). Volker wasn't expecting it, but was very touched by people's love and generosity. He used it to upgrade his electronic drumkit.

[chrisrimple]

I know the people behind MusicBridge. They're good people who have already done a lot for Jamulus and the Jamulus WorldJam. They're also choral singers that have been trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to introduce Jamulus to the choral world. The big problem is hardware/software configuration - most choral singers are not technical, and struggle to get Jamulus running correctly. So the MusicBridge folks have tried to make it as simple as possible for a chorus to get on Jamulus, by providing the necessary pre-configured hardware (Raspberry Pi box), server, and instructions/training. Yes, they're charging money, but not because they're trying to get rich or make a big business from it - they all have "day jobs" already.

Apart from MusicBridge, there's also Melomax that's providing Jamulus servers as a paid service, but again targeted at Jamulus users that (1) want a private server and (2) aren't technically skilled so can't set it up themselves. And probably others as well that are benefitting from the Jamulus code in some "commercial" way. But I don't think anyone's really abusing the GPL rights, and it's hard to imagine that there's any big business to be had using Jamulus code.

[ann0see]

I'll mark this resolved since Melomax doesn't seem to be the problem. Everybody who wants can click on show comment to see the content here.

[hoffie]

Personally, I think such projects and devices may help Jamulus adoption. I'd expect developers of such offerings to contribute back to Jamulus, both on moral grounds and on license grounds.

• If some vendor were to include Jamulus into a hardware device, they are free to. There's nothing to contribute back.
• If some vendor were to include a modified/improved version of Jamulus into a hardware device, I'd expect them to contribute this back to the project both for moral reasons and for license reasons. The GPL requires to make such modifications available, as far as I understand. This could be the case with the web interface, depending on the implementation (i.e. is it something which runs on top of Jamulus, is it a modifed Jamulus, is it a reimplementation of the protocol, etc.).
• If some vendor offered "Jamulus as a service" and runs vanilla Jamulus, there'd be nothing to contribute back. They simply add value by running that service.
• If some vendor offered "Jamulus as a service" with additional features (such as access protections), this may work via modified Jamulus code. In that case, I'd expect them to contribute back (morally), but I think they may not be obliged to as Jamulus uses the GPL and not the AGPL.

maybe it would be better starting or joining a similar project that doesn't financially benefit others.

Not sure if this is a solution. This is a general topic with open source software (cf. think of your home router which probably runs Linux, busybox and several other open source tools). Of course, one could focus on projects with more restrictive/proprietary licenses.

[alexbuckland]

Melomax co-founders here (Alex & Zaid) 👋
We completely fall into this group:

If some vendor offered "Jamulus as a service" and runs vanilla Jamulus, there'd be nothing to contribute back. They simply add value by running that service.
(But we do think we can contribute).

We started the service to help out other musicians during COVID who either couldn’t set up a private server or didn’t want to because of other professional pressures they were already under.

Since we started, we’ve provided hundreds of free hours to thousands of musicians who might have otherwise been unable to use Jamulus. We give them an easy way to try different server locations, too (and therefore, providers), ensuring they are getting the best possible latency. Many users have used us to experiment with providers and understand the server specs they might require for larger ensembles before creating their own servers after being better informed by using us.

Our control room allows folks to turn on and off a private server and record, with the push of a button (rather than command line) and for many cases, the pricing is much cheaper than running the server 24/7.

We’ve also helped with this Jamulus project (we’ve admittedly been slow with how much we’ve been able too, because of our own day jobs) and recently offered to provide real-life anonymised test data of our CPU usage to help with the development of multi-threading improvements #1052. We hope to share this in the next couple of weeks.

All this is to say that we think we’re doing the right thing both morally, ethically, and legally. Hopefully, we are and will continue to help spread the popularity of online music collaboration as a possibility and thusly grow the audience and hopefully contribute to Jamulus. ☺️

[ann0see]

Ok. Seems to be resolved too. I think melomax makes clear what they do and that they're running unaltered Jamulus code. For readers: Just unhide the content here. If you'd like to read what happened/was discussed.

[AndyMcProducer]

I think Alex just made a good statement of intent. Anyone who contributed I guess has a right to some revenue for the use of their code/idea, after all this is theft of open-source material then made closed for financial gain. It's cool lots giving their suggestions on how they feel about it but open source is open source, not hey look contribute and the source then becomes yours to close and now share no more and make some cash out of it along the way. 24/7 server, those charges are a get rich quick scheme. This is open source, I've not known of any open source that can be taken, closed and used for financial gain in its entity. Unless in the gpl license it says you can take the code and use and do what you want with it then it's copyright theft. Which means your fb page, website and any youtubes produced with or about it can be taken down and you can be liable for costs. You not the first n00bs to think they could put a cheery on a cake and take the whole cake just because they put the cherry on. It's not one person's thought on it that matters, its open source, something that has been adapted and involved many people. I guess you'd have to get permission from anyone who's ever given to the project in some way, after all they own the right to their contribution, not you or anyone else's opinion. When you took the code you agreed to a contract, you have to adhere to that contract, if no contract exists then copyright laws exist. Open source is based on contributions, so you can use the code but you agree to share the code and any modifications which hasn't been done here. You've taken the code, adjusted it, not shared back those adjustment, taken the code and re packed it and selling it. So, you've broke the terms of use and are open to be sued and claimed against and risk of fraud and copyright theft. By Fraud I mean mis-selling a product which you don't own the rights to.

…

________________________________ From: Alex Buckland <[email protected]> Sent: 09 March 2021 23:08 To: jamulussoftware/jamulus <[email protected]> Cc: AndyMc <[email protected]>; Mention <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [jamulussoftware/jamulus] I worry now for Jamulus future. (#1213) Melomax<https://melomax.live> co-founders here (Alex & Zaid) 👋 We completely fall into this group: If some vendor offered "Jamulus as a service" and runs vanilla Jamulus, there'd be nothing to contribute back. They simply add value by running that service. (But we do think we can contribute). We started the service to help out other musicians during COVID who either couldn’t set up a private server or didn’t want to because of other professional pressures they were already under. Since we started, we’ve provided hundreds of free hours to thousands of musicians who might have otherwise been unable to use Jamulus. We give them an easy way to try different server locations, too (and therefore, providers), ensuring they are getting the best possible latency. Many users have used us to experiment with providers and understand the server specs they might require for larger ensembles before creating their own servers after being better informed by using us. Our control room<https://melomax.live/melomax-control-room/> allows folks to turn on and off a private server and record, with the push of a button (rather than command line) and for many cases, the pricing is much cheaper than running the server 24/7. We’ve also helped with this<https://github.com/vdellamea/jamulus-server-remote> Jamulus project (we’ve admittedly been slow with how much we’ve been able too, because of our own day jobs) and recently offered to provide real-life anonymised test data of our CPU usage to help with the development of multi-threading improvements #1052<#1052>. We hope to share this in the next couple of weeks. All this is to say that we think we’re doing the right thing both morally, ethically, and legally. Hopefully, we are and will continue to help spread the popularity of online music collaboration as a possibility and thusly grow the audience and hopefully contribute to Jamulus. ☺️ — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1213 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64GYNOS5PPZ5CODBQC2UTTC2S6HANCNFSM4Y35TAOA>.

[ghost]

Many of us Open Source people are 'decades' familiar with Open Source licenses and are not too excited at this point because we read the terms of the licenses long ago. We would not have contributed to Open Source if we didn't understand what we were doing. If you are concerned, you will have to read the licenses and decide what you will do. You will find that things are not as bad as you think. It took me awhile to get familiar with the licenses.

Jamulus uses the following license (it is backed up by copyright and law, and has been tested in court):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
You will see that every source code file in Jamulus mentions GPLv2 amongst some other licenses.

You can be sure the hornets nest has been stirred now that some people are concerned. If anything is wrong you can be sure it will be corrected.

[trebmuh]

Jamulus is open source so it shouldn't be commercialized, that is the whole point of open source.
You can charge for it, nothing stipulates you can't charge but then you owe royalties to anyone else who has a copyright claim, mainly the other coders here.

@AndyMcProducer : you seem to misunderstand something here. There is nothing in the GPL preventing from making a business with free software. The thing the GPL do is imposing to stay under the GPL if you start to redistribute a GPL-software. And no, if you sell a GPL software, you don't owe any royalties to the people who coded it (even if it's morally right to do so).

I guess they thought we got loads of users here, lets adjust the code and use it for ourselves and make some cash out of it.

I didn't fact-check this. Let's assume the following situations:

• someone is taking Jamulus source code, making a binary of it and sell it. There is nothing wrong (in regards with the GPL) with that. That said, the GPL says that they have to provide the source code if someone ask for it (usual practice is to put it online)
• someone is taking Jamulus source code, making change on it, making a binary of it and sell it. Still nothing wrong on this. Same than above + they need to provide the modification under a GPL licence too.

[AndyMcProducer]

I'm not misunderstanding it, you are. I never said you can't make a business around it, but you can't steal the code, modify it, close it then make money with it. :S

[AndyMcProducer]

Yes none of that is incorrect, they'd owe royalties to all who has a proven case of being part of it. So a coder and a suggester could argue a case. I'm talking about the open source part of it, they can modify it, but can't then close it and sell it as their own software.
It's copyright theft, they're selling something that doesn't belong to them as in the code which makes it.
Open source isn't FREE, it's free use so you can't prevent it's free use. If you take the open source code, modify it then close it, then not share yours and others code you break the GPL and githubs terms.

It's not a free sweet shop, take what ya want, add some more flavorings then keep it all for yaself.
Users including programs all agree to the license ad use of it and it's code by using or contributing to it.
Think about it, if this wasn't the case every big company woudl come along, take the source, put a cherry on it
and sell it as their own.

So encase I'm not explaining right, no one is saying you can't use the software in a business, but you can't take
the code, modify it then not share that code and create a closed version of the code.

[trebmuh]

I'm not misunderstanding it, you are. I never said you can't make a business around it, but you can't steal the code, modify it, close it then make money with it. :S

mmm, I've quoted you:

Also, Jamulus is open source so it shouldn't be commercialized, that is the whole point of open source.

This whole sentence is just plain wrong.

It might be possible that this wasn't what you were trying to mean, but this is what you wrote.
Please take the time to write in length and precision when talking about things like this. It will avoid possible confusion.

[trebmuh]

they'd owe royalties to all who has a proven case of being part of it.

Not at all. Not legally at least (re: the GPL).

they can modify it, but can't then close it and sell it as their own software.

This is correct.

It's copyright theft, they're selling something that doesn't belong to them as in the code which makes it.

The source code of Jamulus can be used and sold by anyone, as long as he respects the GPL licence. Be cautious to not mix legal stuff, and personal moral stuff here.

It's not a free sweet shop, take what ya want, add some more flavorings then keep it all for yaself.

Well, one can do that as long as it isn't redistributed. From the moment one redistributes a GPL code, then he must comply with the GPL licence.

Think about it, if this wasn't the case every big company woudl come along, take the source, put a cherry on it
and sell it as their own.

They are fine to do that. It's not uncommon to see this happening. As long as they respects the GPL (ie: redistribute the source code + patch)

but you can't take the code, modify it then not share that code and create a closed version of the code.

Being picky (because the GPL is), yes one can do that for himself. But, if he's to redistribute the modified code in a binary format, then he must comply with the GPL licence, hence need to provide the original source code and the modified patch code if he's asked to do so.

Now, the thing is that it seems you're saying that one company (or some) is redistributing a modified binary version of Jamulus without redistributing the source code. Can you elaborate on that? Which company do that? And how do you know they modify the code? If that would be the case, as a contributor to Jamulus (and then, owning copyright on it), I'll ask them to provides me the code in order to comply with the GPL.

[AndyMcProducer]

No my fault, when Melomax was mentioned I got caught up in the discussion without checking first. Any business built up around open source only can help that open source. If musicBridge make the code available, show links to orig source, there source opened and the GPL, then everything id legal with them again. But I doubt they want to share their code, but happy using others open source code. If they don't stop breaking the law then they will have to be forced. Github has terms too that have to be adhered to. Really annoys me when people come along and steal open source software as if they are entitled and everyone sat spending hours just to allow them to steal it, close it and make money from it. This is why GPL exists to prevent this and keep open source, open.

…

________________________________ From: Zaidcrowe ***@***.***> Sent: 10 March 2021 14:30 To: jamulussoftware/jamulus ***@***.***> Cc: AndyMc ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [jamulussoftware/jamulus] I worry now for Jamulus future. (#1213) Forgive in that case then Andy, the inclusion of Alex's post at the bottom of yours, lead me to believe this was directed specifically at us. @alexbuckland<https://github.com/alexbuckland> can we look at actioning this, please? I'm not sure if it's necessary if the binaries will be hosted on GitHub in the near future as we can start directing people that way. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1213 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64GYNK6OVG6TSYRPKXBCDTC57B5ANCNFSM4Y35TAOA>.

[AndyMcProducer]

Ok I see what you mean now, no I didn't mean that, I mean like it isn't to be stolen and used commercially.

…

________________________________ From: Olivier Humbert ***@***.***> Sent: 10 March 2021 15:04 To: jamulussoftware/jamulus ***@***.***> Cc: AndyMc ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [jamulussoftware/jamulus] I worry now for Jamulus future. (#1213) mmm, I've quoted you: Also, Jamulus is open source so it shouldn't be commercialized, that is the whole point of open source. This whole sentence is just plain wrong. It might be possible that this wasn't what you were trying to mean, but this is what you wrote. Please take the time to write in length and precision when talking about things like this. It will avoid possible confusion. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1213 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64GYJ2UNNYVOELHD5AKUDTC6DA3ANCNFSM4Y35TAOA>.

[chrisrimple]

@AndyMcProducer You keep making claims that are not true. Melomax has NOT modified the Jamulus client or server code - they are using the unchanged server code to provide commercial servers. MusicBridge has NOT modified the Jamulus client or server code - they are using the unchanged server code to provide commercial servers. Both are distributing the unchanged Jamulus client, with MusicBridge doing so pre-installed on hardware.

If you believe that either has done something that violates GPL, can you please provide exact URLs showing where this is happening?

[AndyMcProducer]

GPL is one part; people are still protected by copyright law too. Not sure if gpl 2 includes i need to re read it, but I'm sure gpl 3 does state you can only charge reasonable costs and charge for service so no you can't actually just sell it. You can charge for a service of supplying it but it's not no one persons to sell. Redistribution yes, which is what I been saying. Some your just repeating what I said in another way? Read up Olivier, I'm not repeating it all.

…

________________________________ From: Olivier Humbert ***@***.***> Sent: 10 March 2021 15:14 To: jamulussoftware/jamulus ***@***.***> Cc: AndyMc ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [jamulussoftware/jamulus] I worry now for Jamulus future. (#1213) they'd owe royalties to all who has a proven case of being part of it. Not at all. Not legally at least (re: the GPL). they can modify it, but can't then close it and sell it as their own software. This is correct. It's copyright theft, they're selling something that doesn't belong to them as in the code which makes it. The source code of Jamulus can be used and sold by anyone, as long as he respects the GPL licence. Be cautious to not mix legal stuff, and personal moral stuff here. It's not a free sweet shop, take what ya want, add some more flavorings then keep it all for yaself. Well, one can do that as long as it isn't redistributed. From the moment one redistributed a GPL code, then he must comply with the GPL licence. Think about it, if this wasn't the case every big company woudl come along, take the source, put a cherry on it and sell it as their own. They are fine to do that. It's uncommon to see this happening. As long as they respects the GPL. but you can't take the code, modify it then not share that code and create a closed version of the code. Being picky (because the GPL is), yes one can do that for himself. But, if he's to redistribute the modified code in a binary format, then he must comply with the GPL licence, hence need to provide the original source code and the modified patch code if he's asked to do so. Now, the thing is that you're saying that some company redistribute a modified binary version of Jamulus without redistributing the code. Can you elaborate on that? Which company do that? And how you know they modify the code? If that would be the case, as a contributor to Jamulus (and then, owning copyright on it), I'll ask them to publish the code in order to comply with the GPL. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1213 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64GYIWJGNYIGWW6FAOWFTTC6EF5ANCNFSM4Y35TAOA>.

[trebmuh]

Not sure if gpl 2 includes i need to re read it, but I'm sure gpl 3 does state you can only charge reasonable costs and charge for service so no you can't actually just sell it.

As far as I know, this is wrong. The GPL isn't about making money (or not) out of a GPL software.
If I would be wrong thinking that, please provide a proper quote from the GPL text which says so.

PS : please, cool down in the way you're communicating with me (and other people). Please, assume that we are talking here with good faith since this is what I'm doing here. We're all want to defend Jamulus and its freedom, and all I'm doing here is trying to understand some writings of yours which are sometimes confusing and/or wrong.

[AndyMcProducer]

Some people are reading one liners now and knee jerk reacting.

Quick run down of it all for the headline readers only.

1. mentioned music bridge have stolen the code, modified it and closed it for financial gain.
2. Someone mentioned about Melomax.
3. I checked out Melomax as maybe I should have when first mentioned and Melomax hasn't stolen no code or closed the code.
4. Some reading only parts and replying.

[chrisrimple]

@AndyMcProducer Once again, you've said that you "mentioned music bridge have stolen the code, modified it and closed it for financial gain."

Please share your evidence that this has happened. You started this discussion by claiming that MusicBridge has done something wrong or disallowed by GPL, which is not correct. MusicBridge is using unmodified versions of the Jamulus client and server.

[trebmuh]

+1, please show evidence of this

[AndyMcProducer]

Top image and what they say on there site it is based on jamulus.

[trebmuh]

I can't see any evidence that they are using a modified version of Jamulus. Please, give us some precisions on that.

[chrisrimple]

The image that you pasted in your original message does NOT say anything about modifying the Jamulus client or server. It shows their services and pricing for hardware and hosted servers, none of which uses modified Jamulus code.

I've just looked at their entire site and can find no indication that they're modifying the Jamulus client or server. Instead, their Resources page provides links to the official Jamulus site and plenty of other Jamulus resources.

I think you've misunderstood their business and what they're doing. If you think otherwise, please provide very specific examples, since the "top image" does not support your claim.

[AndyMcProducer]

I will read it again and really the GPL needs updating in this project, it's more precise and simpler to understand the higher the gpl u add.

…

________________________________ From: Olivier Humbert ***@***.***> Sent: 10 March 2021 15:26 To: jamulussoftware/jamulus ***@***.***> Cc: AndyMc ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [jamulussoftware/jamulus] I worry now for Jamulus future. (#1213) Not sure if gpl 2 includes i need to re read it, but I'm sure gpl 3 does state you can only charge reasonable costs and charge for service so no you can't actually just sell it. As far as I know, this is wrong. If I would be wrong thinking that, please provide a proper quote from the GPL text which says so. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1213 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64GYJZ4OT2M5K6XALSQH3TC6FT7ANCNFSM4Y35TAOA>.

[trebmuh]

Well, it would be well known if the GPL (or any other software licence) was simple to understand!
Have a good reading and feel free to report here if I were to be wrong in what I wrote above.

[AndyMcProducer]

https://musicbridge.world/product/

…

________________________________ From: Olivier Humbert ***@***.***> Sent: 10 March 2021 15:55 To: jamulussoftware/jamulus ***@***.***> Cc: AndyMc ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [jamulussoftware/jamulus] I worry now for Jamulus future. (#1213) I can't see any evidence that they are using a modified version of Jamulus. Please, give us some precisions on that. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1213 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64GYL7JP43HRXW7EF7QP3TC6I53ANCNFSM4Y35TAOA>.

[trebmuh]

And ? what is the evidence there that there is a modified version of Jamulus?

[AndyMcProducer]

You got a video showing a modified jamulus client, they tell you clearly they are using jamulus servers and have a client in the video of a modified jamulus. Any software which uses jamulus will be based on its code to. I think maybe your arguing for the defence here and see completely what has been modified. Bit naive and childish I think.

…

________________________________ From: Chris Rimple ***@***.***> Sent: 10 March 2021 16:03 To: jamulussoftware/jamulus ***@***.***> Cc: AndyMc ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [jamulussoftware/jamulus] I worry now for Jamulus future. (#1213) The image that you pasted in your original message does NOT say anything about modifying the Jamulus client or server. It shows their services and pricing for hardware and hosted servers, none of which uses modified Jamulus code. I've just looked at their entire site<http://musicbridge.world> and can find no indication that they're modifying the Jamulus client or server. Instead, their Resources page<https://musicbridge.world/resources/> provides links to the official Jamulus site and plenty of other Jamulus resources. I think you've misunderstood their business and what they're doing. If you think otherwise, please provide very specific examples, since the "top image" does not support your claim. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1213 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64GYLOC4R6OAZWOVZRAU3TC6C37ANCNFSM4Y35TAOA>.

[trebmuh]

Bit naive and childish I think.

Same than @hoffie , please avoid being insulting. I've already asked you to cool down. We are here to discuss and, with such statements you're doing on this thread, we're not to believe you on words. You will have to show strong evidences of what you tell here.

You got a video showing a modified jamulus client, they tell you clearly they are using jamulus servers and have a client in the video of a modified jamulus. Any software which uses jamulus will be based on its code to. I think maybe your arguing for the defence here and see completely what has been modified.

I'm seeing a video where it seems to be a browser-based client which would mean that the software itself isn't distributed (this is a big difference between the GPL and the AGPL licences) and probably the jamulus server is on their own servers (and then, not distributed too).

If they would be doing that, they doesn't breach the GPL licence.
If you think they aren't doing that, you will have to bring some very strong evidence/proof.

By the way, to @chrisrimple and all people here, can someone ask to the music bridge people to come and explain us how it works here? Their point of view is missing and:

1. if they are right to do what they do, that would close the discussion
2. if they are wrong, we could discuss the issue with them to find a way to resolve the issue

I'm fine to contact them if noone have already a relationship with them.

[AndyMcProducer]

There is nothing saying that is browser based apart from the header being similar to the webpage. But if it's browser based or not that doesn't mean it isn't an adapted Jamulus source. People did the same with ninjam source, they were given a choice to become open, didn't so closed down. Plus your making statements again you are wrong about, saying gpl doesn't cover it when it does. Your arguing for the sake of it based on no knowledge, best you just get back under your bridge. This isn't a court room, it's clear they have adapted the jamulus source for whether a webpage api or client. They clearly state they use Jamulus servers so it has to be based on Jamulus source. Like I said if that's not enough evidence for you troll then go ask them for the code. You are clearly Trolling and trying to break the thread, which makes me think you are indeed part of that group form musicbridge.

…

________________________________ From: Olivier Humbert ***@***.***> Sent: 10 March 2021 16:38 To: jamulussoftware/jamulus ***@***.***> Cc: AndyMc ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [jamulussoftware/jamulus] I worry now for Jamulus future. (#1213) Once again, assume good faith from people including me. I'm only asking you to show evidence of your statement which you're failing to do so far. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1213 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64GYOIQIOTONKBC335GEDTC6N7NANCNFSM4Y35TAOA>.

[trebmuh]

There is nothing saying that is browser based apart from the header being similar to the webpage.

The first sentence on the video says "I'm using a regular chrome browser", and the interface shown could very well look as a browser interface. Note that I'm not sure it is.

But if it's browser based or not that doesn't mean it isn't an adapted Jamulus source.

You missed the point. Reread my other answer here. If they are not redistributing the software, they are fine to do so under the GPL licence. To avoid such a use-case, Jamulus would need to use a AGPL licence.

PS: could you please use the "Quote reply" github functionnality. You're fragmenting the readibility of the thread when starting a new message each time. Thank you.

[AndyMcProducer]

Soooooooo, Jamulus has web interface allowing control?

[AndyMcProducer]

To save goign through the whole gpl again which I will go through 2, ive read all of 3 but a while ago, anyway I asked google. I searched 'can u modify gpl code and not redistribute' Google said: No. The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the freedoms stated in the GPL. Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. You may not distribute any version of the work on a more restrictive basis.

…

________________________________ From: Olivier Humbert ***@***.***> Sent: 10 March 2021 16:56 To: jamulussoftware/jamulus ***@***.***> Cc: AndyMc ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [jamulussoftware/jamulus] I worry now for Jamulus future. (#1213) Plus your making statements again you are wrong about, saying gpl doesn't cover it when it does. Your arguing for the sake of it based on no knowledge, best you just get back under your bridge. This is too much now. @hoffie<https://github.com/hoffie> @ann0see<https://github.com/ann0see> @softins<https://github.com/softins> @gilgongo<https://github.com/gilgongo> : I've been trying to ask him to cool down a few times already, and to discuss the issue with precision, but I'm getting more and more aggression from him. Can you please block him then we can keep discussing the issue with calm? This isn't a court room, it's clear they have adapted the jamulus source for whether a webpage api or client. They clearly state they use Jamulus servers so it has to be based on Jamulus source. As long as the server code isn't redistributed, this is fine for them to do so. This is what the GPL allow. Like I said if that's not enough evidence for you troll then go ask them for the code. You are clearly Trolling and trying to break the thread, which makes me think you are indeed part of that group form musicbridge. This is FUD. You really should stop that. Please. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1213 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64GYMF5R5JNYY7THQPSQDTC6QEPANCNFSM4Y35TAOA>.

[ann0see]

I've locked this for now to be able to read all the arguments here.

Ok. So as far as I understand correctly:

1. Melomax is not related to this
2. Andy fears that MusicBridge stole code because it seems as if they are using some unknown kind of API to control Jamulus via web UI. This needs to be verified. You can e.g. control Jamulus via modifying ini files (I already thought about this), so they could also use some kind of hack.
3. Multiple discussions about the GPL have been discussed here.

What I did until now:

1. I contacted Jono who seems to be involved in MusicBridge. I assume others did the some with other people?
2. Jono is currently preparing a statement on this issue I hope this clarifies everything.
3. They say that they are doing something with reverse SSH, modifying ini files and changing (input?) levels via alsa

This discussion will stay locked until we have a statement of MusicBridge.

Edit 2021-03-12: We have received a statement of MusicBridge and will post it soon.

[softins]

Response from the Jamulus development team

We have received the following statement from MusicBridge addressing the initial allegations:

Hi all - this is Jono from MusicBridge. It is good to see people standing up for Free software. A couple of us at MusicBridge are contributors to Jamulus, we are strongly in favour of Free software and we have tremendous respect for the GPL. There are various licences attached to various pieces of Jamulus. For example, when I made the combined keyboard/vocalist icon, I gave it to Volker with a Creative Commons licence.

Please be assured that if you purchase a MusicBridge jambox device from us, you will get the full Jamulus source code along with it. We haven't modified Jamulus in any way (yet) but if and when we do, all our customers will get the source modifications (as the GPL requires), and we'll almost certainly release it to the wider community too. If we didn't release it, our customers would be free to do so anyway. You'll also get the GPL Python code we wrote, that handles the LED/button that we put on our devices. It means you are free to use our hardware designs for your own projects.

We were able to build our web interface without needing to add any API hooks into Jamulus, and it feels very good to learn that someone has considered that a difficult or impossible thing to do. We worked pretty hard on it. So far everything we've done is by issuing Unix commands on the little Raspberry Pi computer, manipulating settings in ALSA and jackd. We made sure that it works together with normal Jamulus users, so the only people who would buy it are the ones who can't get Jamulus working on their own. We simply don't think those people should be excluded from using Jamulus. Similar to any other hardware that has Free software inside (for example, a mobile phone), we have to charge something because the hardware and the infrastructure are not free. I'm happy to discuss the matter further, if anybody wants to meet up for a video call on Jitsi. Kind regards Jono (MusicBridge)

After having discussed the issue with multiple people at MusicBridge, the Jamulus team are satisfied that no infringement of the GPL has been either intended or committed. See https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v2 for a summary of the GPL.

During our investigation of this discussion we read unjustified accusations and insulting language against multiple people including long-term contributors (like @trebmuh) and MusicBridge. For that reason, we will not unlock this discussion. Personal attacks are not acceptable, and we believe all those involved, especially @trebmuh and MusicBridge, deserve an apology. Please remain friendly and open to everybody. We continue to encourage opinions to be put across in a calm way.