Audacity 'Spyware' Claims Follow Privacy Policy Changes By New Owner

[theluggage]

Was it free and open source? If it is than I’m not sure how that happed.

Well, first, as people have already pointed our, all GPL requires is that you make the source code along with any modifications you make freely available - you can still sell pre-built versions, and that business can still be sold. You can also own trademarks, logos etc. which aren't an essential part of the GPL's software & can be bought and sold - hence several Linux distributions have a strangely familiar web browser called "IceWeasel" or suchlike.

Secondly, when you release code as GPL you don't give up the copyright - In the case of something like Linux which has a zillion copyright holders, that doesn't amount to much, but if there is a single author - or if the maintainer requires that all contributors assign the copyright to them, then the copyright holder can do what the heck they like with it regardless of the GPL (including releasing modified binary versions without having to open source the new code, or even making the next version closed-source).

Still - once you've released a version under GPL, the source code of that version is irrevocably out there and some other group can pick it up and keep the Free version alive.

 

[foobarbaz]

You know what's happening here? The legal department of a big company is making them update the privacy policy to cover all eventualities of what could happen to the crash data. (Could it be subpoenaed? Sure … Let's add it then.)

The age 13 thing? That's them trying to avoid COPPA. They are not allowed to collect even crash reports in that case. They can't actually restrict the age (due to the GPL), so they literally ask (!) people under 13 not to use it.

But the outrage machine churns over the weekend before the company even has a chance to respond. I bet this is a big fat Nothing Burger (but those poor people in the PR department are in for a hell of a few days now). Can we just collectively wait a few days before going on the crusade …

 

[Bubble99]

Well, first, as people have already pointed our, all GPL requires is that you make the source code along with any modifications you make freely available - you can still sell pre-built versions, and that business can still be sold. You can also own trademarks, logos etc. which aren't an essential part of the GPL's software & can be bought and sold - hence several Linux distributions have a strangely familiar web browser called "IceWeasel" or suchlike.

Secondly, when you release code as GPL you don't give up the copyright - In the case of something like Linux which has a zillion copyright holders, that doesn't amount to much, but if there is a single author - or if the maintainer requires that all contributors assign the copyright to them, then the copyright holder can do what the heck they like with it regardless of the GPL (including releasing modified binary versions without having to open source the new code, or even making the next version closed-source).

Still - once you've released a version under GPL, the source code of that version is irrevocably out there and some other group can pick it up and keep the Free version alive.

I'm not sure if Audacity was company making Audacity for years and other company bought the software or group of people at their homes working together to make Audacity.

But sounds like the company bought it and now they own it and will give updates. So it is no longer open source now.

It kinda like if say Microsoft bought GIMP and than Microsoft own GIMP than spend million dollars to improve GIMP to be way way better than photoshop.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Just the other day in news I read the police raided a VPN company because some hacker was using VPN to do attack on some business.

Well some VPN do logging and are mostly free VPN and the VPN you pay for it well they claim they do no logging but you only have their word for it. And I'm sure there are some VPN in the US who are own by the police.

Real hackers use VPN out side of the US and many VPNs and are mobile using mobile hotspots. To make tracing really hard.

But with cameras popping up every where now on the street and in the stores even this is not 100% proof you will not get caught. As if you sitting in park using mobile hotspot or in van by restaurant using their hotspot there may be video of you. As the cops raid the VPN company than other VPN company than other VPN company than to park or coffee shop than bring up the video.As every bar, restaurant, store, mall and just every where now has cameras.

If you’re trying to hide from the law and/or be anonymous, then Tor is the only way to go.

 

[Crowbot]

This sounds like a job for Little Snitch, which can block outbound traffic to specific sites.

 

[mmcmonster]

This is a shame. I use Audacity whenever I have to edit some music files, particularly when making a custom mix for one of my kids when they are performing.

"Phoning home" is done by other apps for legitimate reasons (ie: to check if there's a newer version available, sending crash data, improve usability for future versions), but the way that they're changing their licensing is quite concerning.

The concern is that future versions will "send home" hash data about which music I am editing and if the music is copyrighted, I may get attacked by the RIAA or similar groups.

Expect a fork to be created without the telemetry data. On Linux the major distributions (ie: Debian-based) will strip out the telemetry code. On MacOS we'll have to keep an eye out for where we download it from. On iOS, it's almost certain that any version that comes out will have the telemetry intact. The hope is that Apple will refuse to allow it in the iOS App Store for that reason.

 

[phenste]

This is such a genuine tragedy as far as well-made freeware goes. Audacity has been a go-to app for decades for simple audio editing. No frills, nothing, just good software made by good people who actually give a f—.

 

[racer1441]

What’s the best Mac alternative then? I’d pay.

 

[vault]

This is such a genuine tragedy as far as well-made freeware goes. Audacity has been a go-to app for decades for simple audio editing. No frills, nothing, just good software made by good people who actually give a f—.

They added a crash report module and are required by law to update privacy policy. It's not the end of the world.

 

[monokakata]

What’s the best Mac alternative then? I’d pay.

Take a look at Amadeus Pro. I was surprised to learn that its author recently won a Nobel -- not for this, of course.

Amadeus Pro is my go-to app, even though I have Audacity and the Adobe suite on my Mac.

 

[benwiggy]

What’s the best Mac alternative then? I’d pay.

Sound Studio has been my staple for years.

Sound Studio 4 - Mac App for Audio Editing

Record, edit, and produce your audio with Sound Studio, an easy-to-use Mac app for recording and editing digital audio on your computer. Digitize tapes and vinyl records, record live performances, create your own mixes with crossfades, tweak the levels and EQ, apply digital effects and save in...

felttip.com

 

[Shirasaki]

What’s the best Mac alternative then? I’d pay.

I once paid a simplistic mac audio app called Sound Studio. A bit pricey but otherwise feature rich and can support tons of popular formats. My first batch of ringtones were created using it.

Now, I move on to edit songs in Windows since apple cut off iTunes.

 

[colinconn]

What’s the best Mac alternative then? I’d pay.

I'm a big fan of Reaper.fm, which has support for ARM64 (M1 Macs). They charge $60 for a license (no ******** subscriptions) and the community is awesome. They also don't enforce their trail demo when time runs out, instead politely asking you buy it.

 

[SpringKid]

What’s the best Mac alternative then? I’d pay.

I can highly recommend Sound Studio, I've been using it for many years and I'm super happy with it.

Sound Studio 4 - Mac App for Audio Editing

Record, edit, and produce your audio with Sound Studio, an easy-to-use Mac app for recording and editing digital audio on your computer. Digitize tapes and vinyl records, record live performances, create your own mixes with crossfades, tweak the levels and EQ, apply digital effects and save in...

felttip.com

It's also available in the App Store.

Edit: Just saw others had already recommended it. 🙂

 

[fredrik9]

Than find an older version of the app before the company bought it. If you must have it.

I don’t really need to have it.

 

[stottmj]

Umm... Sounds like telemetrics to me. Most mainstream software does this. Windows 10, Office, Adobe, etc., etc., etc. Was it ever really open source? Did someone fork it? Cause that is how things are supposed to work. You fork the open source project and if Audacity was sold then you maintain the fork. This happened with Open Solaris which continues despite Oracle buying Sun and closing the source.

 

[buckwheet]

What’s the best Mac alternative then? I’d pay.

Last year I broke down and bought WaveLab Elements. Not cheap (even though it's the "cheap" version of WaveLab), but arguably the best audio editor out there. I don't love everything about it, but it's excellent, and well worth the money if you have a regular need for it.

 

[theluggage]

But sounds like the company bought it and now they own it and will give updates. So it is no longer open source now.

The new owner can make future versions non-open-source - provided they have clear ownership of the code - but the open-source version is still open source, and someone else can take that up and continue developing and distributing it.

If the new company doesn't have clear copyright ownership of the code, they're obliged to keep it open-source, and there are pro-open-source organisations that might just take action against them.

There are plenty of audio editing/DAW packages around including free+open-source (e.g. Ardour), cheap (e.g. Reaper), free-as-in-beer (e.g. GarageBand) and full-priced (Logic, Ableton, Bitwig...) so the main appeal of Audacity was that it was totally free. I'd guess that the cunning plan is to keep it free and try to monetize it via data slurping and advertising.

 

[Brian Greenstone]

Uhh... so what? They're collecting crash and system data. Big deal. They're not collecting anything unusual here or anything anyone should care about. I sure don't.

 

[benwiggy]

MuseScore's privacy notice seems pretty similar:

Musescore Privacy Policy | Musescore.com

The MuseScore Privacy Policy details how user data is collected, used, and shared, ensuring transparency and user rights regarding personal information.

musescore.com

I agree that it's probably blown out of proportion by free software evangelists, but collecting geo-location data seems unnecessary.

 

[jlc1978]

Any software, open source or not, has an owner. Ownership rights can be sold. The owner can change the license in future versions or distribute non-GPL versions.

It would depend on if the own the entire codebase. If there are 3rd party lines of code in it that they do not own the copyright then they either have to keep it GPL'd or rewrite the codebase to strip out the parts they do not own; which would be a monumental task even if all the changes and copyrights are well documented..

Others may fork it, but they will have to follow GPL terms.

Yes. Which may no doubt happen.

But the outrage machine churns over the weekend before the company even has a chance to respond. I bet this is a big fat Nothing Burger (but those poor people in the PR department are in for a hell of a few days now). Can we just collectively wait a few days before going on the crusade …

This is the internet, we never let facts and analysis stand in the way of a good crusade. If you do not jump on board at the start you'll be branded a NOOB...

But sounds like the company bought it and now they own it and will give updates. So it is no longer open source now.

Possibly. But the code up to that point is still under the GPL. How they handle future updates remains to be seen.

 

[dandeco]

What’s the best Mac alternative then? I’d pay.

If you use an M1 Mac, I'd take a look at GoldWave. It's been my Windows audio editor of choice for years.

 

[scottishwildcat]

I don't understand how GPL software could be "sold" in the first place?

What makes you think that it can't be sold? Plenty of businesses do so, including on the app store. GPL software is free as in speech, not free as in beer. Only requirement from the GPL POV is that you have to provide the source code on request, and allow anyone else to distribute that code under the same terms.

 

[cmaier]

que audacia or how you exclaim in English ‘What audacity!’

Ah, in English it’s “the chutzpah of these turds!” You’re welcome.

 

[ValerioParisMitritsakis]

The owner of the source code can re-license it as he pleases so that any changes from that point on are not shared. Whatever has been released as GPL will be available anyway and people can just fork the existing project anyhow.
What he is getting more importantly is the name and goodwill of the project. And the good will can be lost in no time.