Strawberry Music Player fork from Codeberg have been taken down (github.com)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by moe90@feddit.nl to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

74 comments fedilink hide all child comments

following this URL https://feddit.nl/post/32689004. it looks like the software taken down the source and the codeberg is gone

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 1 points 2 days ago

easy and effective way to dismiss without argument bugfix requests on operating systems the developer doesn’t care to touch

if you ask $60/year to each user to support an operating system, then it's better to have first-class support with maximum issue priority

This is the most expensive music player app ever commercialized

[-] christian@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Which is the reason I thought it was obvious that no one will pay that without a sincere affinity for the project in some way beyond just using the app itself. Who do you imagine would pay here just to get access to the player? You're talking about this like it's a scam, but a scam has an intended target audience that we can at least imagine.

I can't picture someone choosing to buy a $60 subscription to this with no reason other than being a windows user who is dead-set on using strawberry over any other music player. There's no way the devs are raking in cash from windows users. They'll maybe get a couple people who like strawberry because they are already foss advocates and are forced to use windows on one of their pcs, ie people who already understand what strawberry's development priorities will be and understand that what they are buying could be built from source code without paying.

It's essentially a policy to ignore those operating aystems except when someone cares enough to make a donation, under the reasonable assumption that bug reports from donors will still be worth their time. Windows users who have no idea what the project is will not shell out $60 by mistake. Literally no one is aware of strawberry's existence but unaware of alternatives.

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago

The way he wrote shows he's more concerned taking down "pirate" versions of compiled files rather than the trouble of supporting windows users

I've worked many hours attempting to get these sites to remove the content, and I've managed to remove most of them

[-] christian@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

This is a GPL project. Other than restrictions on relicesnsing, the one thing the GPL doesn't allow is redistributions with the same name and logo, because anyone could rebuild the source code with malware added and the developer would be perceived as responsible.

You, today, can literally rebuild strawberry with a changed logo and name, and write "my program exactly strawberry except with a changed logo and name" and make that repository publicly available for free and it cannot be taken down as long as it is licensed the same way. No developers are losing sleep over lost sales from piracy of their GPL program. Otherwise they would not use the GPL in the first place.

If a developer sees that their program is being rehosted on codeberg with the same name and logo, what steps do you think they should take to verify that the binaries being shared were not rebuilt from the publicly available source code with a cryptominer added? I can't think of a way to prevent that other than requiring a name and logo change and taking it down otherwise. It's not enough to verify just once, because the new code author could change a legit binary to an infected one at any time.

And, again, there is no target audience for this "scam". What do you believe might motivate a customer who would regret purchasing this to pay in the first place? There is no need to keep litigating possible reasons why something might be a malicious moneymaking scheme when there is no imaginable target that would be victimized.