undefined | Better HN

0 pointsEcco4y ago0 comments

Yes, but concretely, what did they buy? And from whom?

0 comments

They likely now own the copyrights held by the primary developers and all the trademark rights to the Audacity name and logo.

redwall_hp4y ago

This is how the Bukkit disaster happened. Microsoft "bought" the leading Minecraft server software, hiring some of the major developers and I guess not telling anyone else, and some of them were unamused that they were (in their eyes) doing free work for Microsoft when their colleagues got hired. So they rescinded their GPL licensing of their contributions and sent DMCA notices. Which pretty much ended the project, except for Spigot continuing development in the form of patches that the server operator applies with a script.

ericpauley4y ago

It should be noted that the authors didn't rescind any licenses, per se. Rather, distributing binary versions of Bukkit was always in violation of the GPL (since the bundled Mincraft code did not have source available). The former author simply started enforcing this. Important distinction since rescinding the license would be a far more legally/ethically dubious action.

franga20004y ago

*Mojang, not Microsoft. EvilSeph was hired in 2011, Microsoft bought Mojang in 2014.

anyfactor4y ago

How does trademark work when the license is essentially "do whatever you want to do"?

detaro4y ago

The license covers the code, not the trademark. You can use the code/software as long as you observe the license, you can use the trademark as long as you follow the rules set out by the trademark owner. E.g. you can totally use the code to make your own audio editor and distribute it, but the trademark terms might not allow you to call it "Audacity".

2 more replies

chrisseaton4y ago

https://www.audacityteam.org/copyright/

> The name “Audacity” is a registered trademark.

It's a regular trademark - it's been acquired.

The trademark isn't covered by the GPL.

aasasd4y ago

Trademarks are actually still useful for open-source software, since they ensure that a malicious or incompetent party can't ruin the name of your software by shipping a modification that does bad things.

Jason Rohrer ran into this very issue when other developers made their own client for his game, using a variation on the game's name. They didn't respond to him asking that they don't use the name, and eventually he was convinced that trademarking the name is the right tool to project it. The original game client is still open-source (and maybe the server too, dunno).

1 more reply

globular-toast4y ago

GPL isn't "do whatever you want". It's "do whatever you want, as long as you let future users do whatever they want". That's what makes it such a good licence for the community.

bemmu4y ago

Well, imagining it from the buyer's perspective, if I bought Audacity then now I can make changes to it and while there may be other forks, these changes will be likely be recognized as "the" Audacity.

So if for example I wanted to cross-promote my other products or add a "pro" paid version of some sort, I could do that, and those would end up in the main version most people are downloading.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse