On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Amarok Committee, > > Bart, Tony, and I discussed the issue with spotify on IRC today. I > hadn't realized (until today when Bart told me) that a GSoC student had > added support for spotify to Amarok. Conservancy only became aware of > the issue on 26 October when Bart asked for a spotify account to get set > up for Conservancy. > > As it stands, Conservancy is very worried about Amarok offering spotify > support. Spotify's terms of use for the libspotify API, at > https://developer.spotify.com/technologies/libspotify/terms-of-use-us/ , > require the following: > > By using any part of the API (as defined below), you (including any > organization on whose behalf you are agreeing to these Terms of > Use) (collectively sometimes referred to as "you" and "your") are > deemed to have accepted these Terms of Use... > > "Application" means an authorized end user downloadable application > utilizing the API developed by you solely for use by Users to > access the Service. > "User" means a registered subscriber to the Service ... > ... > 3.10 When distributing the Application, you shall require end users > to agree to an enforceable end user license agreement containing at > least the following specific minimum terms: > > 1. a provision stating that you, and not Spotify, are responsible f= or > your Application; > 2. a provision indicating that the API is provided "as-is," without= any > warranties, and that expressly disclaims all implied warranties, > including the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for= a > particular purpose and non-infringement; > 3. a prohibition against modifying or creating derivative works bas= ed > on any part of the API; > 4. a prohibition against decompiling, reverse-engineering, > disassembling, and otherwise reducing the API to source code or > other human-perceivable form, to the full extent allowed by law.= .. > > The "Application" is Amarok (as defined in the agreement, "end user > downloadable application utilizing the API developed by you"). You, in > the agreement, is the Amarok Developers. "End users" and "the Users" > are the folks that you distribute Amarok to. 3.10.3 and 3.10.4 above > contradict the requirements of the GPL, so the Amarok Project can't > simultaneously meet its requirements under GPL and the ToU. > > Now, Conservancy doesn't believe that distribution of source code in > your current spotify branch violates this agreement: it's always been > Conservancy position that the publication of source code for reading is > Free Speech in the USA and publishing source code for people to read is > akin to publishing a poem on your website. > > But, definitively distributing a final Application under GPL intending > that the Amarok user will have a seamless experience with spotify/Amarok > integration *would*, in Conservancy's opinion, violate the ToU, or GPL, > or both, depending on one's perspective. It furthermore can create > similar risk for downstream distributions that package Amarok. > > Whether an agreement regarding using an online API would hold up in > court is another question, but Conservancy's risk is nonetheless great, > because the issue of intention matters in Court. Thus, if Amarok > intends for its end users to use the spotify API, and makes effort > (which you have) for Amarok to support spotify via the API, it's going > to be difficult for Conservancy to argue it was not bound by the ToU > (even *if* Conservancy doesn't create a spotify account). > > We'll need to figure out the right solution here. Conservancy's General > Counsel, Tony Sebro (cc'ed) is going to make an effort to reach out to > lawyers at Spotify, since there some chance this issue is an unintended > consequence of overzealous drafting on their part. I can't say for sure > if we'll be successful in reaching out to them, but we're trying. We'll > keep you posted. > > In the meantime, I have to ask Amarok not to make Spotify support > official in your distribution. I realize that might harm your release > schedule and I apologize for that. Conservancy just didn't have the > lead time necessary to investigate this issue in time for the next > release. In future, please do send us any ToU and licensing information > for any service/library you want to support as early as possible. According to me the spotify-resolver, shared between Amarok and Tomahawk [1], or clementine's "blob" is the application in this case. spotify-resolver is BSD licensed and hence not subject to the GPLv2 section 7 [2] terms and fully capable of complying with the Spotify Terms of Use [3]. Secondly, Spotify ToU section 3.10 states that and End User License Agreement needs to be presented to the user on *distribution*. We download the resolver-binary only once the terms are acknowledged by the user, complying with the Spotify ToU. After the exec() to start the spotify binary it's used as a service, this is no more derivative then using any other socket based system service. I feel the supposed conflict between the Spotify ToU and GPLv2=A77 is result of an overzealous interpretation and misunderstanding. The successful API-key application of tomahawk and clementine players confirm that Spotify feels this is complying with their ToU. The end result is the Free Software Music Enthusiast not getting a fair chance at a comparable experience. Surely the goal of free software is not to reduce end-users freedom right? [1] https://github.com/tomahawk-player/tomahawk-resolvers/tree/master/spoti= fy [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html#section7 [3] https://developer.spotify.com/technologies/libspotify/terms-of-use-us/ _______________________________________________ Amarok-devel mailing list Amarok-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel