Author Topic: Why isn't this project open source?  (Read 9762 times)

Steven

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33600
I will unlock this as I dont think anyone has said anything out of line. But I am not going to justify not open-sourcing this or re-explain what I have already explained

ClementNerma

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
Hi,

Thanks for unlocking the topic. I apologize as it seems I've been too pushy on the topic, so I'm sorry for this.

Thanks for taking the time to clarifying this subject and providing links to the old discussion topics, I think this topic can be closed now as the debate is closed now : )

Leonader

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
I'm trying to find the source code for MusicBee. Where is it available? Or is it available at all? I do distinctly remember it claiming it was open-source, although after double-checking I haven't been able to verify that. I sure damn hope it is! It would be very practical, and I see no reason for it *not* to be open-source.

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6562
Welcome to the forum Leonader.

If you had done a simple search on the matter you would have found this thread:
https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=33474.0

So starting a new thread on the same matter is not useful.

phred

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8317
I do distinctly remember it claiming it was open-source, although after double-checking I haven't been able to verify that.
a) If you saw something that indicated MB is open-source, you didn't see it on this forum.
b) If you -did- see it on this forum, whoever posted it is wrong.
c) The thread hiccup references will give you some insight and a reply from Steven, the sole developer of MB. Especially the first reply on the 2nd page.
d) Please do not start a new thread regarding this topic.
Download the latest MusicBee v3.5 patch from here.
Unzip into your MusicBee directory and overwrite existing files.

----------
Check out the MusicBee Wiki.
How to post screenshots is here.

Leonader

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
I had actually done a simple search before starting the thread. However, I had not seen the post you linked. I thought I'd heard that it was open-source on the front page, not the forum.
After reading through the post, it still seems nonsensical to me that the project is closed-source. Making it open-source would come at no cost to the developer, and would allow a lot more options to its users.
I also find hiccup's arguments about questuoning the reasoning behind the closed-source status of the project being somehow bad or rude rather foolish. For the record, I totally would ask a musician, an architect or a writer why their work isn't open source, given the same circumstances. No matter how good a piece of software or its developer might be, making it open source would allow its users to modify it to better fit their own needs. I personally could never have wished for a music player as good as MusicBee, but I could still think of a number of things I would do given access to the app's source code. It is apparent that hiccup's reasoning in the original thread stems from a deep misunderstanding of the appeal of open-source, and I hope they have since educated themselves on the concept.
To be honest, that last paragraph was mainly me taking out my frustration because it is highly unlikely that there is an open-source alternative that is anywhere near being anywhere near as good as musicbee. It is truly a shame.

phred

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8317
It is apparent that hiccup's reasoning in the original thread stems from a deep misunderstanding of the appeal of open-source, and I hope they have since educated themselves on the concept.
I don't think hiccup misunderstood anything. And while open-source software is appealing, Steven does not owe you or anyone an explanation of why he won't open the source code.

I suggest you let it go and stop harping about the benefits as it's just not going to happen until Steven is ready to open it up. If at all.

But I am not going to justify not open-sourcing this or re-explain what I have already explained
Download the latest MusicBee v3.5 patch from here.
Unzip into your MusicBee directory and overwrite existing files.

----------
Check out the MusicBee Wiki.
How to post screenshots is here.

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6562
It might be good to move/merge this with the thread I mentioned to Leonader in my first reply?

He is just regurgitating what already has been discussed there.
So this thread is only an additional opportunity for people that don't understand the reasons and arguments on the matter to keep bringing up their dissatisfaction.

And a question for Leonader:
Are you a coder?
And if so, would you be able and willing to contribute with quality coding that would add value to MusicBee?
Last Edit: March 07, 2022, 08:44:44 AM by hiccup

ClementNerma

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
@Leonader I don't think it would be of any use to continue this topic. You can read the lengthy discussion we already had on the topic a year ago.

For whatever reason, Steve doesn't want to make the project open source nor does he want to explain why (which is his right, as other people have said he doesn't owe us anything, even though I personally find this unfortunate it is what is is).

So it's no use to ask why the project isn't open source as the reason will unfortunately not be given, so that's it. We can only hope something is in place to transfer the source code ownership to someone else in case something happens to Steve, but the source code will seemingly not be public in a foreseeable future.

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6562
@Leonader I don't think it would be of any use to continue this topic.

And yet that is exactly what you are doing again right now.

ClementNerma

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
My message was only meant to explain *why* the topic was left on this state and make a summary of the discussions that happened here a year ago, to avoid losing everyone's time by re-having the same discussions again.

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6562
My message was only meant to explain *why* the topic was left on this state and make a summary of the discussions that happened here a year ago, to avoid losing everyone's time by re-having the same discussions again.
Well, you used it mainly to repeat your personal opinions that can already be read in this thread.
That's what I consider wasting time.

ClementNerma

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
Sorry, I don't see how I only stated my personal opinions in my original message?
I simply explained what have been discussed with objective facts (like the fact the project isn't open source and won't be in a near future) and I indeed expressed my opinion on the subject on top of that to explain that no matter what we can think of the way this is handled, the project won't made open source.
I apologize if that wasn't clear at first.

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6562
In an effort to bring some positivity to this 'I have a complaint'  thread':

I would like to voice my respect and gratitude to the dozens of members that over the years have contributed to MusicBee by creating useful, interesting and creative plugins:
https://getmusicbee.com/addons/s/?type=2

Which also is proof that any talented coder that has the genuine intention to contribute to MusicBee can already do that by creating a plugin, or help to improve on existing ones.

One specific plugin that come to mind regarding improving/maintaining is the UPnP/DLNA plugin.
It's in popular demand, in need of improvements/maintenance, and has it's code available.

The fact that no actual and talented coder has been willing or able to contribute to it, to me is some sort of confirmation that this 'make MB open source and things will be so much better' claim is a bit naive and unrealistic.
Last Edit: March 07, 2022, 06:37:42 PM by hiccup

ClementNerma

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
Those are completely unrelated things.

First, many people aren't aware that some of the plugins are open-source. Before it was brought to my attention a year ago, I didn't even know there were open-source plugins, because when you look for the source code of MusicBee you don't automatically find the source code of the third-party plugins. Also, when you type "UPnP/DLNA MusicBee" on Google the repository does not even appear on the first page of results on Google. You have to actively look into some of the pages to find it.

Second, you can be interested by helping to improve some parts specifically. If you're a web developer for instance that does not automatically make you happy to work on *anything* web-related. The same applies here. You can be interested to dig into the audio processing source code, into the UI kit, into the panels management, into the plugins system itself, etc. - not in the UPnP/DLNA part or what other plugins are trying to achieve.

Third, maintaining an out-of-date plugin that hasn't been maintained in *years* is completely different than working on MusicBee itself, which is regularly updated.

Fourth, some people people may want to look at the source code to understand how the program was made and how some of the tricky parts (e.g. sending processed audio directly to drivers through WASI & others) were done, how they where optimized, and so on.

Fifth, making the program open-source may multiply the number of potential developers who could get interested in the project, as this has been the case for a lot of large projects in the past. You can take a look at VLC, or MPC-HC for instance.

I know this has been discussed again and again, but just saying that because no one maintained a few plugins that only a very few people are even aware of the availability of their source code, is plain stupid - and I'm sorry if this seems offensive, but I'm also tired of giving the same arguments again and again while you seemingly don't understand them.

I can fully understand that Steve doesn't want to make MusicBee open-source, as they are plenty of reasons for that (you don't want to take time looking at PRs, you don't want someone else forking your program and making its own version, etc.), but I'd still like that you aknowledge the many (MANY) reasons there are to want to bring a project to the open-source community aren't something plainly stupid or unreasonable, even with the way things are currently.

And as a quick reminder, I'll say again that making a project open-source doesn't mean accepting contributions. You can just expose the source code - there are even paid software that do that, specifically because it helps other developers to understand how things were made and get inspired by them.

Nonetheless, I with you a good day and a good evening and hope you'll understand the things that bother me in the current situation.