GPL-incompatibility of Spotify's libspotify API ToU

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

[ I'm not sure it's useful to include all the applications that support
  spotify on this thread, particularly those that aren't GPL'd
  themselves.  Thus, I've removed them from the CC for now.  I'm happy
  to engage in discussion with them at some later time, but I think it's
  important that Amarok discuss this internally for the moment, and then
  perhaps share advice elsewhere to related projects when the discussion
  has reached conclusion. ]

Bart Cerneels wrote at 16:07 (EST) on Monday:
> According to me the spotify-resolver, shared between Amarok and
> Tomahawk [1], or clementine's "blob" is the application in this case.

I don't see how Conservancy can get to that reading of the ToU, or the
GPLv2; it's not a legally sound argument to just declare what is or is
not an Application under the ToU.  Tony and I have looked into the legal
details here, and we're confident in our conclusion.

Indeed, the details always matter in situations like this.  The outcome
is likely different if you consider clementine used in isolation without
Amarok.  But simply because that outcome could be different doesn't
immediately indicate the same outcome for Amarok when it's configured as
a Application to make libspotify integration seamless to the end user.

> Secondly, Spotify ToU section 3.10 states that and End User License
> Agreement needs to be presented to the user on *distribution*.

This isn't a relevant point, IMO.  Whether or not the EULA needs to be
presented doesn't change the incompatibility between the GPL and ToU.
Indeed, presenting the GPL *as* a EULA is generally considered
GPL-compatible; but the GPL *can't* be the EULA in this case without
contradicting the requirements of Spotify's ToU.

> I feel the supposed conflict between the Spotify ToU and GPLv2§7 is
> result of an overzealous interpretation and misunderstanding.

I don't think the interpretation is overzealous.  I do think there may
be a misunderstanding, as Spotify probably doesn't realize their ToU is
so far-reaching under USA copyright law.

I've been in a lot of situations like this one before.  In my
experience, they tend to work out one of two ways, either:

 (a) Spotify never intended the ToU to prohibit Applications that are
     GPL'd.  In which case, they'll happily make some wording changes to
     the ToU to make sure GPL'd Applications are permitted, or

 (b) Spotify refuses to make such changes.  In that case, they've given
     even more evidence that they fully believe that they intended to
     prohibit GPL'd applications.  This outcome weakens even further the
     argument that there is some technical work-around to avoid the
     ToU/GPL incompatibility, because if Spotify is unwilling to say
     they intend to allow GPL'd Applications, they are indicating to us
     that their interpretation might be even particular overzealous.

Meanwhile, Tony is still trying to reach out to Spotify to talk to their
legal department and get the (a) outcome.

> Surely the goal of free software is not to reduce end-users freedom
> right?

Indeed, the goal of Free Software is to increase users' freedom.  The
ToU terms I quoted in my first email on this thread seeks to restrict
that freedom.  That's exactly how a strong copyleft and a license end up
in conflict with other terms.

Again, I'm sorry that this didn't get raised sooner, but Conservancy has
done our best to act quickly upon learning Amarok's plans to integrate
with Spotify.
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy