Shoutcast.com Internet Radio Stations removed from latest Amarok release & Info from Shoutcast

[Leo Franchi]

On 18 Nov 2009, at 19:49, S G wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Martin Sandsmark <sandsmark at samfundet.no 
> > wrote:
>  Onsdag 18. november 2009 19.21.55 skrev S G :
> > Yes, I did.  Obviously Jeff has some serious issues, I contacted  
> VLC to
> >  find out what exactly the issue was.  [...] I got a reasonable
> >  explanation, plus a copy of the ToS.
>
> Then why on earth did you ask why Amarok removed Shoutcast?
>
> I just emailed someone at VLC today and got their response within a  
> couple of hours...
>
>
> > What role does Jeff have wrt to Amarok/KDE and why is he the one  
> responding
> > to entirely legitimate user concerns on behalf of the Amarok group  
> the way
> > he has?
>
> He writes very good code, and maintains several integral parts of  
> Amarok.
>
> Well, IMO he should just stick to writing code and probably not  
> respond to users, as his responses demonstrate that he an arrogant  
> buffoon who's not got much in the way of manners...he's a real tough  
> guy over email, isn't he.?

Please stop this. People respond different to repeated provocation.  
Not everyone has an infinite amount of patience, and right now you are  
just insulting a developer after it is *clear* that he has left the  
conversation. This is both unprofessional and frankly completely  
ridiculous. The arrogant buffoon is the one who keeps on trying to   
prove a vacuous point about what doesn't matter---so let's just drop  
it, and move on.

Discussing the valid point that exist in this licensing question makes  
sense (even if those have been resolved now). The ad hominem attacks  
need to stop.

> > But thank-you for your observations and interpretation of the  
> implications;
> > it's the first time that I have received a reasonable explanation,  
> which is
> > what I and others have been seeking since the decision not to  
> include SC in
> > the software was made.
>
> It doesn't really need any "interpretation", the TOS states quite  
> clearly that
> you aren't allowed to distribute the source code of your application  
> (4.4),
> that you need to bundle their toolbar (6.6), and that you need to do  
> free
> advertisement for them (6.x), etc.
>
> But I agree that it would have been nice to just link to the TOS  
> themselves
> when mentioning the removal of Shoutcast, since people apparently  
> don't
> believe the developers. :-P
>
> I did not see the ToS, except for when someone from VLC mailed it to  
> me nor did I fully understand the implications until I read your  
> explanations today....I appreciate your time and trouble with this.   
> I agree that linking the ToS would have saved everyone a lot of  
> misunderstanding and subsequent hard feelings...

I'm glad that this is resolved. Clearly the impetus for this  
conversation has been removed. So, lets just drop the subject. The TOS  
has issues, we need to talk to lawyers, we still want the shoutcast  
service to be there if we can have it, and no one is operating in bad  
faith. End of story.

leo

---
Leo Franchi				(512) 775 5637
Tufts University 2010

lfranchi at kde.org
leonardo.franchi at tufts.edu