Audacity is a GPL licensed public domain offline audio editor. There is nothing to compel such a nebulous community driven software effort to behave as you suggest. Not everything is made by companies, you know. This community software is being hijacked by a slimy corporate operator who is doing things we don’t have to accept, as such a code license means that they are not the owners of the code, we are. All that is required is a telemetry-free fork and bad publicity and removal from distros for the bad corporate actor. Ultimate Guitar are bad actors. Denounce them. They certainly are cheeky, putting something they didn’t make out with a new skin that phones home.
Except Audacity is a fully local audio editor. It doesn't need to know that the internet is a thing at all. It has no business creating network sockets.
I’d take a shoddy UI and no spyware over a good UI that’s spying on me despite being an offline application. I’ve used Audacity for years and I shan’t be upgrading until a spyware-free fork is available.
Ultimate Guitar have a history of abusive behaviour towards open source projects and I sincerely hope this is a PR catastrophe for them.
Like loan sharks care about helping poor people. No thanks to predators offering help. Audacity ui worked fine for me for over a decade. Your opinion otherwise doesn’t justify such rapacious behavior on the part of Ultimate Guitar, who basically hijacked a community project for their own ends. Bad faith actor, and I’m having trouble seeing your comment as innocent. Who do you work for here? I find your association of good ui and telemetry to be highly suspect and certainly not logical. Feel free to correct my ignorance and elaborate on your strange proposal. NSA backdoors don’t make themselves, there’s always that special someone on every committee
> Courts can compel them to log this information, so all claims about not keeping logs are just theater. The second they're ordered to by a court in the US, they will.
But the consensus around here seemed to be that courts can't do that[2].
Maybe the story is that people now know that courts can, indeed, do that.
Are you a lawyer? Why are you more credible than anyone else on this matter?
We have, in fact, seen companies publicly push back on doing additional work by claiming that it was an undue burden on them when they are not a defendant. If I recall, this was one of Apples arguments when they were involved in their well publicized case with the FBI.
