@brennen Yes, indeed. I don't know if there are recent viable alternatives, but with the recent licensing shenanigans on top, I can see at least a few popping up

@cypnk i think people probably aren't going to put up with this nonsense.

i will happily put a couple dollars a month towards funding a viable community fork or similarly featured alternative. it's one of those pieces of software i don't need all that often, but when i do it's great to have it available.

@brennen @cypnk honestly a small scrappy co-op of software folk could probably make a decent living providing supported forks of open source versions of adobe suite products and having a low friction "donation subscription" to the suite

@brennen @cypnk I'd put a couple of bucks a month toward a Patreon.

@cypnk @brennen I'm gonna be completely stranded without an audio program if I don't find some alternative.

@Owlor @brennen Never thought I'd be dusting off an old (pre-cloud) copy of Adobe Audition

@abloo @brennen Basically, they created a "Contributor Licensing Agreement" which essentially allows any future contributed code to be relicensed as they see fit, not just remain GPL

They also said contributed code from authors who won't sign it will be removed in the future

Actual page on that:


@abloo @brennen I think they're hoping most people will keep using it until the changes and outrage is forgotten. Let's face it, most folks just want to get their mix done and won't pa​y much attention unless it makes the news. Right now, only us geeks are even aware that something changed

@cypnk @abloo @brennen Muse Group bought Audacity. I think they're going to turn it into a studio product by folding in some of their commercial features into it

is there anything left then? are those contributions a big enough part to keep the "critical fork-kraft"?

@abloo @brennen

@stereo It's a large subset, though I don't know which specific sections as I haven't looked at the source personally. I believe Muse Group intends to replace parts that they can't use with their own proprietary components @brennen @abloo

@cypnk ah, they ran that into the ground impressively quickly

@cypnk Also I am not much of an Audacity user, but this seems odd:

"Minors: The App we provide is not intended for individuals below the age of 13. If you are under 13 years old, please do not use the App."

afaik there isn't any adult/scary content within Audacity, so it seems strange that there should be an age limit.

@bob I believe this is preemptive RIAA appeasement which would make draconian anti-piracy enforcement more palatable. DMCA abuse has already made fair use a joke so the last frontier is controlling creation of the media itself

@bob @cypnk Because of that law which says you can't collect data on children. It's easier to just say "Well they told us they were 13 or older" than to not collect the data 😉

@bob @cypnk

At least in the US, 18 is usually the age for objectionable (in a legally-actionable sense) content. 13 is the age for identifying data on the Internet.


So I am guessing from this that Audacity folks are afraid the data they're collecting could actually identify you as an individual.

@bob @cypnk It's because collecting data on children is illegal and since they aren't gonna ask you "hey how old are you" they have to say "welp no minors". this is by all accounts pretty silly

@saphie @bob @cypnk The whole thing with many programs now gathering telemetry reminds me of how inadequate the four freedoms are at the present time. There could be something in the license regarding data collection from the user. The last time GPL was updated was 2007, and things have changed since.

@cypnk Wow, it is far worse compared to what I imagined when they first announced they put Google Analytics in it (which was bad enough to uninstall it). :/

@Shaft Yeah, it's such a shame. I never thought this would happen. What a fall from grace

@cypnk > Data necessary for law enforcement, litigation and authorities’ requests (if any)

is this now a CIA bugged program or what are they implying?

@Johann150 I'm struggling to find an alternative explanation for that specific wording. What you're making on your own computer may get matched to something like a YouTube "Content ID" style tracking down the pipeline where

@cypnk so RIAA clippy in Audacity "I see you are using copyrighted material. Sorry but I have to format your hard drive for you." when?

@cypnk @Johann150 I bet it’s what their lawyer told them to write. „If you collect any data law enforcement may force you to give it to them. Even if it’s useless to them. So inform the users about that.“

@Johann150 @cypnk KGB, more like, given that WSM are based in Kaliningrad

@cypnk who would have guessed that the hundreds of responses calling this out as utter trash before they incorporated it would have failed to change their minds.

If I wasn't code illiterate I'd support a fork.

@Mainebot I'm totally supporting a fork any way I can, even financially, if someone way more competent than me tries it

Another option might be to look out for other #floss audio tools and support them instead.
While I have never tried anything else then audacity, I can't make any recommendations.

@paulfree14 @Mainebot The thing is, the workflow friction of incorporating multiple other tools is non-trivial. At present, I haven't found a single program which provides this much functionality in a single interface and that's not for a lack of trying. It's a huge loss without a fork

@cypnk @paulfree14

if I forked it I would name the fork one of the following:


@cypnk @paulfree14 @Mainebot A fork in the same spirit than ungoogled chromium or vscodium would be cool. Just strip out all the shit and continue using the same code base for the rest since it's free software ;)

@cypnk @Mainebot So yes, if there is anyone out there who wants to make a name for themselves in FOSS then either fork Audacity or start a similar audio editing project. Maintaining a "classic" version with no telemetry might not be all that difficult.

@bob @cypnk @Mainebot Couldn't distribution packagers just patch the telemetry out? That would cover a lot of existing users. The company will probably try to convince people to download builds from their website but this won't be necessary for most users of free operating systems. Users running non-free systems will routinely click "accept" on such privacy policies all over the place so an audacity fork would not help them much.

@bob @cypnk @Mainebot You mean they are using the trademark law loop-hole in order to force modified builds to change the application's branding? That could indeed be annoying for packagers to deal with.

@stsp @bob @cypnk @Mainebot I don't know, but it will be an Audacity with stuff removed and possibly a different name to avoid trademark conflicts.

@bob @cypnk @Mainebot audacityteam.org/about/license says: " you may not modify Audacity then continue to use the Audacity name without the express permission of the Audacity Team."

vent re: audacity bs 

@cypnk they collect basic system info,

plus whatever the fuck law enforcement wants?

wow, okay. thanks. glad my audio editor will just spy on me whenever the cops feel like it. that's where I needed that.

they also legally have to tell you that you can't use audacity if you're under 13, because they collect info on you. which is like. okay. guess that preteens aren't allowed to do basic computer things any more because they're not marketable any more

vent re: audacity bs 

@clarfonthey I'm sure the age limit is to make the spying more "acceptable"

I heard back from a friend who said he's still using it for the time being, but might be on an air-gapped laptop. At this point, a fork is the only option since the folks in charge are hopeless

re: vent re: audacity bs 

@cypnk it's not just about acceptability, in the US we probably have the most comprehensive privacy laws if you're under 13. you basically can't store content for anyone under 13 without heavy restrictions and guardian approval.

so, that's almost certainly why they have the clause there.

vent re: audacity bs 

@clarfonthey @cypnk

it makes perfect sense

• Data necessary for law enforcement, litigation and authorities’ requests (if any)

when you read the next line:

• Legitimate interest of WSM Group to defend its legal rights and interests

vent re: audacity bs 

@clarfonthey @cypnk

> [...] in compliance with the GDPR [...]

Yeah, the website literally has a cookie banner that does not comply with the GDPR - no simple "reject" button, and even in the "I want to opt out" menu, everything is selected by default (I believe that everything that isn't essential should be de-selected).

That does not inspire confidence.

@cypnk Aaaaaaand uninstalled. Was barely using it anyway and I'm sure there's good alternatives out there

@cypnk "Data necessary for law enforcement, litigation and authorities’ requests (if any)" Is this even GDPR compliant?

@Arco I'm guessing more of an RIAA thing since copyright is a sacred cow

@cypnk Sure😑 , but I wonder if collecting so much data would even comply with the GDPR in Europe 🤔

@Arco I'm no legal expert, but I don't think it does comply. At least not without an explicit option to opt-out, which this doesn't have yet


Aww, this is really ugly. I just did `sudo pacman -Rs audacity`, just to be sure.

Hopefully, the Debian folks will deactivate all that nonsense. But... remember the Iceweasel/Firefox trademark controversy?

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit