Strawberry Music Player
Strawberry Music Player
Looking for a place to find the Windows version of this without paying $20 for a single version or $5/month for regular updates
EDIT: which one of you mad lads did this? https://codeberg.org/WetOtter44/StrawberryMusicPlayer
You're viewing a single thread.
"Access to macOS and Windows releases are currently restricted to sponsors, a 5 USD monthly sponsorship is required."
Really scummy on their part.
You should be able to build from source yourself to get a Windows version, although the process looks like a pain in the ass.
Curse whoever floated the idea to lock releases behind paywalls. We should not encourage this behavior.
Do not give them your money.
To each their own.
I think its reasonable that a one man dev team wants a bit of money for their time. They gave good reasons as to why and as others have said you could compile it yourself. I just don't know how and am a bit intimidated by the tutorial.
To me, personally, paying for this type of program when my use case is very casual, isn't worth it to me.
See, you people keep trying to excuse those who are taking you for a ride.
It's fine to "want" money. This isn't about "wanting" money. It's about lowering people's standards and contributing to a 'new normal.'
This isn't an issue with the vast majority of other projects, why should this one get a pass?
Don't be a useful idiot. Even among piracy communities, useful idiots are the norm.
give me your work for free
Geez. Just build it yourself, you lazy leech.
Stop being a useful idiot.
As soon as you stop being a useless idiot.
Is it that hard to compile from source on Windows? I've been on Linux for 20 years, so I genuinely don't know.
No idea. Haven't used Windows for anything other than games for around 20 years either. How hard it is isn't really the point, though.
I don't think compiling from source is easy even on Linux. Whenever I try it whatever program I'm trying to compile just refuses to compile, even though I seem to have all of the necessary programs for it. I can't recall successfully compiling anything other than suckless tools, which have basically no dependencies.
I don't know. The only time I've had significant issues was with Arch. Debian has always been good to me inbthat regard.
Really scummy on their part.
Anyone is free to build it themselves. Someone could even distribute their own build from the same source under a different name completely legally.
They bank on users being lazy and then pay for the convenience.
Anyone is free to build it themselves. Someone could even distribute their own build from the same source under a different name completely legally.
You could just as easily in the spirit of this community do it with the same name and code, same way they do it for cracked games. Don't tell me it's not done because there are security concerns, you have no way to tell if cracked games contain secret malware in them yet people still distribute and download those.
They bank on users being lazy and then pay for the convenience.
And also pirates to not outright rip them off, which seems to be working for some reason...
You could just as easily in the spirit of this community do it with the same name and code, same way they do it for cracked games.
You could, and unless you're trying to profit off it the original devs likely won't care.
And also [bank on] pirates to not outright rip them off, which seems to be working for some reason...
They already publish it under GPLv3, they want it to be free (as in freedom) software.
I don't care about any security concerns. If someone does not want to build it themselves or download from a third party they can buy it for their convenience. Or they can take the risk or find another way to install it.
For example I looked up whether Strawberry is on Winget, the Microsoft package manager for Windows. And look at that, it's completely free to download by the original developer [1]. @upstroke4448@lemmy.dbzer0.com
They only ask users who are too lazy and want to download through the Microsoft store for payment. I get why you don't like there being no binaries on their site by them, but they do provide free ways to install it. They just don't tell you about it.
[1] https://winget.run/pkg/StrawberryMusicPlayer/Strawberry
Edit: For anyone who does not want to click the link:
winget install -e --id StrawberryMusicPlayer.Strawberryinstalls Strawberry on any Windows computer. Officially.I got a "no package found matching input criteria" using this method.
It also appears to only offer version 1.0.15 whereas the newest version is 1.2.10
If I'm not mistaken, 1.0.15 was the last windows / Mac version released before the dev paywalled them.
I don't think that's true, correct me if I am wrong though. There are still other requirements you have to follow for the GPL3 license if you wanted to distribute it legally.
GPLv3 is a copy left license. If you legally acquire the source code (it's public already, so anyone does), GPLv3 does not put any restrictions on you when it comes to building, selling, distributing, modifying the code.
I pointed out the name because trademark law is seperate.
And yes, GPLv3 has some requirements like attribution (mention the original developer somewhere), and you have to point out where to get the source code (already public in this case). Also, if you make any changes to the source code you must provide those changes to anyone you distribute too under the same license.
These restrictions apply to eg. UNIT3D too. Some (most) torrent trackers seem to violate the requirement to provide their changes to their users and want to keep them private. But I never asked them whether they'd provide me their source.
Otherwise GPLv3 does not pose much restrictions on it's users, especially not on distribution.
we also have to pay for a Apple developer account for signed macOS releases
Sounds like you should blame Apple, not the dev.
They also don't have to sign it.
Maybe I've just used MacOS so long that I'm out of touch, but installing unsigned applications is effectively a mild annoyance.
Great point.
Now, are they using this as an excuse to not provide a Windows version?
Not specifically. It sounds like they're not really interested in maintaining a Windows version, so for that they charge. Generally I think people should be compensated for their labor, even though that might be an unpopular opinion in this community.
So, why even mention apple if you're going to justify the developer's actions anyways?
I'm going to go back to blaming the devs now. Nice try defending the people taking money from you. They're banking on your low standards.
They’re banking on your low standards.
Yeah this is unfortunately common, and many people are quick to defend developers like that making excuses.