4.8
 

FYI -- There's now LimeWire 4.8. We'll report the details of the change shortly, but in the meantime, you should upgrade.

???
One major upgrade per month? Major security update? At the rythm open source contributers send patches, you'll need someone specialize at merging them like Linus Torvalds ;)

Will we see 6.0 this year? :p

The tip-off that a new version is running seems to be in the bug reports.

Sure enough, it was on the pro beta page again :)

(but no matter how I try to force refresh the regular Pro page, it's still at 4.6.0 with no beta link :confused: )

uploads (especially swarmed) are still a problem: I think it's time to check with the ISP again. grrrr

every d/l sote seems to dleiver 4.8 instead of 4.6 as advertised. ordinarily good, except that 4.8 crashes for me (WInXP). Where can I get an older (stabler?) verison?

ask

OK. aftre getting an exception error repeatedly with both basic and pro 4.8 (and doing all the right things, new JRE, reboot, etc.) I was still geting exception error. then I read abunch o' forums, did nothing and now, voila, it works. 10 time is a charm.

ASK

Greetings all you big beautiful LimeWire users.

Well I've been running LW Pro 4.8.0 for appx. 3.5 hours now.

With the exception of the 1st 2 starts it has been behaving.

Both the 1st and 2nd time I started it appeared to start okay, but when I did a search. I immediately got an exception error.

You have the bug reports.

I closed LImeWire, and checked to make sure it wasn't running in the background. I have a Radeon 300 video card, which has VGA, DVI, and TV outputs. I normally have VGA and TV out enabled at all times. I disabled TV out. Restarted LimeWire did a search, voila no more exception error. Re-enabled TV out while LimeWire was running, still no problems searching. Shut down LW 5 times and restarted still no exception errors, when doing searches.

All other areas of operations seem normal. d/l, u/l, connection status.

version on site
 

although the website still indicates it is version 4.6.0, in fact you'll download version 4.8.0 of LimeWire Basic from
CNET.

The "http://www.limewire.org/scripts/scripts.js" script on the limewire website should be updated to reflect the change...

(Also, may be, the description on CNET Download.com, may be this may take longer time to be online)

What's new in 4.8?

What happened to 4.7?

Let's release LimeWire 5.0 tomorrow!

about Limewire version numbers
 

> What happened to 4.7?

Answer: There was no intermediate beta version.

As now Limewire minor version numers use an even number for releases (published on the main download page), and an odd number for betas, the minor version jumped from 4.6.x to 4.8.x.

The third subversion number is used for minor updates that may include some fixes, or some reviewed translations, but no additional feature.

After version 4.8.x, Limewire may still publish several 4.8.x minor updates, or may now prepare a future version 5.0.x within several betas 4.9.x...

Beta versions are necessary sometimes to test some new features, that may, or may not be part of the next release, depending on test results. They are needed because Limewire can't be immediately sure that these features will not cause more problems than they will solve them. They are also needed because some internal tuning parameters are still unspecified, and their value can't be tweaked by testing it on a too limited number of client configurations. Finally, these betas may receive negative opinions from users, for example a major change in the user interface. Betas are in fact calls for comments and review by users.

Downloading v4.8
 

On the Pro webpage it lists v4.6, is it fact v4.8?
Thanks.

Yes (still not updated).

has anyone had any luck searching for CC licensed material?

Searching by the CC license only as an Audio search returned no results

I even tried finding the magnetmix listed David Byrne My Fair Lady (I'm sharing it and it shows 4 locations).

just curious. I know it's still a very new feature.

Is it illegal to share the songs? (copy righted). I know it's illegal to download songs, but to share them? And how do you put them up for sharing?

[thought I'd answered this already. must have missed clicking the submit button]

Yes, it's legal to download the magnetmix material http://www.magnetmix.com/faq.shtml

Although all their files don't show a CC license in LW (control-click/right-click the Library's column header to turn on the license column), the David Byne song does have the new embedded license. Control-click the filename in the Library to view the license.

btw--check out their video entries. "The Share" episdoes are quite entertaining, and account for most of my uploads the last few days.

While there are still some controversy about the CreativeCommons and OSI-approved evolving policy (that will include some licences that are not fully open-source), this is a necessary evolution, because there are too many attacks now against the free licensing systems where the GPL licence has paved the way.
Now with the EU about to authorize patents on softwares, with the intent to create an international policy for protecting LOTS of contents, even those created based on public finances and resources and initially made to be freely available for all as a common benefit for the world, it's high time now to protect the users rights by clearly labelling those contents that are freely exchangeable, including derivative (something that has become more and more weak, when on the opposite the supporters of intellectual property rights are pushiong towards more control on the access right to knowledge).
I like it, and I strongly support such initiative to protect common public free assets for all, and keep equal access to intellectual productions and medias.
I expect that the CreativeCommons initiative, along with OSI will now have great support, to protect our commons, and that more and more free medias will now be explicitly labelled by such explicit licence that keeps our common rights.

If only there was a concensus about the licencing system to use between all supporters of free licences... CC should interest all software developers and free media creators, so that no other commercial company will take a patent or severely limitating restrictions about the right to use, share, and derive free productions.

(I see today too many abusive restrictions on some commercial forums, where those hosting companies take their full rights on our own speech online, restricting us to reuse our own common creations and discussions to create derivatives; I accept the fact that the hosting company will get an unlimited free licence for the content they host without payments, but I refuse the fact that this hosting company will now forbid us to create derivatives, as if it had created the content that made their success and created by their visitors and contributors. Yahoo! Groups is on the border edge where we still keep our own rights, but other places are really abusing).

I am very pessimistic about the current evolution of free speech, which I consider is a constitutional right in all democracies. Some future day, you won't be able to create photographs of your last holiday trip and share them with friends or your family, or keep them for years for your children; or you won't have the right to redistribute your discussions by phone using any form like tape-recording, because the media will be protected with limitating licences, that you'll have to pay to keep it.

We have the right to keep and share our own memories, and knowledge. It's fundamental for the preservation of our own history, and the transmission of culture, and not acting now will mean that in some future, knowledge will be kept in some giant database with expensive access rights; so people will be placed in two categories: a minor one with enough resources to get this right, and a majority left without any decent access to culture, education, science.

This evolution has already started and created a huge gap between advanced societies and poor countries, notably in Africa where its own cultural heritage is now being preserved by commercial museums or libraries in western countries that are the only one to have enough resources to preserve them.

Conclusion: to keep the freedom of speech, we must take now the same arms used by the defendants of restrictive commercial licences and patents, and make sure this system will have at least the same protection by laws: it's no more enough to contribute freely in some free place, because these places are pillaged everyday; we need to label and protect all free content we create, or contribute within places that have clearly made public that they will protect the user rights!

The time of "public domain" contents is over...

Noooooo!

We need to insist that unless clearly stated . . . publicly available content should follow general academic plagiarism rules: credit the source and give the reference! Let's not allow the assumption that it's not free unless expliciitly stated.

Already there are attempts to restrict photos taken of public spaces http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/12/179212

Sadly our Canadian goverment is also considering a proposal that could really make teacher's use of the internet difficult

See the little "and" clause in http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/Doc...herirp01-e.pdf (page 33) that is so alarming in Recommendation 5Currently if anyone captures the light from my house with a camera, that's fair. Why should I "own" the light? Bah! Stupid question . . . businesses would love to charge me for the air I breathe, I know :(

Anyway--we really do need to insist that material not clearly restricted is PUBLIC and free by default.

For the future--at least LW could "credit the source" by pasting the IP('s) of the souce of any file into the info fields.

The CC is indeed controversial, because it reinforces the new idea that a file is guilty unless proven innocent.

Not following directly on from the discussion but some points Stief made: in our country you're innocent until proven guilty which I believe is the opposite to USA (& apparently Canada.)
We cannot legally copy material from websites unless we have the permission of the said owners of the site/designer. Whereas it is legal in USA. huh!? I'm not aware of any copyright restrictions re: photos of public places (or private for that matter.) However there are other rules that apply such as trespass, harrassment, etc.

How this applies to p2p or to LW I'm not sure! lol! Sorry! p2p has not been a big subject here other than some university idiots & an idiot in Sydney who copped it for Kazaa & breach of ... but them's the exceptions who added that one too many gold cards to their stack before it came tumblin' ...

I don't know the complete stories so I'm just making some very small points for locals. We hope the EU doesn't step foot here! They need to go thru quarantine 1st; we don't need their rabies or mad cow, etc. http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoti...crazy/1092.gif http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoti...crazy/1088.gif