Slashdot Log In
AOL Pulls Nullsoft's WASTE
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat May 31, 2003 08:05 AM
from the right-hand-meet-left-hand dept.
from the right-hand-meet-left-hand dept.
dmehus writes "America Online, parent company of Nullsoft, has pulled what it views as a controversial project called WASTE from Nullsoft's servers. This is not the only time it has stepped in to Nullsoft's doings. It had quickly taken down Gnutella, developed by Nullsoft co-founder Justin Frankel, and shut down an MP3 search engine. CNET's News.com has more details." For those not keeping track, WASTE was only recently released.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
AOL Pulls Nullsoft's WASTE
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 637 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:5, Informative)
(http://actsofvolition.com)
They can't. Dave Winer has posted the source [userland.com].
I've got a copy of the install if someone wants to host it.
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:5, Insightful)
- They can't. Dave Winer has posted the source.
They Can. Read what they posted in its place. They say it wasn't released legally. If it wasn't released by anyone with the right to the code, it isn't under the GPL, just as an employee at MicroSoft couldn't release Windows under the GPL.
On another note, although I usually don't think companies are this Machiavellian, does anyone else see this possibility:
AOL faked an illegal release so that tons of people would have copied of illegal source code. Then, if a similar competing Open-Source project is created they can easily claim it used their code and wasn't actually developed independently. After all, they could definitely say that the authors of the other project could have easily stolen their source code. I'd only suspect something like this because WASTE actually isn't that complex of a program. It's not nothing, but its definitely something the community could put out in a month if some people tried.
However, I suspect it is more likely this was just a mistake, or Nullsoft not checking with the high-ups.
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what AOL is saying. And they're almost certainly right, from what I can tell.
"GPL" is not a synonym for "I can do whatever I want."
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 28 2002, @09:21AM)
imagine if some 3rd party came down on a seperate department (and previously unaware of this project) AOL for WASTE, maybe AOL's employees HAD discussed the matter with the people in their immediate sphere of relevance... all was well. teh decision to publish (and enter into the GPL license with the public) -- they cannot simply say "oh, we were just kidding". becasuse we, the public, had every reason to believe that the Nullsoft fellows had the authority (as they must have, in order to publish).
remember, IMNALBPOO/.
except that they did have the rights (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.pfstuff.com/)
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday May 13 2007, @03:09PM)
They'd have difficulty pulling that one off; as their employer, AOL is subject to vicarious liability - within certain limits, it doesn't matter whether it was authorized or not, AOL are still stuck with it. So, if (for example) a Microsoft guy gives me a free copy of Visual Studio, they can't come after me for license fees later. IIRC, the limit is whether or not it was "reasonable" (to the court) for that employee to be doing so: a PR guy handing out free samples is OK, claiming to give me authorization to post it on Usenet is not ;-)
In this case, I'm pretty sure any court would uphold the Nullsoft action: assuming it wasn't a case of their website being cracked, the software was developed and released in the usual way, as they've released other programs in the past. AOL would have great difficulty getting past that. (Of course, they're free to delete the files from their own website - they just can't retract the GPLed copies already out there...)
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:5, Informative)
The law in question deals with both apparent authority and inherent authority. The basic idea of apparent authority is that if the principal "cloaks" the agent with apparent authority to enter into a contract, even if he doesn't give the agent actual authority, then the principal will be liable for contracts entered into by the agent.
Inherent authority by contrast allows an agent to cloak himself in a principal's authority and to enter the principal into a binding contract.
To quote Learned Hand's opinion in Kidd v. Thomas A. Edison, Inc, 1917:
"The very purpose of delegated authority is to avoid constant recourse by third persons to the principal, which would be the consequence of denying the agent any latitude beyond his exact instructions. Once a third party has assured himself widely of the character of the agent's mandate, the very purpose of the relation demands the possibility of the principal's being bound through the agent's minor deviations."
(I am quoting from my friend's e-mail, not the actual opinion.)
So on this basis it would seem that software posted to the company website for download under a GPL would seem to bind the principal.
On the other hand, AOL did act very quickly to take the software off of the website. A court might feel that this was sufficient to nullify the rights granted under the GPL to those who downloaded the software. Or a court might feel that it was AOL's internal responsibility to assure proper security procedures to prevent unwanted posting of software under GPL terms, and that the rights granted under the GPL to recipients cannot be revoked.
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:4, Insightful)
DANGER: Landmark test case lawsuit ahead...
If AOL wins: The GPL suddenly becomes revokable after the fact... which could help SCO in their profit-by-lawsuit business plan, and will likely prompt somebody into trying a GPL-and-run scam.
If AOL loses: They're now stuck with it... they just wrote and released a P2P client. Their only hope will be to try to push Nullsoft far enough away so the multibillion dollar Napster-style lawsuits only bankrupt Nullsoft and not the AOL/TW mothership. If that doesn't work, it's a horrible death for a megacompany.
Wow... high stakes here... who thought a simple piece of software could cause so much trouble?
Re:GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't speak for elsewhere, but it turns out under Australian law that even if I release something under the GPL, I might be able to "take it back." It has something to do with the fact that the law makes it extremely difficult to give something away - that's the reason that if, for instance, I want to give someone a house, I can't "give" it to them, I have to "sell" it to them for $1.
A lawyer called Jeremy Malcolm gave a rather good talk on this at Linux.conf.au 2003 [linux.org.au] (there should be links to his slides and audio of the talk itself on the site, if anyone's interested).
Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.blixel.com/)
Scratch that. I now have a mirror of the site [freedomware.org].
Don't worry, you can still get a copy of it (Score:5, Funny)
(http://fredrikj.net/)
Re:waste copy (Score:5, Informative)
WASTE (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday November 30 2004, @06:34PM)
Re:haaaaaa told you SO !! (Score:5, Insightful)
And that remains absolutely correct. Of course AOL can pull the plug, but the damage has been done, in a manner of speaking. That said, AOL pulling the plug might mean there is no or hardly any support (user or developer) for WASTE now, so people will have to figure it out themselves. That might hinder the development a bit. Still, if there is demand for an app like WASTE - and I'm not sure there is - people will figure out just fine.
Duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Mirrored (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole "unauthorized" release thing is interesting, though. I'd say that they have to prove that it wasn't an official release as it certainly looked like one. But what if somebody infiltrates Microsoft and puts sections of the Windows source on the web site under the GPL?
Re:Mirrored (Score:5, Interesting)
If someone would actually download the sources and take the license seriously, he'd definitely have to stop working with them as soon as he is told.I'm not sure whether there would be any further ramifications - I'd assume no, at least not as long as the person who downloads the source is doing so in good faith, that is he really is dumb enough to believe Microsoft released the Windows source under the terms of the GPL.
As for this situation, it's similar, but not the same: AOL, and not Nullsoft, probably owns the rights to WASTE, and so only AOL can release the software under the GPL. However, as a part of AOL, maybe Nullsoft also has the privilege to do so, especially in this case of software they programmed themselves. That'd mean they abused that privilege, and might lead to some kind of trouble for Nullsoft, but in that case the GPL would still hold. On the other hand, maybe the situation is effectively the same as the one with MS, described above, which would mean that Nullsoft had no right to grant any licenses, and as such whoever downloaded WASTE would in fact be required to delete the software.
Re:Mirrored (Score:5, Insightful)
If AOL was really scared of Nullsoft making unauthorized releases, they could have required that Nullsoft not have a website under their direct control, and that they'd have to send all web content to the people who run www.aol.com who would of course send the content to headquarters for approval before putting it up. The fact that such a process doesn't exist tends to indicate that somebody at Nullsoft has the authority to post software.
Wait a minute...they can't do that! (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://scottgant.blogspot.com/)
It was released under the GPL, it's out there...the GPL is out there...they can't all of a sudden say "Sorry, we changed our minds".
Will this be a landmark case that tests the GPL now? I wonder...
Re:Wait a minute...they can't do that! (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.samsimpson.com/)
Re:Wait a minute...they can't do that! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.samsimpson.com/)
Yep, certainly was. I guess the AOL lawyers have finally found a strategy to try and put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course, the following disagree ;)
http://www.sifnt.net/waste.zip
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadi
http://www.dhorrocks2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/w
http://slackerbitch.free.fr/waste/waste-source.
http://edwards.servehttp.com:969/waste/
http://scriptingnews.userland.com/2003/05/30#Wh
http://www.dhorrocks2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://www.virtuelvis.com/temp/waste-source.tar
http://www.blibbleblobble.co.uk/
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/home/wa
http://www.cleanstick.org/jon/junk/waste-source
And add to that my mirror http://www.samsimpson.com/waste-source.tar.gz [samsimpson.com]
only 2 possibilities (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.milksucks.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15 2003, @12:30PM)
2. AOL don't own the copyright and as such the code is, and always will be , subject to the GPL.
Re:only 2 possibilities (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong, Nullsoft are the copyright holders, or were at the time of the release. Nullsoft is owned by AOL, but is nonetheless a separate legal entity.
It all comes down to whether Justin had the right to release the code under the GPL, and from the sounds of things, he does. We shall see.
WASTE - main.cpp (Windows main entry point and a lot of code
Copyright (C) 2003 Nullsoft, Inc.
WASTE is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
WASTE is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with WASTE; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
*/
Re:only 2 possibilities (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I know, in the absence of overriding contracts regarding copyright holdings of Nullsoft, Inc. that automatically assign such copyrights to AOLTW and prohibit sale or trade of rights in those copyrighted materials without explicit authorization of AOLTW, I believe Nullsoft management would have acted as legal agents of Nullsoft Inc. with respect to copyrighted materials when they posted them on the Nullsoft web site with license and copyright notices attached. If AOL failed to put greater contractual and procedural controls in place, that's their problem, and they could take it up in court with the individual managers or corporate personage of Nullsoft, Inc.
Then again, after the Gnutella fiasco, if AOLTW _didn't_ have explicit contracts in place giving them assignment and control of all copyrighted Nullsoft works, they are idiots.
Another possible scenario: (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I humbly suggest possibility #3...
3. AOL owns the copyright, and is trying to test whether they can "retract" a decision to release code under the GPL.
This is actually a critical point... If AOL can "retract" this decision, what stops them from "taking back" Mozilla? What keeps SAP from "taking back" SAPdb? Many open-source projects get code from, or are even started thanks to the largesse of, large corporate interests.
If they can establish in court that it is okay for AOL to "retract" an officially GPL'ed release, how long before a major player starts buying companies that have "right of retraction" on their open source competitors and exercising those rights?
Eric Rudolph sez (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 10 2004, @11:39PM)
Re:Wait a minute...they can't do that! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Even if the code was posted without permission, that statement by Nullsoft is not valid.
The internet is a global medium. Anyone who downloaded the code is subject to their local laws. There are quite a few countries where the people who downloaded the code are completely free to keep, use, and distribute that code in any way they see fit - no matter what the circumstances.
Making legal threats telling people what they "must" do to a global audience is just stupid.
-
Difficult Question (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @04:03AM)
This was only to be expected (Score:5, Informative)
(http://virtuelvis.com/ | Last Journal: Monday December 13 2004, @03:20PM)
But, seeing as it's GPLed:
Waste-source [virtuelvis.com]
Please, mirror the file instead of using this as sole source. I have no opportunity to set up BitTorrent here, and I have maximum transfer per month constraints. I will pull the file after 1GB is transfered.
Re:This was only to be expected (Score:5, Informative)
Okay [blibbleblobble.co.uk]
Do we have agreement on what the MD5 should look like for these files, before everyone starts hosting any file they find with a "waste.zip" filename?
md5sum (Was Re:This was only to be expected) (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.ioerror.us/ | Last Journal: Sunday May 22 2005, @06:28AM)
PULLED (Score:5, Informative)
(http://virtuelvis.com/ | Last Journal: Monday December 13 2004, @03:20PM)
The file is now gone. Please mod this up so my server survives.
Use Dave Winers offer to download instead, or one of the other sources: waste.zip [harvard.edu]
Re:PULLED (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.footballpredictions.net/)
Please mod this up so my server survives.
Yeah, and you'd better mod this post up as well or I'll...er...kill a kitten.
Does GPL apply? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.zombo.com/)
Are there any precedents for this type of thing?
Re:Does GPL apply? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://albanach.com/)
Just because their parent company doesn't like that choice, it can't be undone. If AOL have a problem with nullsoft's choice of license, that's an internal matter for the two compaines to resolve.
The only way I can see things being different would be if under contract terms between the two companies AOL had to aprove each piece of software produced by their subsidiary. Then they might argue that the code wasn't nullsoft's to release or give any license to. In much the same way as if someone here found the code to Microsoft Office, they can't just slap the GPL at the top and release it to the world.
Where's the money? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://insidewoodland.com/)
A- Doesn't provide them with a revenue stream.
B- Could bring on lawsuits
C- Competes with their other products.
AOL is a huge company, with lots of money. They could get sued for *real* money, not just Napster money. Also, the fact that they own a lot of media might cause them problems.
We are on the cusp of a new era of 'authorized' file downloads (iTunes). Finally big business is learning how to make money from music on the web, and letting another free service rear it's free little head isn't part of their plans.
It seems like Nullsoft is forgetting who butters its bread.
Re:Contracts? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.mcwalter.org/)
Very possibly ('though probably four or five years, not a decade) - buyout contracts often do, to prevent the "human capital" from taking their stock and running. The carrot to folks is that they get lots of new options, which vest annually so long as they remain.
Once the deal is signed, both sides often try their best to wiggle out. The stock options aren't paid out if the employee quits early, so the company tries to get the employee to quit. CEOs become directors of empty divisions with no staff and no mission, stuff like that. The company can't be _too_ blantant about it (i.e. make the CEO unblock toilets all day) as that's constructive dismissal, in which case the employee can leave with the stock (after lots of legal squabbling, of course). Equally, mr small-company-entrepreneur type wants to get the stock and bug out (either to his next startup or to Hawaii) and doesn't want to be a drone for the next half decade. So he _tries_ to get constructively dismissed. Fired for gross misconduct (not showing up, punching out his boss, etc.) won't work - so he has a bad attitude, doesn't bathe, says dumb things to the media, produces product that makes his employer uncomfortable, founds the aryian-spaceship-league, whatever. So a war of attrition is fought.
Naturally, I don't know the terms of the nullsoft acquisition, but it may be this is Frankel's (et al) idea (or at least in his mind). I figured this was the case when Gnutella came out (AOL were _never_ going to be happy with that) and WASTE is even more AOL-unfriendly (heck, it's got a chat client - who needs AIM?).
Someone should write a book about the constructive dismissal stories that fill Silicon Valley - Sculley sending Jobs to his own office building to do nothing (Jobs cracked rather quickly). I heard of some guy coming to work dressed in a full frogman suit (including flippers and mask) and walking down in the corridor when customers were around - company dress code said "no shorts, wear shoes" - if they'd changed it to read "no bodyglove swimming attire" just for him, then that would have been the constructive dismissal he sought.
Re:Contracts? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was "No Jeans"
So I looked up Jeans and found "made from denim", looked up denim "100% cotton twill"
I found a blend of 70% cotton and 30% - so not Jeans.
Then was called for that. Pointed out that legal base. They then tried:
Lapped Seams -- showed 2 people in the room wore pants for that type.
Cotton Twill - showed them cords in the room.
"rivets" -- showed 2 more that had those.
"color and look" -- pointed out the Head of HR a skirt on that was all of that -- a converted blue jeans pants.
I got suppended for "bad attitude" without pay for the weekend. It was late Friday when it happend, I shouldn't have to work the weekend, anyway. I could not come into work, had to take the weekend off. And this was during a year I put in 3000+ hours of work. Documented! and got a great bonus at the end of year.
So the rule became: "No looking Jean pants of the colors blue, white or red."
I had Black Jeans
I did point out the head of HR would have to give up wearing the fadded Jeans (blue w/ white patches) - he smiled and said "Yes".
Mirrors! (Score:5, Informative)
http://forums.win
http://www.dhorrocks2003.pwp.blueyonder.co
http://slackerbitch.free.fr/waste/wa
What a Waste.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not the type of fight you can win from within. It's long past time that they free themselves from AOL.
Step 1: Write great software
Step 2: Make sure the IP for that software belongs to a meglomaniacal corporate structure
Step 3: Disappointment, Rinse, Repeat
To everyone posting the source code (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:To everyone posting the source code (Score:4, Interesting)
Or to use your example if the thief exchanges the stolen money for goods and services must the second innocent party incur the damages and repay the original injured party? Or is the thief solely responsible for remuneration?
Re:To everyone posting the source code (Score:4, Interesting)
Suppose the car was probably bought under certain terms, maybe a free service checkup every 3 months. Would the customer still have the right to the full terms of the contract he signed with the garage? I'm inclined to think so...
But if that is the case than people that downloaded waste from the original Nullsoft website still have the right to the contract they "signed" (i.e. they read and undertood the accompanying licence). So those people have certain rights with respect to the waste source code they downloaded. More specifically, they downloaded it under the GPL. So those people still have both the rights and duties that come with the GPL with respect to waste.
No one knew or had any reason to suspect that the person distributing waste was not authorized to do so. So everybody that downloaded waste from the nullsoft website has legally obtained Waste under the GPL. And may legally redistribute the waste program or any derived works as long as they include the source code in their distribution.
This is just a thought experiment though, I have no idea how this works in real life. I know I just thought that giving us Waste was a cool action by Nullsoft and I never suspected otherwise. (this was released the same day RTCW Enemy Territory was given away for free so perhaps I wasjust getting used to companies giving cool stuff away for free)
Mirrors of source and binaries (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.dhorrocks2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ [blueyonder.co.uk]
http://slackerbitch.free.fr/waste/ [slackerbitch.free.fr]
Re:WHAT DOES IT DO? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://ldopa.net/)
It's code that gets itself mirrored on lots and lots of web servers.
~jeff
isn't life funny? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.susheeldaswani.com/)
mirror of the source (Score:5, Informative)
My mirror (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.cleanstick.org/jon/)
--Jon
AOL may very well pull the source.. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://lindkvis.blogspot.com/)
What matters is WHO released it under the GPL. If the ones that released it had no legal rights to do what they did, then Waste is illegal, and redistributing it is illegal.
Why? Because only the copyright holder can release software like this. Otherwise the license is void, and you are all doing something illegal by distributing the source.
The above is pretty much clear, but lawyers might want to answer the question of wether the people that released the software did in fact have the rights to do something like this. If a lowly employee releases software, my guess is that he does not have the rights to do so. Otherwise any employee of Microsoft would have the right to release Windows under the GPL..
Before distributing Waste, you should be pretty sure that it was in fact a release warranted by Nullsoft executives, otherwise it may be illegal.
It may be that the release was warranted by someone with the proper authority, but if AOL/Nullsoft states otherwise, this might be decided by trial.
Re:AOL may very well pull the source.. (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.randombit.net/)
Absolutely true. But, from my brief glance at the source, it looks like all of the files have GPL notices at the top. Either the unauthorized person was very thorough, or this really was supposed to be GPLed - maybe not released right now, but at some point. But that is hardly proof, and while they cannot revoke the GPL, it's hard to prove either way, unless they name the person who supposedly uploaded it without authorization, and file a $$$ lawsuit against him for IP loss.
Either way, WASTE is at this point not really safe for use. For examples, it uses PCBC encryption (broken), MD5 for authentication (!!!), RSAref (slow + unmaintained + bad RNG), and on Windows it doesn't seem to be seeding the RNG with much of anything (on Unix it reads
Already on sourceforge. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.cleanstick.org/jon/)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/waste/
Now go and help out! I want a cleanly building Linux port.
--Jon
Grep says... (Score:3, Interesting)
28 56 435
daniel@starship:/src/waste$ grep "under the terms of the GNU General Public License" *cpp -r | wc
28 392 2395
Translation to English: each cpp file has a GPL license declaration in it.
MS Ploy? (Score:3, Interesting)
"See, look. The GPL IS EVIL. It just takes one employee with web access to turnover your IP. You better look into our new products that prevent employees from having such freedom . .
I mean, how good could WASTE be? Let's not be TOO eager to help the bad guys here and stick to untainted code, OK?
MD5 Sums..... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.slashdot.org/~teddyr | Last Journal: Wednesday February 04 2004, @07:35PM)
e3609e352afba37683c47ce60f9086bb waste-setup.exe
5645d0378b5bca6d2cf337686dca9a4d waste-source.tar.gz
554cfa7350333aa4e6eb3b6e2420
Re:MD5 Sums..... and now for the rest... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.slashdot.org/~teddyr | Last Journal: Wednesday February 04 2004, @07:35PM)
Magnet links:
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:RNADB73OZV4J56PYURKSJBO
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:SNMD7MSXP3QI6MY5IOF4DKU
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:M6HCJRTWID2MLW2EOHL2GUK
Ed2k links:
ed2k://|file|waste-source.zip|261175|d9eff5442b
ed2k://|file|waste-source.tar.gz|214730|f5d0dbd
ed2k://|file|waste-setup.exe|173589|5f2e6a0160b
My suspicions (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.fscked.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Saturday May 03 2003, @11:59AM)
Seems to me that as it was on Nullsoft's server, it was probably intended -- at the time at least -- as an official release. I suspect the Nullsoft boys wrote it to be released and went ahead and did it.
Secondly, as various other things on the Nullsoft site are under weird and wonderful open-source redistribution-allowed licences, I reckon they are probably allowed to determine their own licences under their contract with TW.
So I suspect the GPL licence on the original source is legit. Otherwise, we have to assume they haven't been allowed to open source their other bits of software and TW have been turning a blind eye; TW don't seem like the type to turn a blind eye to anything to me.
Now, this is what I find interested: I couldn't find any other GPL software on the site, just stuff under some custom-written clickthrough redistribution allowed licences. Could it be that Frankel came up with this while messing around, decided to release it knowing it would probably get pulled, and put it under the GPL on purpose? Knowing that it would get mirrored to Hades if TW did pull it?
I'm just speculating, of course, but it seems to me that's the likely way events occured. We'll be able to tell in the next few weeks by the vigour TW employs in asking people to stop hosting mirrors, I suppose.
Can AOL un-ring the bell? (Score:5, Interesting)
What a mess here... something that's really lacking from the new page is anything that says just how "unauthorized software" appeared on the nullsoft.com site.
- If they're claiming that they were hacked, this would have to go down as the hack of the century... I doubt that happened.
- If they're claiming an employee acted outside of their authority, aren't they responsible for restraining that employee's actions so they don't become visible to the public?
- If AOL's trying to overrule a decsion made by their Nullsoft division after learning about it, isn't that too little too late?
This has got to be one of the most interesting test cases of how the GPL works ever.
You can't sell the Brooklyn Bridge (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://members.xoom.com/ikekrull/)
You can't take, for example, Microsoft sourcecode from the WinCE SDK, slap a GPL license on it and claim it is now covered by the GPL.
If, however, the WinCE division at MS, who presumably has full responsibility and authority to handle code releases put the WinCE code under the GPL and released it, in good faith, then that would be binding.
i.e. if the city of New York sells the Brooklyn Bridge for $1 in a legal transaction, then the new owner owns that bridge, regardless of the seemingly low price.
If it was cool to buy hundreds of thousands of acres of land off the indigenous peoples of america for some muskets and smallpox-infected blankets, this is cool too.
However, the code has been released, so while you could not distribute the code as-is, there is nothing to prevent anyone studying the code and and releasing a compatible implementation, unless it infringes copyright (contains cut n pasted sections) or patents (not sure whether P2P patents exist or who owns them). You are not doing anything illegal if you use an MP3 (regardless of its origin) of a pop song to figure out how to make a pop song of your own. The person who sold/gave you the MP3 might have a problem however, and the owner of the copyright that covers the MP3 could demand you destroy/return it upon discovery of it's improper distribution to you.
This would have to be ordered by a court to be legally enforceable, but you may be guilty of a crime by delaying the destruction/return if you do this in bad faith. i.e you know the copyright they hold is valid, yet you ignore their reasonable and legal request for its destruction/return.
AOL could, assuming their claims that Nullsoft were not authorised to release the code under GPL are true, sue anyone they can prove is distributing the code for copyright infringement.
However, if such a lawsuit was pressed, you could request that AOL prove that Nullsoft were not authorised to release software that carried AOL-owned copyright, or that they prove that Nullsoft were acting in bad faith - that is they knew the licensing terms of the software in question would violate the law or go against AOL's wishes.
If they cannot prove this, then I would guess the GPL stands, and tough cookies AOL.
But certainly the mere presence of a GPL notice does not convey legitimacy to the GPL license terms.
So, what it really comes down to is 'do you trust AOL to tell you the truth that this code was released improperly'.
If you can convince a court that you were honestly unable to determine the legitimacy of their demands (not sure you could use this as a defense against AOL, it would be watertight against SCO), then you are also OK for keeping and distributing this code despite requests from them to remove it.
After all, they can lie to you about this and not run any significant risk because of the size of their bank account, yet you have no way to verify the authenticity of their claim without a court order for them to unseal the terms of their contracts with Nullsoft, or their sworn statement in court of law.
How can we know that AOL is not lying about the fact they did legitimately GPL this software, and since there is no law against making false claims outside the realm of contract or consumer law, it seems a pretty murky area. Its not like AOL has any disincentive for lying about this.
I can stand up and say 'I am the Pope of Hudson County! Bow before my lily white ass', but failing to bow is not a crime, much to my chagrin.
It is an interesting position, and bears remarkable similarity to the whole SCO debacle.
The Crying of Lot 49 (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.swampgas.com/)
We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
From The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon, a covert postal service (my first domain was 'waste.com', so named for the same reasons)
Re:The Crying of Lot 49 (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
What this looks like... (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically, I don't think this was a case of AOL being worried about piracy, this was a case of AOL wanting to protect their company secret. You really can't blame them either way, but regardless, it's too late. WASTE will continue to be developed just like Gnutella was, and Open Source developers will probably try and reverse engineer it and write their own version just to be safe and in the clear with respect to copyrights. But this is just speculation, I might be wrong.
How much 'due dilligence' does a OSS project need? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Anything that "is" Waste or a derivate of Waste probably recieves a nastygram and that'll be the end of it. But what about this:
If someone picks up this code, without knowing anything about this controversy, sees the GPL and finds out that this is useful for any other project, say Gaim or Miranda or some other IM-client (or any other program for that matter) and copy-pastes away (including copyright headers, all fully legal if the licence is legal). What happens then? Does that OSS project suddenly become "poisoned"?
Also, if AOL/TW later finds out "hey, they used our code in project X", who gets the blame? Noone to blame really, unless they want to claim that you need to check with every copyright holder that they really *have* released it under the GPL.
Oh well. Someho an encrypted IM didn't sound that "advanced" to me anyway, not going to miss it...
Kjella
AOL is crazy...like a fox. (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect they planned this all along. Suppose the RIAA/MPAA decide to sue AOL for producing this code...AOL's lawyers stand in front of the judge and say "Look! it was an illegal release! It was just an internal research project, and research is legal, isn't it? Hell, we pulled it off the net as soon as we found out! The employee has been scolded mercilessly!"
Early analysis of Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.burningman.com/)
My WASTE Site with all the INFO (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.binnews.com/)
enjoy. there is also a forum for waste on the site.
I had a (legit) use for WASTE (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.econotarian.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 18 2004, @02:14PM)
Oh well...
Attack on GPL type licenses? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
"See, you cant trust what you get, just beacuse it says its free, you may still be libel.. buy our software"
Regardless of how it turns out, it gets air-play, and it influences public opinion, and the people are making the decisions..
But that would be sinister, and noone would do that
Re:WASTE... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.blixel.com/)
Myself and a friend of mine are running WASTE under Windows. Here's what I've learned so far:
In order to establish a connection with a 3rd person (or 4th, 5th, 6th and so on), the 3rd person only has to have the Public Key of 1 other person on the network. The other people's Public Keys will be automatically distributed to the 3rd person once they've established their first connection. (i.e. Jon and Jane have a connection established. Nick comes along and exchanges Public Keys with Jon. Because Jon and Jane already know each other's Public Keys, Nick automatically gets Jane's Public Key through Jon, and Jane automatically gets Nick's Public Key through Jon.)
(My findings could be wrong. This is just what I have observed to be the case with my own tinkering.)
An analogy for Public/Private keys as described by Jellybob [slashdot.org]. My Public Key is like the key to my house. I don't give it to just anyone, I give it only to people I trust, because I have to trust anyone who has that key with the contents of my house. I have to trust they won't "break" in, and I have to trust they won't give it out.
My Private Key is like the lock itself. If I decide I don't want anyone to have access to my house any more, I change the lock (the private key). Now everyone who has the old key to my house can no longer get in.
The funny thing is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Scarcity is an amazing thing - by trying to put a lid on this, they're actually creating a huge demand for this program. I can't wait to try it out.
CYA (Score:3, Insightful)
So they can say: "Hey, don't look at us! We *told* them don't grab that source code and run with it..."
Take It Down (Score:3, Insightful)
It's fine to speculate what exactly brought this about (And Nullsoft really should be more forthcoming than a plaintext legalistic note!), no speculation is grounds enough to justify redistribution of someone else's code that they've explicitly asked you not to redistribute. Period.
Nice marketing ploy by AOL (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.microsoft.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 16 2003, @10:33PM)
This is publicity you can't buy! I'm sure AOL knows this. As soon as WASTE gets a critical mass of enough users using it, AOL will "give in" and release it officially again. The end result of these actions? WASTE suddenly becomes a hugely popular app and AOL didn't have to spend a penny in marketting.
Or then again, maybe I'm wrong....
Re:I dont think AOL like Justin much (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.slashdot.org/~teddyr | Last Journal: Wednesday February 04 2004, @07:35PM)
There may be a non-compete or other clause making it that if he quits, then he may have to give back some of the money/NOT be able to do what he likes.. (ie: he has more freedom now as an employee than he would if he quit; but not as much as if he was fired)....
just a random non-thought...