NeoNapster's NeoAudio Rips Off CDex

mydoghasworms writes "There's an interesting thing going down at CDex. Apparently the CDex application has been ripped off by NeoNapster, replacing the logo and adding some spyware and adware. (For those not in the know, CDex is a very nice, very easy-to-use GPL (as in Open Source) Audio CD Ripper). The user comments at download.com make for a very entertaining read."

They ripped off the best

[Anonymous Coward]

I love CDEX, especially it's built-in ogg support, and now it even id's them correctly. Makes for very fast, easy ripping of my CD collection to the wonderful ogg vorbis format.

If they were going to rip someone off, atleast they picked the best one.

No honor in this Industry

[puto]

There has been no honor in the computer industry for years. Money money money.

Boxen are my career and main interest in life(well booze and broads). But the industry has saddened me since the early 90's.

Ahhh fuck it.

Puto

Re:Ummmm So what?

[Jobe_br]

Yep, looks like its legit (unless they've only recently posted these links, since the outcry). Either way, they're legit now - they even credit CDex, which indicates to me that they probably didn't change the copyright information in the source, as some have alleged.

Granted, it sucks that someone takes a great GPL app and rebundles it with spyware/adware, but as long as they abide by the GPL, that's perfectly legit ... you cannot control how your GPL'd application gets reused, can ya? Don't think so ..

On the plus side...

[krugdm]

...it's a lot of free pub for CDex, which I had never heard of before this...

So... ?

[powerlinekid]

NeoNapster and NeoAudio are open source software under the GNU General Public License. My first thought was... well after reading the "nice" comments written about neoaudio on download.com, well are they violating the GPL. If so then they're just a bunch of pillaging bastards and deserved to be castrated. But so before grabbing my castration device and looking to see where they were based I check their website. And lo and behold they're GPL too. No violation or anything. So what the hell is the big friggin deal? Seriously this is not worthy of slashdot... well maybe now, maybe slashot has entirely resolved into this big ugly "they ripped off the gpl with *gasp* another gpl licence". So someone wants to make money off this? Am i missing something? Nowhere in the GPL is this bad. The linux distros do it all the time. Many people don't care. I use kazaa when I'm in windows. Yeah brilliant, etc blah blah blah... Its a nice change of pace from gnutella's homogenous enviroment. Most people really don't care, so who are we to force them to. If they want neoaudio then let them. If they want CDex fine. Its just not that big of a deal.

Positive rating?

[wraithgar]

My question is, where did they get that positive rating on the download page? It doesn't show up on the ratings from the slashdot article link.

Hmm...

Re:Give them soem credit.

[kbroom]

And if you read at the end of the page, they also give credit to CDex, saying:

NeoAudio is open source software based on the CDex engine, distributed under the GNU General Public License. To download the latest source code, click on the link below:...

Re:HAHA

[SpanishInquisition]

There's nothing wrong with repackaging GPL software and adding spywares, this is called "fair use".

A little murky here

[MikeV]

According to:
http://www.neonapster.com/license.html they've retained the GPL.

and:
http://www.neonapster.com/download.html gives credit to the CDex project.

Before you guys jump in and start flaming, do a little bit of homework. Could be easily a Galeon/Mozilla type thing. Heck - a Netscape/Mozilla thing. GPL software is there for the sharing - that's what the GPL is for. Linux is repackaged over and over again by many distro's - no one is whining about that, are they? "Redhat ripped off Linux from Linus!". "Mandrake is copying Redhat!". Come on guys, before you knock it, research it. They may very well have room for critisism, and I'm not endorsing them - but I'm not going to bash them until I know for sure.

I develop code myself, and having a bunch of morons flaming me because they're too lazy to research my license and credits could very well encourage me to take the closed source proprietory route...I wouldn't blame these guys if they did just that. And what about all the potential developers watching the shark-fest from the sidelines. Do you think they'll want to jump into the fray after watching this? I know Slashdot tends to jump in before testing the waters, but please, reserve judgement before you make a fool of yourself.

It seems the GPL community is very antagonistic and overly fanatical to the point of witch hunts. Let's not burn any witches yet until we've without a doubt verified that they're indeed witches!

Re:Notify CNet

[Burning*Cent]

Better yet, send CNet and NeoNapster's ISP DMCA notices. Because they are using someone else's copyrighted work but removing the notices, they are infringing on CDex's copyright, even if it free software.

Even if you don't like the DMCA, there's no reason to let the RIAA and MPAA be the only ones to use it.

NeoNapster = Gnucleus, this isn't new

[haukex]

NeoNapster has been around for quite a while, amazing it took so long for Slashdot to notice. All they have ever been is a rip off of the GPLed Gnucleus [gnucleus.net] client, just like Morpheus and the whole series of other clones [gnucleus.net].

The issue here is that this is GPLed software linked with non-free libraries (spyware) and riddled with other GPL violations (missing copyright notices, incomplete source distibutions, etc.). Most of the above mentioned clones do this, some going as far as linking their clones [atomwire.com] to obviuosly commerical libraries while at the same time pretending to "embrace" the GPL. The Gnucleus author, John Marshall, has been extremely tolerant on the issue, mostly because his interest lies in coding, but if you wanted to, this could be a huge legal case.

the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

is that NeoNapster removed all references to the original author's copyrights. Red Hat does not scratch out Linus Torvalds' name to write "Linux kernel -- copyright Red Hat Inc." on the kernel.

asshat

[RatBastard]

Not everyine who uses CDeX is a music pirate. I use it to ripp my CDs onto my (internal LAN) server so I can listen to the CDs I bought (and still have posession thereof) without hauling my CD collection all over the house. I have never given away a single song I ever ripped.

And just because a tool CAN be used to violate a law, does not make it a violation to have or use it. I can use a crowbar to break into your house, or even to kill you with. Does that make me owning a crowbar illegal? What if I use my crowbar only for legal purposes - ripping out the boards in my house, or prying rocks loose? Is it still illegal?

Get a grip, son. It's the manner in which the tool is used, not the tool itself that makes it a violation of the law or not (unless some asshat DMCAesque law says otherwise).

Re:A little murky here

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

I develop code myself, and having a bunch of morons flaming me because they're too lazy to research my license and credits could very well encourage me to take the closed source proprietory route...

People flaming you via e mail could cause you to go closed source??? I don't understand. Is it because no one ever flames MS? Just curious.

Let's not burn any witches yet until we've without a doubt verified that they're indeed witches! If it floats, it's a duck and thus must be a witch...If it sinks......

Re:A little murky here

[msimm]

Before you start getting worked up why don't you take a minute to reread the information on the CDex website [sourceforge.net]:

"There is an application called NeoAudio, which is a straight CDex rip off. They changed some string (i.e. replace CDex with NeoAudio), changed the logo and added some nice SpyWare and Adware."

Now maybe if they had added some new code or created some bug fixes..but as a developer maybe you can see why this has disappointed the real developer and sparked a bit of outrage in the community.

Not that slashdot doesn't go a bit overboard. But if you feel like the "morons flaming" will stop this kind of parasitic "developer" then just maybe for once their doing the right thing?

As far as "they've retained the GPL", they don't have a choice.

If your considering going into business with someone else's software project it seems like it would be a very good idea to read the terms of the license, or if you can't understand it yourself hire an attorney to do so.

What I don't understand is how did your post get modded up?

Re:A little murky here

[thomas.galvin]

It seems the GPL community is very antagonistic and overly fanatical to the point of witch hunts. Let's not burn any witches yet until we've without a doubt verified that they're indeed witches!

For the most part, all a GPL developer gets for opening his/her source is a pat on the back, the kudos from other hackers.

Because of this, there are a few psuedo-rules that have developed in that culture. Most importantly to this matter, forking a project is generally looked down on, unless there is a demonstrable reason for it, and using someone else's code without giving proper, prominant credit is verboden.

Also, it is considered only polite to contribute something back to the community; that's why the GPL is "virulent," as MS says. If you want to use my code, go ahead, but you also have to let others use your code. Fair is fair.

While NeoNapster may have abided by the letter of the GPL, they violated the spirit; all NeoNapster has done is add spyware/adware. The community does not benifit from this at all, and this problem is compounded by the general distaste computer types have for spy/adware.

So, unsanctioned forking, not giving back to the community, and tossing spy/adware at people will lead to your aforementioned witch hunt, and this is completely reasonable if you understand the culture.

Re:A little murky here

[THE ROCK]

I develop code myself, and having a bunch of morons flaming me because they're too lazy to research my license and credits could very well encourage me to take the closed source proprietory route...I wouldn't blame these guys if they did just that. And what about all the potential developers watching the shark-fest from the sidelines. Do you think they'll want to jump into the fray after watching this? I know Slashdot tends to jump in before testing the waters, but please, reserve judgement before you make a fool of yourself.

Morons huh? HERE'S a little research, from the CDex [sourceforge.net] homepage

Please don't download NeoAudio:

There is an application called NeoAudio, which is a straight CDex rip off. They changed some string (i.e. replace CDex with NeoAudio), changed the logo and added some nice SpyWare and Adware. I contacted Richard M. Stallman about this issue, but unfortunately I can not do much about it, except for the fact that they are removing/changing copyright strings which they should not. So please do not download and install NeoAudio (they probably make quite a few dollars by shipping the adware) and also advice other people NOT to download NeoAudio either, and warn innocent users not to download this application but download CDex instead.

The only morons are the people that moderated your post up.