AOL Pulls Nullsoft's WASTE 637
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.
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:5, Informative)
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.
WASTE (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPL (Score:2, Informative)
Re:waste copy (Score:5, Informative)
This was only to be expected (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Mirrors! (Score:5, Informative)
http://forums.win
http://www.dhorrocks2003.pwp.blueyonder.co
http://slackerbitch.free.fr/waste/wa
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]
Edonkey link (Score:1, Informative)
distributed load/sources etc
ed2k://|file|waste-source.tar.gz|214730|F5D0DBD
i would of used a link but
Re:This was only to be expected (Score:1, Informative)
Please mirror it.
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?
mirror of the source (Score:5, Informative)
My mirror (Score:5, Informative)
--Jon
Already on sourceforge. (Score:5, Informative)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/waste/
Now go and help out! I want a cleanly building Linux port.
--Jon
PULLED (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Another (Score:2, Informative)
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:Mirrors! (Score:2, Informative)
http://slashdot.daedalustech.co.uk/waste.zip [daedalustech.co.uk] - 654,535 bytes, the full thing including exes and source.
Enjoy people...
Re:Wait a minute...they can't do that! (Score:5, Informative)
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]
MD5 Sums..... (Score:5, Informative)
e3609e352afba37683c47ce60f9086bb waste-setup.exe
5645d0378b5bca6d2cf337686dca9a4d waste-source.tar.gz
554cfa7350333aa4e6eb3b6e2420
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:3, Informative)
Fuck AOL. Mirror here. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Another possible scenario: (Score:3, Informative)
If, on the other hand, you mean they can close off access to new versions of Mozilla, they already have that right under the MPL. But they cannot stop the community from forking from the last public version and developing a competing product.
Re:Contracts? (Score:5, Informative)
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:How can this be "pulled"??? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:MD5 Sums..... and now for the rest... (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:This was only to be expected (Score:1, Informative)
e3609e352afba37683c47ce60f9086bb waste-setup.exe
5645d0378b5bca6d2cf337686dca9a4d waste-source.tar.gz.tar
554cfa7350333aa4e6eb3b6e
AC
Hilarious, design document is a MS Word .doc (Score:2, Informative)
I picked it up from the harvard mirror referenced at Scripting News [scripting.com]. In it I read:
What kind of functionality does WASTE enable?WASTE provides a generic virtual secure private network that other services can be built upon. Currently the following services have been implemented for use on the network and are very functional:
Many other services and capabilities can be added to the WASTE network, these are just the basics that have been implemented.
The Crying of Lot 49 (Score:5, Informative)
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:GPL - Source Posted (Score:2, Informative)
As far as I see, NullSoft had authorisation at local level. They released it thinking it was 'Go go go', but AOL said "Speak to our lawyers first". The GPL doesn't allow revocation. It probably was autorised.
NullSoft has other P2P stuff up it's sleeve [nullsoft.com]
Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Scratch that. I now have a mirror of the site [freedomware.org].
My WASTE Site with all the INFO (Score:4, Informative)
enjoy. there is also a forum for waste on the site.
Re:Another possible scenario: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Duh. (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:1, Informative)
Additional programing
Justin Frankel
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:3, Informative)
That's their problem: the copyright holder is Microsoft. The person giving me the software is, legally, Microsoft: that's the meaning of vicarious liability. He is, legally, acting on behalf of Microsoft; whether or not they want him acting on their behalf in that way is irrelevant. (They can, of course, fire him for it, at which point he can't do it again...)
Not in California... (Score:2, Informative)
> all thoughts are AOL's regardless of whether he does
> them for work or not.
If the Nullsoft guys are still working out of San Francisco, as the article suggests, he's 100% in the clear. Such clauses are illegal in California, wether you sign them into your contract or not. Go ahead and sign a contract giving your employer the rights to ideas you come up with in your free time. Clauses like that are generally thrown in with the legalese to try to make you THINK they have a right to your free time. Nevertheless, said clause is illegal and unenforceable.
cya,
john
Justin Frankel's .plan updated here (Score:2, Informative)
Re:WASTE (Score:2, Informative)
In other words, my Public Key is like the key to my house, I don't give it to somebody to give to my friend, I give it only to my friends. 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.
md5sum (Was Re:This was only to be expected) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:GPL - Source Posted (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I think it's an interesting project, but needs some serious work before it could be a viable alternative to existing chat and filesharing apps -- the design docs distributed show a number of issues with the wire protocol, including its overuse of broadcast messages, and the high (i.e., 40 bytes per packet!) overhead added for message checksumming, routing info, etc.
Re:WASTE (Score:2, Informative)
If you change your private key, then anyone with your old public key can no longer get in.
Re:Wait a minute...they can't do that! (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, theft? What theft? I'd like to see YOU find even a single example of a local law anywhere on earth that states copyright violation is theft. I'm really getting sick of this "copyright violation is theft" crap, especially from self-rightous idiots hurling insults and erroneous information. I don't usually flame, but I'm in a bad mood and you started with the "stupid" coment. Copyright violation is copyright violation, not theft. You may as well start saying rape is theft of sexual services and that driving with a broken headlight is theft of illumination.
If not then consider who the stupid one is in this case...
You want to toss insults? Great! Let's see who's the stupid one. The United States Library of Congress Copyright Office provides this refference: International Copyright Relations of the United States. [loc.gov] It contains the following information:
The following countries do not recognize any protection of US copyrights
Afghanistan
Bhutan
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Nep
Oman
San Marino
Tonga
Yemen (San'a)
Armenia only has treaty relating to satallite programming.
The following countries have not established copyright relations with the US but "might" honor any relations (if any) that existed with their prior government:
Comoros
Jordan
Kiribati
Nauru
No
Palau
Sao Tome and Principe
Seychelles
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tuva
Vanuatu
Western Samoa
Yemen (Aden)
There ya go! Of those 25 listing I'm sure at least 20 will happily allow this "theft". And you just asked for one. But we're not done yet!
While all other countries have some sort of copyright relations with the US, there is a vast array of different treaties and agreements. I couldn't even begin to guess how many more contries would not recognize/protect the copyright on this software. Quite a few I'd wager. Software is the sort of thing likely to fall through the cracks for any country the US only has partial treaties with.
But my primary point is that Nullsoft stated:
"you acquired no lawful rights to the Software and must destroy any and all copies of the Software, including by deleting it from your computer"
Even for the countries that do recognize this copyright it is an absurd statement. Different countries have different laws. Nullsoft's statement could be be partially or entirely false in any given country.
-
Re:WASTE... (Score:1, Informative)
> by Jellybob. 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.
This is not a very good analogy for a public/private key system. The above analogy is flawed because you usually give out your public key to everyone. It is also flawed because in the above example, the public key has the power to decrypt the message by opening the lock which is incorrect.
There are PGP key sites where there are many many public keys. The whole idea behind the public/private key system is that you should be able to let anyone send you an encrypted message (so everyone can know your public key) but only the owner of the private key (which is never published) can read it.
Each public key is linked to a private key. A message encrypted using the public key can only be decrypted with the corresponding private key.
This is a better one:
The situation is that I have a house surrounded by a fence with a locked door. I give the key to the fence lock to the people I want to send me messages by sliding them underneath the door. This is the public key part - people can send messages to me.
But only I have the key to my door lock which means only I can read messages that are slipped underneath the door.
Your public key only opens the fence. My private key opens the door lock. So while your public key allows you to send messages to me, only my private key can read the contents of those messages.
You can see this in real life. If you send me an encrypted email using my public key, you can't read your own message later. Your sent emails directory will be unreadable to you because you don't have the private key to decrypt those messages. You used someone else's public key to encrypt it so only their private key can decrypt it.