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."

Comments

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.

Re:They ripped off the best

[Jucius Maximus]

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

This has happenned before. The best freeware hard drive + data recovery tool out there, Drive Rescue was ripped off. Although DR is not GPL, the source is available for educational purposes.

Some Russian Company stole it and slapped a registration key on it and is now selling it.

Re:They ripped off the best

[Mr. Balrog]

MP3PRO is hardly better then Ogg. The difference is inaudiable. Anyway, Ogg is free, Mp3PRO is not.

since it is under the GPL

[subgeek]

does this mean that we can get all of the source for the spyware and adware? that could make for some fun. or at least it would take less time to disable it.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[ceejayoz]

Doubtful - the spyware and adware are probably not included in the actual program, they'll separate program bundled with it and thus not subject to the license.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[JonWan]

Just got the source and ran grep on it, the word adware and spyware ain't there. I guess their being sneaky about it.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[athakur999]

Well I really doubt the people who make those type programs would refer to them as "spyware" or "adware" ;) It'd be like Charmin calling it "crap wiping paper" instead of "bathroom tissue"...

Re:since it is under the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the GPL anything distributed in the same package as the program must be covered under the GPL - it is considered one program.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[JonWan]

Should have known better than to try to be funny on Monday.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[afidel]

wrong, anything linked against it is. If the spyware is just installed by the same packaging program then they are seperate programs and therefore not subject to the GPL.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[fizbin]

An interesting theory, but I think that you should read this section of the GPL faq.

In short, both static and shared linking are treated the same way.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[NorthDude]

There is something which I never understood with the GPL...

I reread the documentation you just linked to, and it is still pretty unclear to me.

They state that if a program is linked into the same application, then the whole application must be GPL'ed.

I assume that the point was so that if someone writes off an application using your GPL'ed source, they should release their source also, but what if I write GPL'ed source code that make use of closed-source librairy?

For sure I can't force the author to open it, so it is a rather obscure part of the license... At least to me.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[platypus]

Maybe this answers your question?

Re:since it is under the GPL

[Fjord]

Normally, you would put exceptions to that clause in your license. Since it is your code, you can license it however.

If you don't put exceptions in, then it means that the people who modify your code will have to modify the calls to the closed source within the app so that it only calls open source stuff. They wouldn't be allowed to redistribute until they did that.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[ErikTheRed]

Or calling Eric Cartman "fat-ass" rather than "big-boned" or "festively plump."

Re:since it is under the GPL

[HiThere]

I don't think that that assertion has ever been tested. And I'm not at all certain that it's valid. I'm pretty sure that some distributions distribute both commercial and GPL software on the same CD, so I rather suspect that your statement is over-broad, depending on what you mean by package. If you mean box, then it's certainly over-broad. If you mean rpm, or tarball, then I still think it's probably too broad, but I'm not anywhere near as certain.

Please remember that it's quite possible to have totally independant programs within the same rpm or tarball. You could even have a copy of DOS "ed" and a copy of Linux "vim" in the same tarball. You could probably throw in a copy of 7094 FAP if you could find the source. And an rpm isn't much more than a tarball with a bunch of executable scripts.

And I believe, that if you had the right to distribute all of the pieces separately, that there wouldn't be anything illegal about combining them all in the same tarball.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[Planesdragon]

I don't think that that assertion has ever been tested. And I'm not at all certain that it's valid. I'm pretty sure that some distributions distribute both commercial and GPL software on the same CD, so I rather suspect that your statement is over-broad, depending on what you mean by package. If you mean box, then it's certainly over-broad. If you mean rpm, or tarball, then I still think it's probably too broad, but I'm not anywhere near as certain.

Quark XPress 5 has at least one GPL'd library, but the program itself isn't GPL'd. If you care to try and claim it is, I suspect that Quark has plenty of money saved from (re) writing their few GPL'd libraries that they can spend on their lawyers.

*sigh* And the difference between a simple and clear "library usage" and a program that's little more than a frontend for a bunch of GPL'd apps is, AFAIK, something guaranteed to get you into court. :( The world would be so much simpler if the GPL actually contained a definition of "program" or "derivitive."

Re:since it is under the GPL

[NorthDude]

hmmm, was obvious...
Should have reasd all the faq...

Re:since it is under the GPL

[no_choice]

Please remember that it's quite possible to have totally independant programs within the same rpm or tarball.

Perhaps, but the question here is whether the proprietary elements (spyware & adware) should be legally considered part of the NeoAudio work as a whole. If so, those components of NeoAudio must also be distributed under the GPL.

From section 2 of the GPL:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
(Emphasis mine)

Re:since it is under the GPL

[J. J. Ramsey]

"Quark XPress 5 has at least one GPL'd library"

You sure you don't mean an LGPL'd library?

Anyway, it's quite possible that Quark contacted the authors of the libraries and got special permission to use the code.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[Planesdragon]

You sure you don't mean an LGPL'd library?

Hold on, let me check...

d'oh!

Re:since it is under the GPL

[Coke in a Can]

I prefer the term ass-paper.

Re:since it is under the GPL

[toriver]

Not if the components are just bundled with the program: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License."

Re:since it is under the GPL

[jswitte]

From GPL-FAQ:But if you want to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the copyright holders of those programs

But doesn't this mean that if I use a GPL library, which in turn uses another GPL library (or 2!) which in turn.. To secure proper permission becomes a nightmareishly complex breadth-first recursive search.. (to put in in geek-parlance)

I've always sort of thought the GPL would be better if the "recusive permission" only went one level deep. But that would effectively destroy what the GPL aims to do, because anyone who wanted to close the source would only have to get permission for the most recent authorship-level.. (Though I don't like this part of the GPL, for reasons a bit outlines below)

Another thing I've NEVER understood about the GPL is section 3b: Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution

Wouldn't it make more sense to say valid after three years? I see this as a reasonable (or perhaps not so reasonable, but that's details) compromise between free software advocates and advocates of a traditional closed-source software economy: you get to actually sell your program (or try to) for three years, after which the code must be released, which prevents abandonware from cropping up. This is identical to the intent of the U.S. copyright system - to promote innovation. One person here once wrote a very interesting proposal to Judge Pennfield Jackson about making a "source registry" that would work like this. I cannot believe that the FSF did not see this and try to build it into the license. It seems to me that the FSF is more ideological than pragmatic on some things.

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:No honor in this Industry

[hendridm]

Flamebait? I thought the parent was insightful, or funny at the very least.

Burn Karma Burn!

Re:No honor in this Industry

[Dalcius]

There is nothing wrong with being young.

There is nothing wrong with being a virgin.

There is nothing wrong with being behind mountains of mountain dew.

None of these relate to the intelligence of the poster. Your post, however, seems to relate to your intelligence perfectly.

Sounds about right....

[sbeast702]

.. Isn't that the way all the big boys started? MS stealing from Apple, AOL from Compuserve, etc...

Re:Sounds about right....

[sbeast702]

Yep, that too... I doubt NeoNapster is going to be the next BIG thing.. but you never know anymore... I'm still surprised at the popularity of most of the p2p softwares out there...

Re:Sounds about right....

[Dragonmaster Lou]

The Apple stealing from Xerox thing is a bit fuzzy as supposedly Apple did give Xerox a chunk of Apple stock for permission to visit PARC to begin with and get some ideas from the technology there. I don't know if this is true or not, and of course the case could be argued as to whether or not the amount of stock Apple may have given was as valueable as the tech they got from PARC.

Re:Sounds about right....

[Otter]

The Apple stealing from Xerox thing is a bit fuzzy as supposedly Apple did give Xerox a chunk of Apple stock for permission to visit PARC to begin with and get some ideas from the technology there.

It think that's not quite right, but Apple did pay Xerox to license PARC technology for the Macintosh. Apple certainly didn't "steal" anything the way, say, Microsoft stole from Stac.

More important historically is that the idea that the Mac interface was taken wholesale from PARC is completely false. GUI work was done outside Xerox at the time, the Macintosh project was well underway before anyone at Apple saw the Alto/Star and the Mac system software went way beyond anything the Xerox interface had. Xerox's importance was overplayed by Steve Jobs, who was trying to diminish the history the Mac project had before he joined it.

What I don't get is why people are so attached to the idea that the Mac team was uninnovative and took everything from Xerox. _Someone_ had to have had the ideas, right? Why is it so difficult to accept that most of them came from Cupertino?

Re:Sounds about right....

[thomas.galvin]

.. Isn't that the way all the big boys started? MS stealing from Apple, AOL from Compuserve, etc...

At lest MS, apple, et al had to do some work. NeoNapster is basically
sed /s/CDex/NeoAudio/g *.cc ; make

Re:Sounds about right....

[Inthewire]

I've got a fantastic book called _Dealers of Lightning_ that covers early PARC, especially Ethernet, the Alto, and the laser printer. It is pretty clear that the Apple team was already working on such things, but the Xerox visits and demos encouraged them. The Apple guys saw what Xerox had accomplished and knew that such things were possible. Until that point they had faith without evidence. It recharged them.

Wait, there's more . . .

[SimplyCosmic]

Not only does this company's website point to NeoAudio, which uses CDEx code, but NeoNapster, which is straight out of any of the Gnutella codebases, and is Yet Another Gnutella Client, but with spyware added.

I can't wait for their upcoming release: NeoLinux with the NeoGNOME desktop environment.

Re:Wait, there's more . . .

[macdaddy357]

I doubt that anyone with as much as half a brain will use this turkey. I bet Bertelsmann sues them for using the name "napster." If they don't, then the whole thing may be an entrapment scheme, courtesy of the RIAA.

Re:Wait, there's more . . .

[unicron]

I downloaded NeoAdAware from them and it keeps attempting to clean itself, creating this wicked endless loop that's murdering my system resources.

Re:Wait, there's more . . .

[JPriest]

download.com says that NeoNapster and NeoAudio had a combined total of 20636 downloads just last week.

Re:Wait, there's more . . .

[macdaddy357]

I guess there are a lot more people than I thought who just don't get it about spyware. They'll learn the hard way if this software is part of an RIAA sting.

Re:Wait, there's more . . .

[roynux]

IT'S A SHAME!

These lamers at Napster bought the site http://www.edonkey.com and advise the visitors to download NeoNapster.

The original edonkey url is http://www.edonkey2000.com. If you prefer, get Kazaalite at http://www.kazaalite.nl.

I think I will be really be happy when I'll ear that Napster has died.

Ummmm So what?

[Spoons]

What's the big deal here? They aren't in violation of the GPL. They have the source available for download. Why is this news again?

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 ..

Re:Ummmm So what?

[maxwell demon]

I only get File not Found on this link, as well as on the link in the article. Are they already slashdotted?

I'd really like to know if they obeyed the GPL (which IMHO is the real question - if they provide the program under GPL conditions, there's nothing to say against this. OK, there's the adware, but that's a completely unrelated matter)

Re:Ummmm So what?

[Invictus2.0]

While it might not be illegal, it certainly is lame to take GPL software, change the logo, add spyware, and push it off as your own without even giving credit to the original creators. But what do you expect from a company(?) who even ripped off their name from someone else? They're just trying to cash in on other's works, and whether or not it is technically legal or illegal doesn't mean such behavior shouldn't be admonished.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[Ark42]

That is why GPL is bad :)

Seriously, where is a license thats mostly-GPL, mostly-open-soruce, but disallows certain things like spyware/adware, or marketing of a competitive product (I have some nice programs I will be selling in the future for windows that work great under linux, which I wish I could give out the source for the linux version and not worry about somebody making a free windows version from the source)

Re:Ummmm So what?

[po8]

My reading of the GPL suggests that they can't be in conformance unless they also provide the source for the adware and spyware: a quick glance through their sources didn't show any. IANAL: YMMV.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[vegetablespork]

My cat * | grep adware; cat * | grep spyware didn't turn up anything, either.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[ajakk]

Your reading of the GPL is wrong. They don't have to provide the source for the adware and spyware since they are separate programs that are just distributed with the program as well. The GPL does not prevent the distribution of closed-source programs with open-source programs. If it did, then no Linux distribution could contain any closed-source code.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[syntap]

>My reading of the GPL suggests that they can't
>be in conformance unless they also provide the
>source for the adware and spyware

Your read is incorrect... only if they used source code from the CDEX release in making the spyware/adware modules would it be required to publish the source.

From Section 2 of the GPL:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[Ooblek]

Too bad the laws don't care about the Software Code of Chivalry (tm): Thou shalt not steal open source software and pretend its your own.

Its probably just a couple of high-school kids that are a little too bored for their own good. This type of crap has been happening for a long time. I remember complaints such as this getting posted to bulletin board systems in years past. There is always some idiot out there that thinks they can get away with this stuff.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[Alsee]

where is a license thats [completely free and open, but doesn't let anyone do stuff I don't like]

It's right next to my gun that can only be fired in self defence :)

-

Re:Ummmm So what?

[Silverstrike]

Just because something is legal doesn't mean its right.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[jmv]

What NeoNapster did is bad, but what you're proposing would be much worse. There's just too much potential for abuse. Personally, I won't contribute to a project that has such a restrictive license, as it's just too easy for the original owner to "pull the plug" pretending you're developing a "competitive product". Plus that would mean I can't just fix bugs/add new features without consent from the original author. This is definitely FAR from open-source.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[Saeger]

Its probably just a couple of high-school kids ...

I would actually expect this kind of thing from a middle-aged schmuck in a suit no less than some kid.

There's a reason assholes get ahead in this world...

--

Re:Ummmm So what?

[GreyPoopon]

Seriously, where is a license thats mostly-GPL, mostly-open-soruce, but disallows certain things like spyware/adware, or marketing of a competitive product

?
Doesn't that sort of defeat the whole purpose of "Open Source" if you can't create a competing product? Maybe you mean "can't create and sell a competing product." But even so, if somebody copies your GPL-ed program and tries to sell it, somebody else will just copy their source code and give it away for free.

Most everyone is aware that you don't make money from GPL software by simply selling the software. You make money by service, added convenience of your distribution, or selling a non-GPL-ed add-on products. Or sometimes you make money from donations by people who just want to reward your efforts. But if provide the source code for everything, you've got to expect people to download and distribute for free.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[CynicTheHedgehog]

Why is that a bad thing? I can always download the original (in this case CDex) and to hell with NeoNapster. But if I decide that I absolutely can't live without spyware, branding, and bloat, I always have NeoNapster around to satisfy my masochistic urges.

I really could care less about NeoNapster, as long as CDex is still open and free. It sucks that they didn't respect the author's copyright though. That's a new kind of low.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[bhsx]

And while looking at the source code I've stumbled across the gpl about 10 times. A file named HISTORY lists afaber as the originator. One interesting piece I found was the NeoAudio liscense which "prohibits" asking for money or donations for copies, although they label it "freeware."

Re:Ummmm So what?

[po8]

I'm not so certain that the adware and spyware programs can be "reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves." Certainly they are packaged with the CDEX code as "a program" rather than as a package (heh), and the installation of the CDEX code automatically, unpreventably and irrevocably installs the other components. Indeed, the makers of this sleazeware went to some trouble to ensure that these pieces were not "identifiable sections". This seems to me to be quite different from a "linux distro" type of situation.

IMHO they're more components of "NeoNapster" than programs in their own right, but as I said, IANAL. It will be interesting to see what position the FSF takes on this.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[adamjaskie]

I have some nice programs I will be selling in the future for windows that work great under linux, which I wish I could give out the source for the linux version and not worry about somebody making a free windows version from the source

There is no reason that you would be required to distribute the source code if you released Linux versions. The GPL would only apply to your software if you were including code from a GPL'd product. You can release your software under any licence you want, no matter what OS it runs on.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[Demonspawn]

>>>when you distribute them as separate works.

That's an interesting little tidbit, however. I haven't used or downladed NeoNapster to confirm, but I'm damn sure that the addware and spyware are not seperate programs that you run. I'd be willing to bet money that the addware, at the least, is contained within the same executable that contains the borrowed source code from CDEX. The spyware, which may or may not be in the same executable file, is still installed when the 'work' of NeoNapster is installed. I highly doubt you have to run a seperate installer just to put in the spyware.

So it is my feeling that the source of the addware, definatly, and the spyware, very likely, must be accessable for NeoNapster to comply with GPL.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[HiThere]

Well, you could make your own derivitive license off the GPL that allowed for just that...
But I don't think that it would get passed as an Open Source license.

Re:Ummmm So what?

[syntap]

I guess it depends how you read it. I read the GPL language to mean if they are distinct functions that don't "intertwine" with GPL'd code then they are separate... kind of like it someone added an "email me" menu choice to CDEX. It would be called from the program, but internally have its own code block. It would not, however, be a separate executable program... I don't think that's what the GPL necessarily intends.

Give them soem credit.

[howardjp]

They at least made the source available.

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:...

In the words of the Trade Federation

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this Legal?
</silly_talk>

Re:In the words of the Trade Federation

[Parsa]

Dark, evil sounding, face hiding man...

"I'll make it legal"

Re:In the words of the Trade Federation

[nebaz]

Senator Hollings? Is that you?

Re:In the words of the Trade Federation

[slashdot2.2sucks]

actually that would be a Thai accent my asian ignorant friend

What is CDex?

[SkipToMyLou]

CDex is a cdripper for windows that's GPLed. It comes with Vorbis support in its 1.30 beta2 version. Very nice program I use it when I'm in windows and don't want to reboot to use cdparanoia. It also includes LAME 3.84 as it's default encoder. Currently it's the only program that i've found that makes encoding Vorbis .ogg files easy.

Re:comes with the territory

[unixmaster]

You cant create closed source products by stealing source from GPL applications that is BSD license that allows commercial stealing .

They can go to court now IMHO.

screenshot?

[(startx)]

Did anyone notice the neoaudio screenshot? They didn't even bother to change the CDex screenshot. I've been using CDex for years, and it's sad to see some moron try to pass it off as his own work.

Re:screenshot?

[(startx)]

d'oh! gotta start using preview. what I meant to say was they didn't bother to change the CDex version number.

Notify CNet

[duplicate-nickname]

Tell CNet Downloads to stop hosting this application as it is violating the original license.

Their feedback URL is http://download.com.com/1200-20-750060.html?tag=su bnav

Re:Notify CNet

[duplicate-nickname]

Damn n00b.

They are removing the copyright information.

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.

Re:Notify CNet

[Jucius Maximus]

Also, you might want to go to CNET's download page for this program and add a comment regarding the nature of this software. It has a 100% thumbs-down rating right now.

Re:Notify CNet

[lostchicken]

I'm sorry but the idea that we can hate the DMCA at times and use it at others is just plain wrong.

By invoking the DMCA against their ISP any claim against the DMCA by us becomes void, because we have been helped by it. It must not be all bad, because look, it helped a community... Remember when the Scientologists told Malda to remove a post? It was wrong then, and having an ISP remove somebody's account would be just as wrong now.

Re:Notify CNet

[TeknoDragon]

moderators... where are you????

this a most appropriate action

Re:Notify CNet

[Burning*Cent]

Like any law, the DMCA is a complicated one. The rules against breaking copy protection is ridiculous because breaking such protections is usually for reasons better copyright infringement (such as viewing DVDs from other regions).

However, the part of the DMCA that I support is the fact the ability for a copyright holder to notify a service provider that a user is infringing on a copyright. This protects the ISP from liability, limiting to the person actually commiting the wrongdoing. As for illegitimate DMCA notices, these can be counteracted by counternotices (for which, I believe, the EFF has a wizard). Also, you can file perjury charges against a person sending illegitimate notices.

I apologize for being unfamiliar with the Malda case, though I do remember some crap about the Church of Scientology sending a DMCA notice to eBay because someone was selling an e-meter, a device, and thus, something uncopyrightable. I wish this were challenged, but I don't remember hearing such good news.

>By invoking the DMCA against their ISP any claim
>against the DMCA by us becomes void, because we
>have been helped by it.
That is not logic. It's a red herring and an ad hominem. Being helped by something does not mean you cannot criticize it. This is analogous to saying that you cannot accept Social Security checks because you oppose such welfarist systems, even though you paid SS taxes for 30 years. Please take a logic course at a nearby college before you say something like this again.

However, I do acknowledge that not using the DMCA might be a way of personal protest against the law, but I do not acknowledge it as an effective one.

>... having an ISP remove somebody's account would
>be just as wrong now.
It's not necessary for the ISP to remove the account; the only thing necessary is to unlink the offending files until NeoNapster is no longer infringing on copyrights. Of course, other posts seem to say this isn't happening, but I still think the DMCA can be a useful tool in enforcing the GPL.

Re:Notify CNet

[ImaLamer]

And using CDex's readme.txt and replacing their own info.

Re:Notify CNet

[ImaLamer]

And no copy of the actual licence... no GPL.txt...

even worse they ripped off the CDex "eula" (no liablitites etc) file and replaced their info...

and yeah they also edited out the copyright info.

Re:Notify CNet

[pjt48108]

The DMCA is designed to cut Joe Sixpack off at the knees. Using it against 'legit' services that violate it simply gives those in Whoreland a taste of their own WhoreRx.

Re:Notify CNet

[TeknoDragon]

as long as they credit you
because of this, it is an appropriate action

the license was changed after the fact, it was presented as non-GPL code and represented as authored by someone other than the original author.

the GPL does not permit one to alter copyright statements... that is why complaining to C-NET is appropriate here

Re:comes with the territory

[Dark Paladin]

Ah, yes. Of course - because GPL allows you to see/use the source code, if your product is stolen and reimplemented, then you deserve that.

While we're at it, if you have sex, you're going to get SIDS, so never swap fluids with someone of the opposite sex. Oh, and if you love people, they'll hurt you, so never show affection. Don't bother buying a house - they get burned down.

The truth is, this is theft, and I don't see Neoaudio releasing the source code for their product which uses CDex, so hopefully this is a company that can be sued for GPL violation. (And lord, if they did use the source code and they're not publishing their "enhancements", I do hope they get sued if for no other reason then to give GPL legal acknowledgement.)

and we should care because?

[DemiKnute]

The problem is not so much that their taking someone's GPL'd program and redistributing it under a new name, but that they are removing the original author's (Albert L Faber) copyright notices. The author's copyright of the program must be maintained in order for the GPL to be effective, otherwise people (like these) could completely jack the code and release it under any liscense they want.

But we should consider ourselves lucky that they're releasing it under the GPL and the source code is still available at the bottom of this page.

Re:and we should care because?

[yelligsc]

I have looked through the sources available on the NeoAudio or NeoNapster page. All the copyright notices seem to indicate they are the property of Albert L Faber.

I see no problem with the GPL

Scott.

Copyrights...

[phraktyl]

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.

If they are changing or removing copyright strings, doesn't that mean there is a lot he can do about it?

Re:Copyrights...

[Aknaton]

> doesn't that mean there is a lot he can do about it?

I wonder if he will be as determined in defending a GPLed Windows program as he would be to depend a GPL GNU/Linux/Unix program.

I hope so.

Re:Copyrights...

[eXtro]

No, not necessarily. If the copyright was assigned to RMS then he could do something. If the author retained the copyright then its his responsibility to do something about it.

Re:Copyrights...

[John Hasler]

Only the copyright owner has standing to sue for infringement. All that the FSF can offer is support.

Re:Copyrights...

[JoeBuck]

Only the copyright holder has standing to sue. If the FSF is not the copyright owner, all they can do is give advice to the copyright owner on how to proceed.

Re:Copyrights...

[jswitte]

I'd have had a hard time demonstrating that I had suffered any monetary damage

Couldn't you argue that your suffered a lost opportunity cost? If you had not published freely on the internet and sold them instead, you would be the run getting rich off them, instead of this unscrupulous company. Add to that the fact that they did this to other people. Is the rant page still around?

Before anybody starts screaming "GPL violation"

[DeadMeat (TM)]

the source code for both NeoNapster and NeoAudio are posted on their download page, and both programs are licensed under the GPL. Even if this is ethically wrong, legally it's fine.

That said, it's still a nasty rip-off, and I hope people use CDex (a very fine piece of software, incidentally) instead.

Re:Before anybody starts screaming "GPL violation"

[CoolVibe]

They changed the copyright strings... That's a definite no-no. Basically they really stole the source, and claim they are the sole authors.

Obviously, the GPL does not allow this. The only way for them to make it right is to change the copyright back to what it was, and add themselves to it, if they contributed code.

Re:Before anybody starts screaming "GPL violation"

[tweek]

The also linked to some NON gpl libraries (i.e. spyware stuff).

Re:Before anybody starts screaming "GPL violation"

[Black Parrot]

> They changed the copyright strings... That's a definite no-no. Basically they really stole the source, and claim they are the sole authors.

Hopefully someone will be able to prove that the rip-off wasn't the other way around. Nasty court case, if someone relabels your code and then takes you to court for robbing them.

Re:Before anybody starts screaming "GPL violation"

[DeadMeat (TM)]

Wow, I hadn't noticed that. That changes the situtation.

In that case, I'm complaining to Download.com; I'm sure they'd be interested in knowing that they're pointing to an illegal download.

Re:Before anybody starts screaming "GPL violation"

[(startx)]

Well lets see, I've got CDex version 1.3b8 which is serveral years old right here.... this neoaudio thing is brand new. I'd be willing testify it wasn't the other way around. besides, even the vesion's of neoaudio are that of CDex. ALL they did was change the name and ad spy/adware

Re:Before anybody starts screaming "GPL violation"

[Jugalator]

I can see the code history before me:

Version a.b: ... Added this and that ...
Version c.d: ... Fixed some bugs ...
Version e.f (aka NeoNapster): Integrated with spyware.

heh

Re:Before anybody starts screaming "GPL violation"

[dillon_rinker]

Well lets see, I've got CDex version 1.3b8 which is serveral years old right here....
Great. Now prove it to someone who is hostile to you. Date/time stamps on hard drive files? Aren't those just bits? Couldn't you have manually edited them yesterday? Print outs dated four years ago? Couldn't you have done this in a word processor and printed it out yesterday?

The world sucks sometimes, doesn't it...

Re:Before anybody starts screaming "GPL violation"

[jx100]

what about the Wayback Archive? It might have an older version of the CDex page that could be used to help prove the case.

Re:Before anybody starts screaming "GPL violation"

[e_n_d_o]

IANAL, but I think that the GPL is not really all that relevant in such a scenario. It's a straight-up copyright violation.

This would be fun

[SeanTobin]

Now, this is what the GPL is intended to protect against. Some company using code to make a product and then selling it for profit (at least from spyware) with no return to the community for what they used. Now, I'd love to see a full all-out-GPL-whack-a-thon against thier makers; but moreso I'd really love to see the source of all the spyware released under the GPL.

Re:HAHA

[joshsisk]

Huh? How is CD-EX a "stealer"? I'm assumming you are a troll.

Call the RIAA!

[www.sorehands.com]

Let the RIAA go after them. Where as the NeoNapster and NeoCDEX^h^h^h^hAudio is a profit making enterprise, there is less protection under copyright law. At the very least, let the SOBs at RIAA be good for something.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?????

Re:Call the RIAA!

[AlreadyStarted]

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy.

Can you download the source for the spyware?

[Animats]

That's probably more interesting than the audio part.

Viral nature of the GPL

[jdavidb]

And this is exactly why everyone should be wary of using the GPL for their work! Look how it is going to hamper this nice American business in their attempts to add their contribution to the software economy. These people will probably be shut down, all thanks to the evil GPL. Richard Stallman is a fanatic! Don't listen to him!

Just think: if the CDex developers had used a safer license, like the BSD license, then they would not now be in the unfortunate situation of hindering American business. It's tantamount to terrorism, I tell you!

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[The Evil Beaver]

As far as I'm concerned, these are two bad things fighting it out. I say, to hell with American business, and to hell with viral, un-free (I don't care what The Party has to say about that) licenses. The only reason I'd want the GPL to come out on top is because too much open source software uses it.

But I am in agreement that the BSD license, and the licenses like it, are safer and superior to the GPL.

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[sbeitzel]

Sorta. I take your tongue-in-cheek sarcastic point, but you're not quite correct about the BSD license. It, too, requires that derivative works retain the copyright information -- which is the violation of the GPL that we're seeing.

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[davidstrauss]

Nothing prevents anyone from changing the licencing on future updates and releases. Look how many times Microsoft changes their licencing: every major update. If these people are as lazy as they seem, locking them out of future updates, and hence the future of their rebranded product, shouldn't be hard.

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[zangdesign]

If it's GPL'd, they're free to take the code as long as they don't change the license.

Frankly, I thought this was the point of GPL - to make the source a commodity product that others could base their products off of. Sure, they have to release the source, but there's nothing that prevents them from making a buck somewhere along the line.

It looks like either: 1) somebody left a hole in the GPL or 2) sour grapes.

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a clue for you too.

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[arkanes]

*huge slap* It's not an issue of superior, and it's not an issue of "free". The BSD license is not "better". It's a matter of your goals and intentions, and different uses of the word "free". And the GPL certainly isn't viral in any reasonable sense of the word.

If you want everyone possible to use your code, even at your own expense, then the BSD license is better (that's one agenda and ideology). If you want to promote the sharing of source, the the GPL is better, and thats a different agenda and ideology.

Stop being a nitwit.

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[dillon_rinker]

un-free licenses
If you want people to be free to do what they like with your code, you place it in the public domain. If you wish to restrict what people do with your code, you license it. THAT is the qualitative difference between free and non-free (as you are using the word). It's a bit like the Grouch Marx routine:

"Would you sleep with me for a billion dollars?"
"A billion dollars, Groucho? Of course!"
"OK, how about five?"
"What kind of woman do you think I am!"
"We've already established that; now we're just haggling over price."

If you license your code in ANY WAY, you are using the law to restrict the actions of others, so don't talk to me about your BSD license.

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[Quintin Stone]

Uhm, who exactly were you referring to as not needing "to release the source"?

If you mean NeoNapster, they're violating the original license anyway, so it's kind of strange that they've released the source at all. I have to wonder what difference having a BSD license would accomplish.

If you mean CDEx, then I have to assume that going under the GPL was a voluntary decision. You release something under the GPL when you WANT to make the source available to the public. The only time it works in reverse is when you're building on someone else's GPL'ed work to begin with.

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[epukinsk]

I take your tongue-in-cheek sarcastic point, but you're not quite correct about the BSD license.

Sarcasm usually involves things that aren't quite correct.

Erik

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[HiThere]

It's not really clear that the GPL *has* been violated. There are reports that it retains the copyright notice recognizing the original author, and the source code is available, and...

It may be that all they've done is edit the code and move the location of the copyright (and rephrase it a bit, perhaps). If so, perhaps the worst of it is a technical violation of the GPL. And they may even have gotten the original author's permission (I haven't heard any screams of outrage from him yet [but would I?, Perhaps he doesn't read Slashdot.]).

This, of course, doesn't excuse the spyware.

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[HiThere]

I first saw that discussion attributed to George Bernard Shaw. Perhaps Marx swiped it from him. (But was it original then?)

Consider that this story is a piece of open source code... The original author's name may become an unknown unless care is taken in quoting. It's not much to ask for, but perhaps it's a quite reasonable amount. Or was I supposed to draw some different conclusion?

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[Pyrrus]

yeah, and I've heard it attributed to Winston Churchill,
I guess someone ripped it off from someone else...

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[dillon_rinker]

My (not too clear) point was that if you accept money to sleep with someone else, you're a prostitute. Everything else is haggling over price. By analogy, if you license your code, you are restricting someone else's actions. Everything else is haggling over price (ie, what actions you restrict in exchange for use of the code).

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[jdavidb]

Thank you. I tried to respond but was unable to find the words. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

Re:Viral nature of the GPL

[jdavidb]

Does the fact that so many people seemed to think I was serious (particularly about the BSD license) mean that I just produced some really good sarcasm here, or does it mean that most people around here don't understand sarcasm?

I don't get it.

Anyways; I've never had a post modded eight times before. One guy even came back at 8:30 this morning to knock one last point off. (I could care less. I enjoy attracting all the attention.)

Who would respond in a legal battle?

[tau_bada]

In this situation, and similar ones, where the GPL license is either infringed on or blatantly abused, what party would take up the legal fight if numerous persons have contributed to the GPL'ed software?

Re:Who would respond in a legal battle?

[adamjaskie]

Whoever owns the copyright on the original software. In this case, the originator of CDEX. In the case of Linux, Linus Torvalds.

Re:Who would respond in a legal battle?

[adamjaskie]

oops left something out. However, organizations such as the FSF may help out by donating legal fees, providing lawyers, etc, such as the EFF has done in some cases.

Re:Who would respond in a legal battle?

[KjetilK]

Only the copyright holders can do that , so whoever mentioned in the copyright string. They may not have the resources, which is why FSF suggests you assign copyright to them, so that they can take up the fight.

On the plus side...

[krugdm]

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

Re:On the plus side...

[neafevoc]

I wonder if this is the same CDex from four years or so ago.

I remember trying to rip CDs with a generic 8x CD-ROM drive and it came down to two applications: CDex and WinDAC.

It took CDex to rip a CD 6 hours or so. It took WinDAC about 30 minutes. Yup, slower than real time for Digital Audio Extraction.

Of course, my 8x CD-ROM drive was generic (no idea the name) running on a AMD 5x86 133MHz (P90 equiv.)

Now I'm running all Plextors but still using WinDAC. But I'm sitll wondering if that's the same CDex... (I should take it for a spin despite what) :)

Might be fun to give the lowest cnet rating ever

[mr_don't]

Similar to the Perlmonks Vote for Paco campaign, this might be a chance to give a spy/adware product the lowest cnet rating ever!!!

Re:comes with the territory

[ajakk]

The truth is, this is theft, and I don't see Neoaudio releasing the source code for their product which uses CDex Because you obviously didn't look. NeoNapster is providing the source code, so they are not violating the GPL.

Re:I see a new business model for Napster

[Kamel Jockey]

They could also con a band into making unlicensed merchandise bearing their logo, and then sue them too :)

This is what

[burgburgburg]

While the source is available for download, they've removed/changed copyright strings. That is a violation of the GPL. That's what.

Re:This is what

[erikdalen]

well, If they've removed the Copyright and only assigned it to themselves. they can just as well remove the license at any time. /Erik

Re:This is what

[Fuyu]

I downloaded and installed NeoAudio 1.50.6 to check out the Copyright statement. Going to Help->About, displays:

1.50.6 http://www.NeoNapster.com

Copyright (C) 2002 NeoNapster.com

based on CDex 1.50b6, Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Albert Faber

Re:This is what

[Dalcius]

And to your right, folks, an AC who hasn't done his homework. *shock* *amazement*

A major study (too lazy to look up links, I think I read this in that rebuttal letter to MS from the Peruvian senator) said that 75% or so of all development is done in-house for projects that are used within a company. Most of the programmer profession would be fine.

And the leftover 25% would most likely be fine as well. Being paid to develop OSS is not new, but not broadly found, simply because people are scared of this business model. However, even Microsoft is slowly realizing the benefits of the OSS development model. The OSI homepage has good speculation and even perspectives on these new business models as well.

Support and maintenance as an income stream? Sure, people are just lining up to pay for support...

Actually, if you study trends of late, the software market is going to a support role - businesses want solutions, not just a box with a CD.

I'll also add that my company, which is a software reseller, fits both of these points well (although less on the degree of % developed for in-house, it fits with the market overall).

Read up at www.opensource.org before you scream that Stallman is a retard as you only make yourself look like one.

Re:This is what

[Dalcius]

Damn, I love these ACs. Please, if anyone wants to have a debate here, grow some genitals and post under your user name.

"A major study" ...by some guy who my sister's friend's aunt met at the circle-K...

From OSI jobs page
Programming will collapse if software has no market value

"Very unlikely. Code written for resale is only the tip of the programming iceberg. It used to be said that 85% of all the code in the world was written in-house at banks and insurance companies. This is probably no longer the case (and a good thing; who in their right mind wants to wear a tie and grind out huge volumes of COBOL?) but most estimates put the proportion of all code written in-house at companies other than software vendors at over 75%."

Forgive me for not putting that right or looking it up. I'll forgive you for being a mocking jack-ass.

"And the leftover 25% would most likely be fine as well" ..most likely, we guess, although nobody really knows because it hasn't been tried. And if they would prefer to remain programmers, fuck 'em - everybody should follow the Church of Stallman!

Although I resent your sarcasm, I'll agree with you here on both points. Stallman has gone over the top quite a few times. That doesn't make him wrong, however.


"Microsoft is slowly realizing the benefits of the OSS development model"

Here's the really humorous part. Yeah, they were so tired of making money they decided to just go Open Source!

Damn, you're dense. I didn't say they're doing open source, I said they're realizing the benefits. Read: Shared source. I didn't say how far they were taking it, just that they realize the benefits. This is just a beginning.


"you only make yourself look like one"

whereas by quoting statistics without also quoting sources you make yourself a paragon of truth and reliable source of undisputable facts, I suppose.

Being sarcastic doesn't add to your point, either.

Re:This is what

[Dalcius]

I know =)

I've heard the advice. Just defending my argument with facts since I have the time to look them up now (not at work). =)

Even so, sometimes I just can't help myself =)

This is how the GPL works

[herc_mk2]

NeoNapster distibuted a slightly different version of another GPL'ed project (CDex). They (NeoNapster) released their source code under the GPL.

So where is the problem? This is exactly what the GPL was intended for.

Sure they're very similar products, so what? Look at the Linux distributers -- especially in the early days, the only differences were the install programs.

Sure NeoNapster "bundled" some dubious features, but so what again? Don't use it. Or get the source, edit it to remove stuff you don't like, and release your own project under the GPL.

Re:This is how the GPL works

[Narchie Troll]

The GPL also involves crediting the original authors, especially if you haven't made any significant changes.

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:Positive rating?

[Invictus2.0]

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...

Right here, all 5 of them.

It's sad that this is called "ripping"

[Animats]

Older versions of Adobe Premiere on the Mac would simply open an audio CD as an audio file. Newer versions don't do that. Of course, when Premiere did that, a CD-ROM drive cost more than a PC does now.

Re:It's sad that this is called "ripping"

[andfarm]

On Mac OS X, you can just open up the tracks on CDs as AIFF files.

Re:It's sad that this is called "ripping"

[Animats]

How could the CD cost more than the computer, when the computer included the CD?

The first CD-ROM drives were external, quite expensive, and used mainly by software developers.

Re:HAHA

[SpanishInquisition]

uh ripper, is that the correct term?

Re:comes with the territory

[buzzdecafe]

While we're at it, if you have sex, you're going to get SIDS, so never swap fluids with someone of the opposite sex.

SIDS is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Dude, you better watch out who you're having sex with.

Re:comes with the territory

[notasheep]

Can you please explain how this is theft? They seem to be following the rules of the GPL - making the source available and publishing the final result under the GPL.

Oh, the delicious irony

[duck_prime]

The problem is not so much that their taking someone's GPL'd program and redistributing it under a new name, but that they are removing the original author's (Albert L Faber) copyright notices.

Of course, the CDex people are pillars of the copyright-respecting community... ;)

<wide-eyed-ingenuous-look>

Maybe they can report the NeoNapster folks to the RIAA, as DMCA violators.

</wide-eyed-ingenuous-look>

Re:Oh, the delicious irony

[fire-eyes]

Of course, the CDex people are pillars of the copyright-respecting community... ;)

CDex isn't the one who might break a law, it is the user.

Don't be an ass.

Screen shots of each..

[Kakarat]

Here are the screen shots of both from each of their websites:
NeoAudio
CDex

comments at download.com

[Schwamm]

the best part about it all is that there are *no* positive comments about neoaudio. every comment refers to how it's a rip off of cdex.

Deja Vu

[davidstrauss]

Music City Morpheus is the same thing--ripped of open source. The author of Gnucleus didn't even know his code was ripped of until the "Preview Edition" came out. I don't see people having the same reaction to their modified version.

Isn't Napster a trademark?

[GreyyGuy]

Are these guys just trying to make a buck off of CDex and Napster without much if any work?

So when does Napster come out and beat on them for trademark violation?

Thanks submitter...

[powerlinekid]

For those not in the know, CDex is a very nice, very easy-to-use GPL (as in Open Source) Audio CD Ripper
Ooooooohhhhhh... thaaaaat GPL. And here I am confusing an open source licence with damnit... can't come up with anything witty that GPL could be an acronym for. Damn you job, damn you.

Re:HAHA

[wallsaroundme]

There is nothing wrong with extracting audio from CDs you have purchased, this is called "fair use".

Slashdot morons again

[poisoneleven]

So I don't see what the big deal is. He took Cdex, added support for gnutella, rebranded and added ad crap in it. No, it may not be ethical, but he didn't just rebrand what already existed, he added p2p filesharing support crap to it. He released his under the GPL, has source available for download on his website...did anyone even look at what it does?

Re:Slashdot morons again

[Aknaton]

> it may not be ethical

It was ethical, provided they retained the proper copyright information. It didn't just fall out of the sky, you know?

Re:Slashdot morons again

[kwishot]

NeoNapster is the p2p program

NeoAudio is cdex rebranded w/ spyware

They didn't add jack!

CDex Acknowledged

[semaj]

It's still not very nice, but at the bottom of "NeoAudio.rtf" in the source (available from their site) it says:

Acknowledgements
Based on CDex.

I guess this and the GPL licence means they might technically be doing nothing wrong.

Re:HAHA

[SpanishInquisition]

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

...and?

[Clue4All]

The exact same thing happened when Morpheus used Gnucleus as the basis for their new product. Much like MusicCity, NeoNapster isn't in violation of the GPL and offer source for their application. Isn't "ripping off" (derivative works) what the GPL encourages? There shouldn't be a problem here, if the project doesn't like someone else using their code, then they SHOULDN'T HAVE USED THE GPL.

Re:HAHA

[joshsisk]

Sure, I don't have a problem with that. Never said I did. But I wouldn't consider CDEx a theft tool. No more than a VCR is, or a CD-Burner. It's just a tool. Tools can be used for both honest and dishonest ends.

Re:HAHA

[DrFrob]

There's nothing wrong with repackaging GPL software and adding spywares IF the user is told what changes have occurred in the repackaging.

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:A little murky here

[unicron]

I have no problems with their GPL tactics, I have problems with their spyware and adware, which has recently become the bane of my existence. This has to do with someone making a really awesome program and then having someone else come along and add some stupid spyware/adware, repackage it and call it "their version". If I had a tracking device and surveillance camera to your car that doesn't make me a fucking car manufacturer does it?

Re:A little murky here

[Anonymous Coward]

>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!

If it weight the same as a duck, it's a witch. Burn her! Burn her!

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

[MikeV]

That's where the "They may very well have room for critisism, and I'm not endorsing them" comes in. However, they do give credit to CDex saying that it's based on that project.

And what about the copyright? Look and feel alterations - no matter how minor, logos, tweaks, minor changes, etc could justify them putting their names on the copyright.

Okay, I'm not going to jump in and defend them - this is more a principal thing to me than defending these guys specifically - they may very well be crooks. But on the surface - given their credit to CDex and retaining the GPL, it looks like they have the best intentions. They took a GPL project, gave credit to it, kept the license, and commercialized it some for their purposes. AOL does that to Mozilla (well, it also funds Mozilla too, but that's beside the point - Galeon also does that to Mozilla and any number of independant companies could easily do that to Mozilla), Ximian does that to Gnome...oh heck - the examples are everywhere.

If they've not dotted their i's and crossed their t's in certain areas, would it not be better to gently remind them rather than slam them and call them thieves (which sounds very Bill Gate'ish), especially since they've taken great care on the other extraordinarily important issues of credit and license? "Hey guys, you need to ammend the copyright, not replace it." or something like that.

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:

"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

[OneStepFromElysium]

You wrote:
Let's not burn any witches yet until we've without a doubt verified that they're indeed witches!

Exactly. We need to throw them in the water first and see if they float, because as we all know, witches are made of wood!

Re:A little murky here

[Dalcius]

Seconded (besides the modded up part - that negativity isn't neccessary).

It's not what laws they break, it's the thought that counts.

They're in the right, legally, but that doesn't make them good people. They take someone's work, put abusive software in the package, and attempt to take advantage of dumb users. That is immoral, regardless of legality.

We have a right to bitch, IMO. As the parent said, the backlash might be a bit harsh, but sometimes poor people really deserve it.

Re:A little murky here

[nick_davison]

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.

Except then they wouldn't have a product.

Just because you get in to a huff doesn't give you any right to close the source on a project that's 90% other people's open source, 10% your own spyware.

It is always wise to consider your own understanding before calling others morons.

Re:A little murky here

[ncc74656]

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......

Actually, if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore is a witch.

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

[thomas.galvin]

Check this out for more info on the hacker culture, especially the OpenSource types. It looks like the HTML got eaten, but there's a postscript file there.

Re:A little murky here

[msimm]

Thanks, and your right about the negativity.

Re:A little murky here

[netphilter]

However, initial versions of Mandrake made very little more than cosmetic changes to Redhat. The only differences were things like the logo and some other minor things.

Re:A little murky here

[dirkdidit]

However, initial versions of Mandrake made very little more than cosmetic changes to Redhat. The only differences were things like the logo and some other minor things.

Did Mandrake ever have spyware and adware to try to make money off of other people's work? I think not....

Re:A little murky here

[CableModemSniper]

"Turned you into a newt you say?"
"Well, I got better."

Re:A little murky here

[Jeremiah Blatz]

Not that at the end of the NeoAudio license, they didn't even remove the commentary about how to claim copyright and how you should get your employer's signature. I suspect that they didn't even read the whole thing, and this this is a case of copyright infringement due to ignorance/stupidity, instead of malice. Still highly illegal, tho.

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 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.

Re:A little murky here

[llzackll]

The thing is, they basically took the CDex source code, changed strings from CDex to NeoAudio, and now they are profiting off it.. They basically did no work at all.. Technically it might not be illegal, but highly unethical.

Re:A little murky here

[thomas.galvin]

Oh, I see. This software is free (as in "I am a sanctimonious prick") until someone tries to use it. At that point you are going to slam all sorts of requirements on it.
Look. Either the software is free (as in ...) or it isn't. If you are a control phreak, be honest and make your software propriatary.

The issues are a bit more complex than I want to get into for a /. post, so read the ERS link I provided above.

Anyway, recognition is the money of the open source culture. recognition is gained through sharing something of value with the community.

To ensure that the code contributed by people is of maximum value, the GPL allows modification and redistribution; it is truly given to the community. On the other hand, hacker ethic protect's the author's ability to continue to recieve recognition for his/her work. While it is legal to fork a project, rebrand it, etc, it is considered bad form to do so unless the code has been abandoned (i.e. it is no longer activly maintained) or the author fails to make necessary/useful modifications to the code.

This can be kind of hard to understand if you don't play with these people, but what we are seeing here really is internally consistant behavior. There was no good reason for the fork; NeoNapster just wanted to make money off of someone else's work. They contributed nothing to the community, added nothing of value to the project. Legal, yes, but socially unacceptable.

As I read the GPL, the CDEX folks have nothing to complain about. They specifically allowed for this in their license. If they didn't want it to happen, they should have gone closed source. (or open source with a restrictive license (Shared source?))

The GPL is the best compromise I have seen between ensuring a piece of software will remain valueable to the community at large, and protecting the author's right to recognition. I imagine that the CDex team would welcome source modifications that are benificial, but to ensure that anyone can make these modifications, a GPL style license is necessary. This does make NeoNapster's actions legal (unless what I have been reading about their changing of copyright strings is true; I haven't browsed the source), but it does not make them right.

Whether the users of this software have something to complain about (spyware) is another matter, but very little of this discussion has been about them.

Watch what happens when someone developes an actuall, useful mod to a program. The reaction is usually "hey, cool" ro "well, lemme incorporate that into the next release." Much of the vehemence is due to the fact that modification to the program is crapware.

Re:A little murky here

[AvitarX]

What moraly wrong about what they are doing. They are distributing the software for free as in beer. But want some money, so they add add and spyware. If it is made clear that there is spyware involved, then so what. Even if they distributed the exact same thing they may nead to change the name (see RedHat).

The original product is in no way tainted, and yet some more people get its functionality.

P.S. What is so wrong about addware?
I love the Opera browser, and it is addware by my choice. Why is that so bad???
Also, there are plenty of pay for surf type volentary spyware, and again, so what.

Re:A little murky here

[Dalcius]

What moraly wrong about what they are doing.

-Taking advantage of a user's lack of knowledge about these utilities to get money.

-Riding on the back's of someone else to get money they did not earn.

-Tainting the idea of CDex in the first place by making a version of it non-free.

-Stealing a copywrited work.

Need I go on?

Even if they distributed the exact same thing they may nead to change the name (see RedHat).

Get your facts straight - Red Hat is NOT simply distributing the same thing. They make additions, modifications, etc. They're known to offer contributions to the Open Source Community. They take an otherwise hard to install Linux Kernel, package the whole thing with documentation and an installer, set default settings, etc. to make it easier on the end user. If this neo crap added useful (to the user) additions, then fine, but they didn't. And I should mention that Red Hat doesn't use spyware or adware, at least to the absolute best of my knowledge (and considering this laptop is running RH 7.1, I'd say I'm knowledgable enough).

The original product is in no way tainted

If you were to take a survey, the vast majority of users would rate spyware as bad, and most likely, adware negatively. These were the only additions to CDex. Adding a negative to something taints the original.

and yet some more people get its functionality.
Yes, more people might find CDex's functionality - that is a plus. In fact, the only one I can find besides the publicity on their theft (yes, theft, look up copyright law).

P.S. What is so wrong about addware?

Ad-ware isn't all that bad - I don't mind contributing that to people who created a product I use (e.g. Opera, I have used it, but don't like it). But I am of the firm belief that ad-ware should be optional to the user and that one shouldn't put it in a free program to make money off someone else's work.

If you think taking someone else's work which was published with the goal of being free and helping people, and adding spyware and ad-ware to it to make money off of something you didn't help out on, you have some seriously twisted morals. If you truely believe that, I hope you never earn more than $35k yearly, ever, because that's all scum deserve.

Re:A little murky here

[Dalcius]

Before someone jumps down my throat, I made a typo:

-Tainting the idea of CDex in the first place by making a version of it non-free.

Should read:

-Tainting the idea of CDex in the first place by making money off of a product which was supposed to be a free, side-effect free tool to benefit the public out of good will.

Re:A little murky here

[DavidTC]

Sleazy let legitimate. Heh.

In my book, all sleazy businesses are illegitimate. I don't care if they're 'legal'.

This is exactly the same as selling people swampland in Florida. They are 'selling', with adware, something that is designed to be free. It's rather like those 'get ordained for $25' spams I get.

Re:A little murky here

[mallie_mcg]

So stop bitching, download the source from the the Neonapster website NeoAudioSource here and do it back to them, sans spyware or what not.

(This comment is completely redundant if at time the parent was posted this source was not available.)

Re:A little murky here

[AvitarX]

The comment about RedHat was reffering to the fact that they will not let people sell RedHat Linux as such. You can download and sell it, but must give it a different name.

I think that the rebranding of a package with some plusses and minusis, is OK, of course in this the minuses WAY outway the plusses. The name Napster though makes the entire thing much more accessable which is a benifit.

After reading more of the posts though I will retract my statement that I think the company is OK, they reliscensed CDex, even if they do provide the source, they did not use the GPL.

As far as adding the spy/add ware I always thought part of the reason the GPL is used is because no matter what people do to the program, you can do anyone else can do whatever they want forever and forever.

As far as preying on the dumb, pretty much everybussiness out there does that to an extent. I work at a copy shop, we do work for large companies that could save money if they could get their act together and do work inhouse, that extra money is our profit.

Whatever, I really lost interest in this post by now.

Re:comes with the territory

[-=OmegaMan=-]

SIDS? Sudden Infant Death Syndrome?

If you're young enough to get *that* you've got no business having sex.

The user comments.

[fognugen]

The user comments at download.com make for a very entertaining read

Yes they do. Especially this insightful gem from Rob Malda - about 35 comments down.

"read the other comments"
they speak for themselves

Thanks for the tip Rob!! I almost forgot what I was doing while reading the comments.

Re:The user comments.

[_xeno_]

I didn't find that comment - but I did find this one, about 35 comments down:

[Thumbs Up] Commander Taco ---- 05-Aug-2002 11:17:21 AM

Features ........ O O O O O (5)
Ease of Use ..... O O O O O (5)
Output Quality .. O O O O O (5)
Speed ........... O O O O O (5)

"Wow! The best of its kind I have seen!"

This is an incredibly well made piece of software. It completely outperforms CDEX and the SpyWare is only enabled if you request it, and in return, you get 100+ free songs. This completely rocks. Don't use anything but this!

I didn't know Taco was using Windows now. Good to know he endorces this great piece of adware.

:)

Re:The user comments.

[Yunzil]

I liked #21 better:

"This software smells"
I just installed this software on my PC and when I tried to rip my Star Wars Episode II CD all these photos of Natalie Portman started popping up all over my screen and then my CD drive opened up and out poured hot grits right down my pants. I am very afraid to rip my new Nelly CD now.

Re:The user comments.

[fobbman]

That's obviously a fake. Not a misspelled word to be seen.

Re:The user comments.

[nettdata]

Especially this insightful gem from Rob Malda - about 35 comments down.

"read the other comments"
they speak for themselves

Where's the lameness filter when you need it, eh?

real the small print

[El_Muerte_TDS]

on their site ( http://www.neonapster.com/download.html ) :

NeoNapster is open source software based on the Gnucleus engine, distributed under the GNU General Public License. To download the latest source code, click on the link below:
NeoNapster Source Code : version 2.4 (.zip)

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:
NeoAudio Source Code : version 1.50.6 (.zip)

Re:real the small print

[(startx)]

the "based on cdex" and "based on gnucleus" wasn't there a few hours ago. besides, it's not "based" on them, it is them with the names changed.

Re:real the small print

[smithmc]

NeoAudio is open source software based on the CDex engine, distributed under the GNU General Public License.

Uh-uh. CDex isn't an "engine", it's an application (and a damn good one) that these f*ckers have essentially ''stolen'', IMO.

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 client, just like Morpheus and the whole series of other clones.

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 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.

Re:NeoNapster = Gnucleus, this isn't new

[JoeBuck]

If the Gnucleus author is tolerant of violations to his license, he is in effect allowing the violations. Only the copyright owner has standing to sue.

However, if Gnucleus contains any GPLed software owned by someone else, then that someone else could sue NeoNapster.

Re:Do we get to test the GPL now?

[Narchie Troll]

No, NeoAudio is licensed under the GPL. They so much as admit that it's based off (ripped off, in my opinion) CDex. There seems to be some evidence that they've made incremental improvements to Gnucleus to make it NeoNapster.
The problem is that they apparently changed copyright strings in the source, which is a no-no. You have to credit the original authors if you use their source.

Complaints posted by bots?

[Java Pimp]

Is it just me or does it look as if some of the complaints were posted by someone w/ a grudge? (not that I support ripping people off or anything ... that just sucks!)

They changed some string (i.e. replace CDex with NeoAudio), changed the logo and added some nice SpyWare and Adware. ... 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 at download.com not to download this application but download CDex instead.

Saw these in a few of the posts. Word for word.

Is this someone with a grudge? cut-and-paste plagarism? FUD bots?

Just curious!

Hypocrites?

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Hmmm... let's see... when it comes to people mass pirating mp3s on /. it's the RIAA that's EVIL, but when it's someone pirating off GPL software it's called said to have been "ripped off".

Interesting concept of fairness...

Re:HAHA

[macdaddy357]

What's a stealer? Is that illiterate 'marikan for theif? "I is NOT illiterate! My parents wuz married three months afore I wuz borned!"

Goatse likes it!

[reyalsnogard]

If Goatse likes it, it MUST be good!

Let's not be toothless

[1gor]

Remember Scientology Chirch using copyright law to fight opponents? Why "nice guys" such as open source community are so soft? It is clear that NeoSomething is violating copyright (even if not GPL) - so call your activist/lawyer and protect the rights. Otherwise nice guys always lose...

It's not about tears; It's about licenses

[burgburgburg]

It doesn't matter if they credit CDex on their website. They have no legal right to remove/change CDex's copyright info. Once they violate that they have no right to use the code for anything.

So, what is everyone using now?

[forau]

Napster's long since dead, Morpheus is also gone. Neonapster is crazy spyware. So, are there any good file sharing applications out there now? I tried a few flavors of Gnuetella about a year ago, but it wasn't very encouraging.

Gnucleus/CDex

[feinorgh]

Actually, judging from the screenshots on the NeoNapster site, they've been (ab)using both CDex and Gnucleus (http://www.gnucleus.com)

Gnucleus is IMHO one of the few decent and GPL-free gnutella clients on Windows.

Stop the insanity!

[jabber01]

I'm going to go out on a Karmic limb here and say something sure to not make me any friends.

What's the big freaking deal?

CDex is used to rip CD's, and this music is then very often shared, against the terms on which it is licensed. I don't care if "you" are honest about it, the fact is most people are not.

Now, someone gives a GPL ripper the same respect, and everyone is up in arms? For shame!

Hypocrites, the lot of you. Share and share alike when it benefits you, and when someone else does it to no advantage to you, they are the enemy? Fascinating. Truly.

The fact that this is a copy of CDex should have no consequence on anything. If this isn't about AdWare/SpyWare, it's about tasting ones own medicine. That is all.

Re:Stop the insanity!

[TBone]

And Xerox and other brands of photocopiers are often used to make copies of books. Some of those copies even get handed out in classrooms for student use, in violation of the original copyright of the source material. So since Xerox machines can be used to break copyright, we should ban them!

And don't even get me started on VCRs. I mean, can you believe people record TV programs, then give those copies to their friends?!?!?! It's criminal, I tell you. Once VCRs are outlawed, only outlaws will have VCRs. And Xerox machines.

Oh, and don't pay any attention to those photocopies of the tables from my HTML, Perl, MySQL, and other reference books so that I can have everything in a single binder. And those tapes on my VCR of last week's Enterprise episode? Don't touch them, they're going on EBay to the highest bidder. Oh, and all those songs in my Rio? Yeah, they're from my personal CD collection, just like the remixed CD's I put together for when I work out in the yard or at the Gym, from before I had my Rio. Send in the MPAA and RIAA, but be warned, I copied directions out of a book at the library about how to make a bomb, and tapes an episode of Junkyard Wars that had the inspiration for my delivery vehicle, so I'm ready for them.

The problem, mister Karmic Limb, is that they're editing out existing copyright information, and replacing it with theirs. No one has said "We don't want them using our code", the complaint is that the original authors are not being given credit for the work. This is where the GPL violation is...

Re:Stop the insanity!

[jabber01]

I never said anything should be banned. Tools are tools, and the usage of the tool is potentially inapropriate, not the tool itself.

The violation of GPL is exactly my point though. If someone has a copy of music, that they are using in violation of the terms of usage - explicitly they're listenning to it, and keeping a digital copy without owning the original medium, it's not a fair use copy, and they are stealing. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's the definition in the current law, yet the geeks cry foul that they're being made to respect the license.

Similarly, cutting the credits from the source is a violation of the fair use of GPL. And the geeks cry foul because NeoNapster violates license.

Re:Stop the insanity!

[geezenstacks]

A more fitting analogy would be if someone took a piece of music, redistributed it, tried to claim that they wrote it, and packaged it with other songs you'd likely not want. I don't think very many people around here would support such an action, regardless of how they feel about the digital distribution of music.

Re:Stop the insanity!

[DavidTC]

First of all, stop using the word 'license' to refer to copyright law. It makes you sound like a moron. Music is not licensed. Copies of music are sold. What you can do with these copies is controlled by copyright law, not by some hypothetical 'license'.

Second, and this makes you sound even more like a moron, a CD ripper does not give you copies of music you don't already have the medium for. If you want to complain about people ripping music and sharing it, that might have made sense, but pretending that people use CD rippers to somehow magically gain copies of music they don't have the medium for is crazy.

Rule of Acquision #219

[Ilan Volow]

Possession is 11/10 of the law.

Re:Download source

[program21]

Why not just get CDex and not have to worry about that?

Even if it WERE OK under the GPL...

[m2pc]

Taking someone else's creative work and claiming it as your own isn't very ethical to say the least... not to mention the fact that they added features that make the software *less* desirable to the end user and make the original author look bad if someone confuses the "stolen" software with the original. This is no different than knock-off imitations of major name brand retail products... Everyone usually gets hurt here: the end user gets poor quality product, the knock-off company gets a bad name or gets sued by the real company, and the real company gets hurt by the brand confusion and their reputation may be damaged by the inferior imitation products.

Re:Even if it WERE OK under the GPL...

[EdMcMan]

It IS ok under the GPL. Neonapster released the source. I agree that it's sad that a company would do something like this. Morpheus and Neonapster are scum, agreed, but as you can see on download.com, I think a lot of people will take notice and download the right one.

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.

Re:the difference

[herc_mk2]

Yeah, I hadn't realized the copyright issue. That is a definite no-no, my bad. What they did from a code point of view is still legit, though; there's no violation of the GPL there as far as I can tell.

But you can't claim copyright over someone else's copyrighted work.

Easier ogg encoder

[yerricde]

Currently it's the only program that i've found that makes encoding Vorbis .ogg files easy.

Then try OggDropXPd. It's as easy as taking your wav files and dragging them onto the fish logo.

I don't use the one step rip and encode at the same time because even though CDex runs my CD drive at 10x when ripping audio, my CPU can't encode audio that quickly. In addition, sometimes I want to edit the track to filter out hiss (more common on older masters or on guitar solo intros) or frequencies that I can't hear (such as everything above 17 kHz; I've tested myself) or to standardize the amount of silence that opens a track.

Re:HAHA

[Jacer]

I agree, however I notice the people who use this argument are the people who use the tools for dishonest ends, people who want to keep it to maintain their unfair use, soley because there maybe a fair use, somewhere...

Re:comes with the territory

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have a very bizarre definition for the word "stealing"...

Stop that man! He's stealing your sandwich!

No, I'm giving him the sandwich.

But you aren't mandating how he can use the sandwich, so he is stealing it!

Go away you gnazi.

For Windows Users

[wizarddc]

I have been using FreeRip for about a year, with no problems whatsoever. Even has CDDB supports, and can rip to wav's and Ogg as well. Enjoy!

Re:For Windows Users

[Webmonger]

Yeah, well, I've been using CDex on Windows for months now. Even has FreedDB and CDDB support, and can rip wav's and Vorbis and MP2 and VQF and WMA and AAC and supports multiple MP3 encoders, including LAME. In fact, it's so good that other companies are repackaging it as their own. Enjoy!

grep "Albert Faber" * -r

[ulbador]

There are a least 340 lines with the original authors' name in the comment, so I'm not sure how bad if at all this is(if nothing else, bad business)

Read the positive comments on the CNET page

[doorbot.com]

http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10132447.html?ob =0&pn=1&fb=1

A few gems:

"I think that CDex is crappy. It doesn't do half of what this software does. I will only give my support for this software. I mean is this software not turtle enough for you????" -- blinkboy

"Ever since I downloaded this, my e-mail box has been full of great, insightful advertisements! Also, all of my pop-ups are custom-tailored to my browsing preferences!" -- JarJar24

"I have used this software and cdex and it is NOT a rip off. You are all making false accusations based on nothing. They are a little similiar but this is NOT a clone of cdex. If you want more proof then feel free to email me at jetonia@yahoo.com if not then STFU and quit posting this non-sence about it being a rip off because ITS NOT!" -- Jetonia@yahoo.com

I'm surprised NeoNapster isn't planning a ResellerRating-esque "censoring" of these posts. Anyone recall that particular episode? I recall one company performed the classic iBait-And-Switch on their online store... followed by a quick assaulting on ResellerRatings and other such sites. They complained, and the ratings sites caved, removing the deluge of negative reports. In their defense, though, they were later reinstated. Check HardOCP for more info... this was a year ago or more.

typical slashdot hypocracy

[blandthrax]

I'll just go ahead and poke a stick at an angry bear. What the hell do I care, karma doesn't buy groceries anyway.

The point of the hostility (for me at least) directed towards NeoNapster was never that they were violating the GPL (we understand they aren't) but that they suck b/c they're taking advantage of it. Most of the comments I read are of the "so what, they're within their rights" nature. Like it's that easy. It's perfectly fair that they would like to make a profit but they're attempting to do this by piggybacking a very nice program with all types of invasive and much derided (especially here on Slashdot) technology. The message I get is that if AOL or MS pull this kind of shit, it's bad, evil, terrible, a blot on humanity, but if someone does it under the cloak of Open Source, it's no big deal. Spyware and Adware is just that no matter what licensing scheme it is under. As far as I'm concerned, NeoNapster needs to understand that what they've done is a scumball-used-car-salesmen tactic.

Re:comes with the territory

[Anonymous Coward]

"You, "sir", are a tool."

I take offense to that.

-sincerely
Maynard.

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:asshat

[duck_prime]

Not everyine who uses CDeX is a music pirate. [...] 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. [froth froth]

Cool your jets, rocket-boy. All I'm saying here is that it's funny that a lot of people [1] both applaud the GPL, enforced by copyright, and believe it is somehow okay to violate the license terms of music recordings.

I never said I was a huge fan of the DMCA. The RIAA does have to have some way to protect their IP, but I'm not sure if there is a solution that protects their interests as well as satisfying fair use. There are people out there who will rip all their CDs and have them fly around their private LAN just to say that Napster is fair use. ;)

[1] Not necessarily you, I have very little knowledge of or interest in your situation, though your refusal to share music files is laudable.

Re:asshat

[DunbarTheInept]

Here's the difference:

The GPL was written using copyright laws as they have always existed since the inception of the country.

The DMCA is a brand new addition to copyright law that didn't exist back when the GPL was written.

So therefore it is NOT neessarily hypocitical to be in favor of one and not the other. They are different laws.

Re:asshat

[spotter]

The large majority of CDEX's usage is legal. As you have the physical CD, and are ripping it. Assuming you own it (as one would assume most rips are) then it's 100% legal. The "illegal" part would be either distributing the mp3s (cdex not involved) or ripping a CD you don't own.

Re:asshat

[thales]

"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?"

I'd say these tools are more like a bong than a crowbar. You can load the bowl with tobacco or a legal herbal mixture, but that isn't what the majority of bong owners are smoking in them.

Re:asshat

[Yottabyte84]

The GPL is a law now? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....

Re:asshat

[Danse]

Wow, you're dumb. You really didn't comprehend that, did you?

Re:asshat

[Yottabyte84]

Wow, you're dumb. You really don't understand sarcasm, do you?

Re:asshat

[Danse]

If it's really lame sarcasm, then no, I probably won't get it. And you'll still be considered dumb for having said it.

Re:asshat

[fferreres]

It's the manner in which the tool is used

If 99% of the people use it for pirating goodies then it's another thing. For yes, you use it for what is legal, but the ruling is for preventing the others from doing harm to the music monopolies.

Likewise, if people only used guns for practicing (as a sport) or hunting, there would be no problem at all.

I know what you say is correct and that blaming P2P for beign a pirates tools is unfair. The uses the mayority of the people give to the tools change and twist everything.

So i would be a good idea to rapidly start finding cool and effective uses for P2P other than trading filez before they somehow taken them away from us (be it DRM or whatever). And not only do we need to find those uses, we need to actually USE it for those things, and shadow other "criminal" uses.

That would clearly indicate the the problem is with some people and not with the tool!

Re:asshat

[Technician]

It's the manner in which the tool is used
I can't agree more. I have CDeX. I have a portable MP3 player. I have the original CD's. Don't ask for a MP3 copy.
With that in mind, I have absolutely no use for a copy of CDeX with peer to peer and adware stitched in. The other 2 features are useless to me.

The other app appears to be made to share ripped music in violation of copyright law.

CDeX in itself is not a tool made for piracy as a primary use any more than a photocopy machine.
I don't argue the fact they can be improperly used.

Re:asshat

[DunbarTheInept]

Attributing a position to someone that they didn't say they had, nor imply they had, as you did when you claimed I thought GPL was a law, is not sarcasm. Sarcasm is exaggeration of something that *was* said, not making up a strawman that was not said.

Albert Faber wrote NeoAudio?! According to grep..

[ulbador]

I do find this funny though: lame-3.92/doc/html/history.html: (Thanks to Albert Faber, NeoAudio author) Albert Faber is the NeoAudio author ?! :)

Re:HAHA

[timmyf2371]

There's nothing wrong with using a CD-Ripper. If I own a CD I'm legally entitled to "rip" it to mp3 to listen on my computer, mp3 player, etc. cdex does this.

If I'm downloading mp3s from Kazaa or wherever then its a totally different matter.

cdex is simply a tool which allows fair use of a CD.

Tim

Filing off the original author's name

[jdavidb]

You're allowed to do all that, but one goal of the open source and free software licenses is to insure that the original authors retain credit. So, you can reuse the code, change the name, modify, redistribute, even sell to your heart's content, as long as you don't misrepresent the work of others as your own.

clue is incorrect

[haukex]

So? The GPL doesn't forbid you from linking your GPL code against non-GPL code, and linking your GPL code to non-GPL code doesn't magically make the non-GPL code GPLd, either.

Scrolling through the posts on this topic I see so many misconceptions in either direction. As you say, I think everyone should take an hour or two, and check out the entire GPL and the FAQ, in this case, here and here.

The point is not that using non-GPL code in a GPL program "makes" the non-GPL code suddenly licensed under the GPL. If you could license the non-GPL code under the GPL, there is no problem. However, the point is that most non-GPL code has very restrictive licenses. The two licenses conflict, and in this case the GPL forbids the use of the non-GPL code in your program.

There's much more detail to following the GPL than just releasing your source.

Re:clue is incorrect

[HiThere]

Still, if you don't distribute the binaries, there's nothing to prevent you from linking in whatever code you choose. And I suppose that you can distribute your source if you choose without distributing the binaries.

Since I don't know how these operations work, it seems reasonable to me that the proprietary parts might lay only in the non-redistributed software, which would, as I understand it, be quite legit.

Interesting stuff

[derago]

Without me, this story wouldnt exist (hehe, I just registered to post this). I emailed Albert when the development in CDEx was at an all-time low. I asked him to either hand the project over to me, or to release it under the GPL. As he replied, he told me he will create a SourceForge project for it. I think this was the turning point for CDEx, because after that it became one of the best CD Rippers available, which shows the strength of opensource development. From there, this is the first big news I heard of them. Anyways, CDEx still rocks. Im using it over 3 years now, and it never failed for me. thx for reading, everybody.

Am I the only one...

[stubear]

...who see the irony in this? Is this the very same group stating publicly that they don't care about artists copyrights and violate them regularly? Sucks when it happens to you huh? Perhaps you'll learn from this and grow-up? Nah...this is Slashdot afterall.

Re:Am I the only one...

[cptgrudge]

I don't think that there are many artists that actually retain the copyright for themselves, it goes to the record label the signed with, which then controls the flow of music to people.

Re:Am I the only one...

[stubear]

But it's the artists right to do so, no one forced them to sign over the copyright to the record label. Much like it is the right of a programmer to apply the GPL their applications they write (if they are in fact the authors and not a work for hire). My point is, it's an individual's right to protect their work as they see fit, even to lock the work away forever and never show it to anyone. Slashdot seemes to misunderstand this concept until something like this happens and the hypocricy comes out of the woodworks in full force.

Re:Am I the only one...

[arkanes]

Shush until you have the slightest clue about how the music industry works.

Re:Am I the only one...

[stubear]

Actually, I have a Bachelor's Degree in Recording Insudtry from MTSU. I studied the production and technology end but I got my fill of business and legal classes while in school. I have a VERY good idea how the music industry works.

Re:Am I the only one...

[caseih]

You're talking about the RIAA, right?

Funny Download.com Comments

[Hoeken]

Try reading the positive comments...they're hilarious. A sample:

"Superb! Just like CDex, but with spyware" I love this program. I used to use CDex, but I was annoyed at the lack of useless spyware included in the download. Since I switched to NeoAudio, all those troubles have gone away. I now have way more spyware and adware than I know what to do with. Thanks, NeoNapster!"

Re:HAHA

[Jacer]

I agree. However, I'm also going to ask, do you have any illegal mp3s on your computer? Any at all? just one? Has anyone ever downloaded a copyrighted song you've ripped? Of my massive collection of mp3s, I know I don't have any rights to several.

going around? (back to the basic arguments)

[beaverfever]

One of the (sarcastic) positive reviews, from Mr. Laughing-too-hard, had this to say:

"What did you expect?"
The CDex people are such huge respecters of copyright, they have precious little moral high ground to stand on to complain. Of course, they could report the NeoNapster kids to the RIAA for suspected DMCA violation... ;) What goes around comes around, I suppose.

http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10132447.html? ob =0&pn=1&fb=1

I have to admit I kinda agree with it - kinda like the whole kazaa thing a while ago regarding unpaid licensing fees - what goes around comes around.

Re:going around? (back to the basic arguments)

[RatBastard]

Considering that ripping a CD for personal use is not a copyright violation (at least not yet), your argument is without merrit. We're not talking about biological weapons or other tools that have only one possible application here. If CDeX ripped your CD and automaticall uploaded it all to a central music depository you MIGHT have an argument.

We need a GPL+ lissence to..

[Weezul]

..forbit addition of spyware. I would not be surprised to see RMS pay a lawyer to write such a lissence and I think people would use it. It might even provide a major selling point over the BSD lissence.. why anyone would use BSD is another question entirely.

Ultimatly, the lissence restrictions (GPL, no spyware, etc.) makes no diffrence to people like NeoNapster who want to distribute a signle program. They can always just buy the rights to distribute it closed source from the author. Who is going to say no to $10,000, even if it dose mean a few Windows lusers get porn pop-ups covering their desktop? The only people who the lissence effects are people like RedHat who are forced to deal with a large number of diffrent packages.

Re:We need a GPL+ lissence to..

[rwj]

No, we don't.

'Spyware'is far to vague a term to try to forbid in a license. One persons appropriate diagnostic information is another persons spyware.

Trying to define this in a license is going to create an even more difficult to understand license...

Why not...

[Twister002]

find out which ad suppliers their spyware uses and take out an ad for CDex?

That way someone using NeoDex or NeuNucleus will have an ad pop up with some text like
"Tired of all the pop ups, use CDex instead of NeoDex. It's the same thing without all the ads!"

"CDex - always ad-free!"

Re:HAHA

[Error-404NotFound]

I have downloaded many mp3s, but every CD i rip doesn't get shared... i don't ahve that kind of bandwidth :)

Legality Vs. Ethics

[JasonMaggini]

I don't think the question is really if they violated the GPL, which they may not have.
I've used CDex for a while (great app). I tried NeoAudio just for kicks, and found it to be nearly identical, apart from the Spyware. (Ad-Aware to the rescue!)
To slap your name on a program and release it without making any changes is the issue.
At least improve upon, or build something better based on the original software.

If you use CDex...

[bhsx]

Please Support them. I'm sure every bit helps, I've just sent my $5USD.

Re:HAHA

[Jacer]

I've got a cd burner, and I don't remember a single time I've used it for good and not evil!

Re:comes with the territory

[anotherone]

Did you even go to the website? the source is availible. Last time I checked, the GPL allows anyone to reuse the source for any reason, even for profit. The only stipulation is that the release must include a copy of the GPL and the source. This program includes both.

I'm not defending NeoNapster, I think it's pretty lame, but you've got to admit that if CDex wasn't GPL'd this wouldn't happen. There is no way you can be upset about this, the license specifically allows it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

#quake CD to Ogg Vorbis conversion guide

[pmsyyz]

CD to Ogg Vorbis guide (CDex + oggenc + VorbisGain): http://pms.colonpee.com/cd2ogg/

Re:HAHA

[timmyf2371]

That's a very valid question. I don't have any illegal mp3s on my computer at all, although if I see a song on TV I'll generally download a couple of songs by the artist to see whether its worth buying the CD. I've got over 50 CDs ripped as mp3 which gives me enough variety that I don't have to spend all my days downloading mp3s.

I'm not sure of the legality of this: I buy a CD from the Internet, and pay for it. While I'm waiting for it to arrive, I download the tracks from Gnutella so I can listen to them already. I would hope this is fair use, as I have paid for the CD.

Regarding sharing my mp3s - in the few times I actually open a file sharing program (Gnutella) I've never seen any uploads. Although saying that, when I was younger and had little cash, I did use Napster *quite* a lot, but not anymore. I'm one of those people who likes to buy CDs, and have a proper version of it.

Tim

Re:HAHA

[joshsisk]

What? You've _never_ made a mix cd for yourself from CDs you own (that's legal, AFAIK)? Or put school/work files on it for transport somewhere else? I use my CD Burner for "good" a few times a week. And rarely for evil, since I'm far to lazy to burn my cds for friends.

If you have any questions, mail swabby@c0re.net

[rhizome]

From the todo.txt in the source dist:

These are things that need do'n, if you would like to take on one of these list items please email me at swabby@c0re.net and I can give you some more insight on the problem and advice.

Re:HAHA

[joshsisk]

This doesn't have much to do with CD-Ex. It's a ripping and encoding tool, not a P2P tool. You can commit "intellecual piracy" with a scanner, too, but that doesn't mean scanners are theft tools.

Re:Might be fun to give the lowest cnet rating eve

[kiwimate]

No worries -- that's already been accomplished.

Out of 34 votes, 0% positive, 100% negative votes. Can't get much lower than that, now, can you?

Hey, NeoNapster, any comments? That's gotta be mighty embarrassing.

Re:HAHA

[joshsisk]

Geez. Intellectual, sorry.

Positive comments

[zeteo]

Made me laugh:

"Awesome! Great advertisement emails!"
Ever since I downloaded this, my e-mail box has been full of great, insightful advertisements!"

Re:HAHA

[mrquicknet]

I have 19GB of MP3's on my laptop at the moment and not one of them was downloaded nor has even one of them been uploaded. I ripped them all my self for my personal use. Just because you do something you think is wrong it doesn't mean everyone else is doing it.

The future of OSS isn't in [just] good hands

[mactari]

This move helps show one of the ways open source will be used in the future -- for less than the most admirable goals. Adware, spyware, etc, are probably just the tip of the iceberg. The GPL doesn't mean the software you've donated tens to hundreds of hours to will always be used in "pure" ways. There will probably be times where what's changed is much more negative than just a few logos -- to the point you might *not* want your copyright sitting (or at least your name) on each copy.

For instance, let's take Limewire, a Gnutella client. It'd be a pretty simple addition to the code to make your entire hard-drive available on the Gnutella network. It'd also be pretty easy to add something to track what kinds of searches you're using. Making the source available doesn't (iirc) require it's up for download, and how many end users really check before installing? Not to mention that a good enough coder could probably get that code in there in such a way it'd take you hours just to piece out that's what the code's doing or they'd hide it as an addition under an "auto-update feature".

GPL says that source must be available, but doesn't say anything about it being commented or written to be easy to understand -- or to tip its hand to show its more underhanded features!

I enjoy open source software, especially LGPL'd projects. If you can find enough pieces to a neat idea you've got in your head, *BAM*, you're making software you'd never have had the change to create otherwise. And the projects improve because there's no reason not to check your additions to these LGPL projects back in to the central source once you're done. Everybody wins! :^)

But if my idea is to secretly track searches or to collect personal information or to download and install spyware applications, these [L]GPL'd projects are every bit [har har] as helpful. Instead of having to implement from scratch, I can grab something useful from sourceforge, tease a few lines that connect to my server, obfuscate my code, call it open source, and market to the masses like mad.

Anyhow, just a long rant to say, "This just goes to show that simply because it's GPL doesn't mean it's good," and, "Don't think that your contributions to an open source project entitle you, literally or figuratively, to mandate the way and for what purpose that code's ultimately used."

Re:No. Linking, not combining

[haukex]

From the GPL FAQ: (emphasis mine)

Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.

What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

From what I read here this may be a bit of a gray zone. It sounds to me like "linking" is alredy a reason to consider the two programs as one. I'm not a Windows programmer nor a judge, so I don't know if the definition of combining two programs into one applies to linking DLLs as they are used in the mentioned programs. If it does (and it sounds like it to me), then I stand by my original point. If not, and if indeed the FSF says so (link?), I stand corrected on this point. In any case, the GPL violations by the clones are numerous, this is only one of many.

P.S. Before anyone starts yelling, here's another section from the GPL FAQ:

I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the GPL?

Yes, because that run-time library normally accompanies the compiler or interpreter you are using.

Push the Hypocrite Button

[nukeade]

I'm tired of the people who feel the need to play holier than thou or justify their $3000 worth of CDs by crying "hypocrites!" every time this comes up.

There is a big difference between plagarism and copyright violation. For all of the GBs of MP3s I've downloaded and uploaded again, I never changed a single one. Never put my name on it, or made any derivative works, and I bet very few if any slashdotters have. That is the difference between taking a book, putting your name on it, and reselling it and making a copy of the book for a friend. I personally believe that information should be free. I agree with slashdot here, however, because plagarism is without a doubt wrong.

I don't care where you get your music. If you feel filesharing is wrong or if you have the money to buy CDs, fine, but if you are going to start tearing down others because you feel that filesharing is flamingly wrong, I ask you to make your point directly rather than make comparisons that simply don't work.

~Ben

Re:Push the Hypocrite Button

[stubear]

WRONG. It is NO different. In either case you have denined an individual's RIGHTS. No matter how you try to justify it, this is simply wrong. If you don't like the fact that an artist has these rights then work to change things but violating one's rights and breaking the law is not the way to do it.

Limewire does that too themselves

[iamr00t]

The LimeWire Basic has some adware.
http://www.limewire.com/

But there's also GPLed source code now (not very easy to compile though).
http://www.limewire.org/

In which industry?

[Wakko Warner]

The music-stealing industry has never been particularly honorable.

- A.P.

Re:HAHA

[Jacer]

i sometimes use the cd burner at work for good, but today, i used it to copy a kenny g (my users have horrible taste in music!) cd for someone, i back some files up for people, but for school, i have my laptop, and vpn/offline files for remote use, as for making mix cds of cds i own, first off i'm not a fan of compilations, cds have a transient, wholly ambient feel that you need to listen to in order, and secondly, i own maybe 5 cds compared to my 7,000 mp3s

NeoNapster didn't just rip off CDex

[a20vertigo]

if anybody looked at the screenshot for their "NeoNapster" gnutella client, it's a rip of GNUCleus as well... not that there isn't a precedent of it, with say, the Morpheus Preview Edition... these guys need to burn in the depths of firey oblivion!

Re:HAHA

[Jacer]

yes, i may have been making a generalization, not everyone does it, however, you must admit that there are quite a few that do it, or there wouldn't be the worry about piracy, think about it for a second.

Re:HAHA

[Jacer]

That's very noble of you. I commend you. However you are in the minority of the mp3 community.

Solution....

[ImaLamer]

....get the source... edit their notices out and then put it out as the NEW! NeoAudio

Source Code?

[astroboy]

% ls
NeoAudio1.50.6.zip
% unzip NeoAudio1.50.6.zip
Archive: NeoAudio1.50.6.zip
creating: NeoAudio-1.50.6/
inflating: NeoAudio-1.50.6/ASFErr.h
[...]
% find . -type f -print | xargs grep Faber
./ASFErr.h:** Copyright (C) 1999 Albert Faber
./AsyncEncoder.cpp:** Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Albert Faber
./AsyncEncoder.h:** Copyright (C) 1999 - 2002 Albert Faber
./AudioFile.cpp:** Copyright(C) 1999 - 2002 Albert Faber
./AudioFile.h:** Copyright (C) 1999 - 2002 Albert Faber
./AutoDetect.cpp:** Copyright (C) 1999 Albert Faber
./AutoDetect.h:** Copyright (C) 1999 Albert Faber
[...]

They may have removed the copyright notices in the past, but they seem to be there now. I was going to do a quick diff of the CDex and NeoAudio sources just for giggles, but it's actually easier to find the NeoAudio source than the current CDex 1.50pre6 sources to do the diff; I scrounged around the CDex website for about 5 minutes before giving up.

Re:Source Code?

[Jord]

Do a search for it on sourceforge.com. I am sure you can grab it from the cvs easily enough.

Re:Source Code?

[astroboy]

Really? Did you follow those links, at all? There's lots of zip files full of .dlls and .exes, but I couldn't find any source files under sourceforge for versions later than 1.40. Sure, they might have been there. But after pulling down 5 .zip files and finding nothing, I quickly lost patience. How many did you try?

I just "love" the reviews

[WiredOni]

I just "love" how the comment section on the positive side on just about ever review site contains at least the standard, "I^Hthe author did not steal this, quit making false accusations, the program r0cks, there is no spyware, and send me a email to this address which either a junk mail account where I will promptly ignore it, or someone I want flamed," or something similar.

Oh well, looking at is now trolls seem to have joined been feeding the positive comment section. They seem to now be overtaking the scarcastic postivite comments. I never really trusted reviews from download sites anyway. I remember how the AD-Aware reviews were filled with FUD from spyware/adware/etc authors who felt threatened. The best thing about reviews is that are great for warnings.

Re:HAHA

[AsnFkr]

from the posts to download.com

Commander Taco 05-Aug-2002 11:17:21 AM

1 2 3 4 5

Features 5

Ease of Use 5

Output Quality 5

Speed 5

"Wow! The best of its kind I have seen!" This is an incredibly well made piece of software. It completely outperforms CDEX and the SpyWare is only enabled if you request it, and in return, you get 100+ free songs. This completely rocks. Don't use anything but this! looks like Cmdrtaco appreciates spyware. :)

From the CNet comments...

[BiteMyShinyMetalAss]

Jetonia@yahoo.com 05-Aug-2002 10:57:12 AM

"THIS IS NOT A RIP OFF!"
I have used this software and cdex and it is NOT a rip off.

No, even based on the screenshots, it's verrrrry similar... Apple, in the past, sued theme-makers for having the same general look-and-feel as Aqua. Industrial design is considered to be copyrightable. (IIRC, IANAL)

You are all making false accusations based on nothing. They are a little similiar but this is NOT a clone of cdex.

Although I haven't really looked at what they actually have on their site, based on the countless other posts, they've either (illegally) reassigned the copyright of CDex to themselves, or rewritten the code and mentioned that it was based on CDex. Either way, it's a clone.

If you want more proof then feel free to email me at jetonia@yahoo.com if not then STFU and quit posting this non-sence about it being a rip off because ITS NOT!

Whoops! Did I leave your e-mail address posted for the spambots? Silly me! (actually, someone should e-mail the person... see what they say.... I'm too lazy to myself ;) )

Re:From the CNet comments...

[handsomepete]

Ahhh... this is what throw away web mail accounts are for.

From: [withheld - I don't need more spam]@popstar.com (yep, popstar).
To: jetonia@yahoo.com
Subject: NeoAudio ripping off CDex

I am writing in regards to your claim that NeoAudio is not a rip off of CDex. You said to write if we wanted more proof (more than the zero proof provided on the download.com talkbacks), so I'm writing. Please provide at your soonest convenience.

While I doubt I'll recieve anything back (coughtrollcough), what the hey. I'm at work and I've got nothing else to do.

Sorta gives me an idea...

[scot4875]

Anyone know of any decent "geek" software sites? Someplace that just lists the best free/shareware utilities for a given application? I mean, I'd been using MusicMatch Jukebox for audio ripping for the past 3 years just because I hadn't found anything better, and happened to find CDex because of this story.

It'd be sort of nice to have a site that had just good stuff on it, instead of having to browse through a repository of garbage like Softseek to (maybe) find a somewhat usable utility for what you're trying to do...

--Jeremy

Re:Sorta gives me an idea...

[archen]

Basically look around sourceforge. It's probably worth your time just to look around for things you might need but not even be thinking about. Such as:
CD-DA X-Tractor (what I use to rip CDs)
Miranda - The best ICQ clone I've seen
Audacity - A audio editing program that needs a bit of work, but actually works pretty well for basic needs.

Just to name a few

Re:Sorta gives me an idea...

[adamjaskie]

Sourceforge? Freshmeat? Probably many more, but those are two i can think of off the top of my head. Look at sourceforge's Software Map

The real tragedy...

[OutsideBoston]

...is that apparently Alan Thicke died.

Look 3/4 of the way down the page.

~N

They don't look all that similar :-)

[e_n_d_o]

CDEX Screenshot

NeoAudio Screenshot

See it does work...

[Tsugumi]

For me the story here isn't that they ripped a great app. Free as in freedom means just that, you are free to use the code, ridistribute, repackage, and sell, so lomng as you adhere to the GPL. Freedom means you are free to do something that the original autjors might object to as easiy as anything else.

The story here is that it is a great example of why this movement works so well. Software has to compete on merit and purpose for the job. It's almost Darwinism of software. New features, or mutations, of the code, only survive if they enable the code to compete. A mutation that adds spyware will not survive against a version that has the self-same functionality without the strings attached. This app will fall by the wayside, consigned to the rubbish bin of software evolution.

OSS prompts us toward code that is most fit for a purpose, this example helps illustrate that point IMO

Re:See it does work...

[Hank Reardon]

Free as in freedom means just that, you are free to use the code, ridistribute, repackage, and sell, so lomng as you adhere to the GPL. Freedom means you are free to do something that the original autjors might object to as easiy as anything else.

My emphasis is added there.

I agree with you about the whole spyware thing; if you want to distribute a GPL app in binary form with Spyware, be my guest.

The problem come in when they release the application. The GPL allows you to derrive works from the code, redistribute, package, sell, eat for dinner or wipe your ass with it; there's also a little clause that requires you to make include (or at least make available) the changes to the application.

OSS prompts us toward code that is most fit for a purpose, this example helps illustrate that point IMO

I would agree with you had they actually followed the full terms of the GPL. Instead, they found an application (with source) that they liked, tweaked the look, released it and sat back and said "Look what we did!"

Definately not an example I'd like to use for illustrating GPL/Open Source methodologies.

Nothing Wrong

[Ashcrow]

I hate spyware and addware just as much as the next guy but NeoNapster hasn't done anything wrong. Sure, the got code from some other Open GPL projects and incorporated it into their own GPL product ... but last time I checked that was more than fine according to the GPL License.

Re:Nothing Wrong

[EdMcMan]

Look at the developer's page. The source is all there.

Re:HAHA

[Adrodieu]

Actually, if you repackage GPL'ed software with added spyware/adware, it is NOT 'fair use'. If you use ANY PORTION of the code from a GPL'ed piece of software, you MUST publish the source code of anything you make with it. I do not see the source code anywhere on NeoAudio's website... Read the GPL before you troll, f00

Re:Yeah, yeah... Fuckwit!

[Error-404NotFound]

Hey you stupid troll, like i already said every CD that i BUY (at stupidly high prices, have you) i rip into my computer and then burn as mp3/oggs onto a cd so i dno't have to swap thru my whole collection to find that one song. EVERY cd that i rip i never share, but i still download mp3s, but not so much lately. You, my friend, are a moron, nothing more... it's almost not worth it to prove you wrong. As for no fair use, fair use IS real. Take a look at the previous cases aginst the DMCA saying that it impairs the ability to test internet filtering software... go learn yourself something and then come back and shove ur head up ur ass, i still won't care.

Well it was GPL

[nurb432]

Thats the downside of 'opening' your code.

It happens, deal with it and dont cry about it afterwards..

I still think opening your code is much better for the community as a whole thou...

asshat? heh

[JPelorat]

What the hell is an asshat? Is it kinda like a bootyberet? Or a vaginavisor? Or a scrotumcap? Or a pwethelmet?

At least come up with a new word.. 'asshat' is just kinda ... boring.

HAHA look at the ratings!

[fire-eyes]

Ha ha, look at the ratings, i show 0% good, 100% bad, out of 34 votes.

Way to go slashdot!

Make that 35.

And I'm getting a screenshot, that is just too funny!

Will the comedy never end?

[Spad]

From CNet:

Commander Taco 05-Aug-2002 11:17:21 AM

"Wow! The best of its kind I have seen!"
This is an incredibly well made piece of software. It completely outperforms CDEX and the SpyWare is only enabled if you request it, and in return, you get 100+ free songs. This completely rocks. Don't use anything but this!

Re:HAHA

[phliar]

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

The first part is true; but this is not "fair use." This is something that is explicitly allowed by the license. Fair Use allows you to copy in a limited way where copying is not normally allowed. For instance, if I quote something from a book in a review, it comes under "fair use" because the license terms ordinarily do not allow any copying.

Re:comes with the territory

[Dahan]

Oh come on... you don't need to nitpick typos :P He obviously meant SIDA.

Re:HAHA

[bwhaley]

Haha check out this post in the user comments.. notice the author. Those dirty pranksters..

Commander Taco 05-Aug-2002 11:17:21 AM ....
"Wow! The best of its kind I have seen!"
This is an incredibly well made piece of software. It completely outperforms CDEX and the SpyWare is only enabled if you request it, and in return, you get 100+ free songs. This completely rocks. Don't use anything but

GPL is just fine; NeoNapster may still be illegal

[phliar]

Seriously, where is a license thats mostly-GPL, mostly-open-soruce, but disallows certain things like spyware/adware, or marketing of a competitive product

Why do we want to add Yet Another Free License when the GPL works just fine?

This NeoNapster thing is under GPL. If they added spyware or whatever, all you need to do is get their source, rip out the objectionable parts and distribute NiceNeoNapster. Maybe you could call it NeoNapsterNoSpyware so it will show up on all searches right next to NeoNapster.

Now if NeoNapster did rip out all copyright notices from CDex, that is illegal. Under the terms of the GPL, if you violate the terms of the GPL, you lose the right to use the code. This is what would make NeoNapster illegal.

You mean like most DJ's do?

[jabber01]

Sure, the better ones do name it a "remix of Artist ABC", but sampling has become a widely accepted form of musical expression.

Re:HAHA

[TomServo]

I use rippers (mostly CDEx, in fact) to rip the CDs I've legally paid for onto my MP3 player, and to put more MP3s on my machine at work so I can listen to my CDs without having to have them all there. I would consider this fair use, and I would assume that most everyone else would agree. As is, the MP3s I have downloaded without paying for are almost exclusively live tracks that cannot be purchased. However, I didn't need a CD ripper to get those.

Honestly, utilities to rip and create mp3s are generally used on CDs that you own...if you're looking to get free music, chances are you don't have the original CD to rip from.

Finally, it's a bit foolish to try to stop various tools that people can use fairly just because some people use them illegally. People speed, but we probably shouldn't ban cars. People stab other people with kitchen knives, but it sure would be hell to chop an onion without one...

it's 4-year-old somethingawful.com jargon

[Trepidity]

I'm unsure why 1998-99 somethingawful.com gimmicks are making a resurgence on the internet. Maybe a bunch of people just discovered the site or something. "YUO = TEH SUKC" is another SA gimmick making a resurgence. It's all a bit annoying.

Re:it's 4-year-old somethingawful.com jargon

[Inthewire]

Probably due to the influence of those fine folks over at www.fark.com

open source cd-to-ogg software?

[scubacuda]

Looks like CDex doesn't rip CD-->ogg.
Anyone have a good open source recommendation for that?

Re:open source cd-to-ogg software?

[EdMcMan]

Actually CDex does. Make sure you have the latest version (b6).

CDex's SF page has it. It looks like their webpage was pulled though, since it got slashdotted :)

Re:Might be fun to give the lowest cnet rating eve

[Bios_Hakr]

As of now, I see 200+ "Thumbs Down" comments with no "Thumbs Up" comments...and 32000+ downloads. Go figure.

Re:See it does work... DOH!

[Hank Reardon]

Ok, so after installing unzip on my box and extracting the box, the source code is there. It did seem that all of the original copyright notices were removed from the source, though.

Must look before leaping.

So, maybe it strictly complies with the GPL, but I do believe that it violates US Copyright law almost certainly qualifies as plagiarism. Usual non-lawyler disclaimers apply.

Re:HAHA

[Mr. Balrog]

Unfortunately NeoAudio did do something illegal. They did not do everything that the GPL requires them to do.

Re:Yeah, yeah... Fuckwit!

[Mr. Balrog]

You are an idiot. Nothing short of an idiot. I rip my CD so I don't constantly have to carry them everyware.
Maybe you have been paid by the RIAA to post such BS.

Re:HAHA

[detect]

Here is a comment from download.com:

5 stars.
"Superb! Just like CDex, but with spyware"
I love this program. I used to use CDex, but I was annoyed at the lack of useless spyware included in the download. Since I switched to NeoAudio, all those troubles have gone away. I now have way more spyware and adware than I know what to do with. Thanks, NeoNapster! "

LOL.

Re:HAHA

[Mr. Balrog]

Oh? Then so am I and a LOT of slashdorters.

Can't one change copyright?

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

I understand that the reason of the icompatibility between GPL and BSD with ad clause code is because (old) BSD forces you to mark the copyright of Berkeley regents.
I understand that GPL doesn't involve copyright strings. The reason is that if you take small pieces of code from 100 GPL projects, it's uncomfortable to include 100 notices of copyright.

Am I wrong? Must (legally) the author that copies bits of GPL code include the copyright of the previous authors?

I thought it was just a thing of manners and reputation, not legal duty.

Same thing happend with Gnucleus and Morpheus

[bloodbob]

Same thing happend with Gnucleus and Morphues except morpheus released FAKED source code.

The GPL preceeded the Open Source movement

[jbn-o]

For those not in the know, CDex is a very nice, very easy-to-use GPL (as in Open Source) Audio CD Ripper

No, the GNU GPL was written by and for the Free Software movement over a decade before the other movement existed. The GNU GPL is the chief license of the Free Software movement and it is quite misleading to attribute the GNU GPL to the Open Source movement. I am not objecting to anyone's use of the GNU GPL. It's great that supporters of the other movement appreciate the license and write free software licensed to everyone under the GPL's terms. I ask you to please give credit where credit is due and cite the correct movement when discussing the GNU GPL.

Thanks...

[steelframe]

for tipping me(and others) off to CDex. The download page seems to be down. Any mirrors?

Re:HAHA

[UncleFluffy]

There's nothing wrong with repackaging GPL software and adding spywares IF the user is told what changes have occurred in the repackaging.

And, of course, if the software comes complete with a written offer to make the source code of the spyware available for no more than the cost of distribution... after all, the spyware is now GPLed...

It seems to me that you don't understand the issue

[darqchild]

From what I understand, the GPL has not been violated. This article isn't about the GPL.

This is about a piece of craptacular spyware. Now, surely you can say that most /. readers do have respect for other people's privacy.

a slip perhaps?

[zozzi]

Have you looked at the titles in the screenshot?

Titles like:

"The pleasure and the greed",

"Mistake",

"Undersold",

"Knee deep (in what I ask...?)",

"No fault"

and best of all

"All our days are numbered"! :-)

C|Net, the Australia of the software industry.

[Andy Dodd]

Looks like our trolls, including the Alan Thicke Is Dead one, headed over there. Kinda like Australia, Britain, and convicts.

Let's hope they stay there and lead a productive life instead of returning here. (yeah right...)