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

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.

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 . . .

[unicron]

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

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 ..

In the words of the Trade Federation

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this Legal?
</silly_talk>

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

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?

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.

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

[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.

On the plus side...

[krugdm]

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

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!!!

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: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: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.

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.

[fobbman]

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

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.

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).

If you use CDex...

[bhsx]

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

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

[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.

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.