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?

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.

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?

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: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.

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.