Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Peercast Source Available

Posted by michael on from the p2p2p2p2p2p2p dept.

jilles writes "Peercast, a p2p streaming program, has had some attention on slashdot recently. Now the source code has been released under GPL. Please find the announcement + source code here."

13 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Fastrack by batboy78 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now if only the code for the FastTrack system would be released. Perhaps a better protocol could be developed with a mix of Gnutella and FastTrack.

    1. Re:Fastrack by batboy78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      After reviewing the giFT site I believe it shows a lot of potential. The only thing that seemed to bother me was the simple availability of IP addresses gathered from the client. IP addresses = ISP = Account Name = RIAA & MPAA & everyone else knocking on your door. But its still very much in development.

    2. Re:Fastrack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Gnutella1 doesn't, but Gnutella2 scales just fine. It uses UDP style searching, and it's spec-developer (Mike) informs his users that it can withold millions of nodes and still have a good stable global search.

      Whee.

    3. Re:Fastrack by Zaffle · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The only thing that seemed to bother me was the simple availability of IP addresses gathered from the client. IP addresses = ISP = Account Name = RIAA & MPAA & everyone else knocking on your door.

      This is a problem inherint in most Internet based sharing systems (as that damn annoying popup ad says, you're broadcasting your IP address (duh, it's how the Net works, you can't stop that (well, see below)).

      There are alternatives however, the much proclaimed FreeNet, and IIP, however, with IIP, (which is secure & anonymouse IRC) sending/receiving files is, afaik, still in heavy alpha testing.

      FreeNet, as a concept works, and as a product, is usable, however, due to the complex nature of the task it does (complete anonimity), it is slow. Frost is the best way currently to swap files. Frost is (imho), NNTP for freenet.

      With every other system, your IP address is available, this includes Gnutella and Fasttrack. If you want to hide who you are, you need to use Freenet. Take a look at the "bad" stuff on FreeNet (I mean figuativly, not literally). The reason why there is so much, is because its SAFE to put it there (unless you are really stupid).

      The only other thing you could do is find an ISP that guarentees to destroy any record of who used what IP address at what time. However, that doesn't stop a court ordered tapping being placed to monitor you in real time.

      --

      I use to have a funny sig, but slash cut it off, and I forgot what the punchline was.
  2. Download conditions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The peercast web page says "To download the PeerCast source you must also agree to the following conditions..."

    The GPL says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

    Sounds like there is some incompatibility here.

    1. Re:Download conditions? by theoddbot · · Score: 5, Interesting
      From their webpage:


      To download the PeerCast source you must also agree to the following conditions:

      a) You must not connect to the main PeerCast network if you have modified any of the code in the `core` module. (see below)

      b) You must not submit modifications to us that contain or use code that is not under the terms of the GPL.

      c) You must agree that any modifications accepted into the main PeerCast CVS will automatically fall under the terms of the GPL and PeerCast commercial license.

      d) You must agree to the terms of the GPL license that covers PeerCast.

      e) We reserve the right to accept or deny modifications to the main PeerCast CVS.

      f) Modifications accepted into the main PeerCast CVS can not be revoked. (see below)

      The reason being that broken clients will affect everyone on the network. In order to help you test changes we have set up a seperate network solely for this purpose.

      If you find a bug after submitting, simply resubmit the changes.


      (a) Could be the Terms Of Service for their network. Shouldn't be a problem with the GPL there. And they have set up a separate test network for you.

      (b) and (d) are just restating the GPL

      (e) Is fair enough. They can accept whatever they want into their tree. If you don't like it, fork.

      (c) and (f) should also be fine. They have released their code under the GPL. There is nothing in the GPL to obligate them to incorporate any changes you make back into their tree.

      If you want your code in their tree, agree to their terms. If you don't like it, fork.

      -Spyro
    2. Re:Download conditions? by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      (c) and (f) are not as wholesome clean as they appear. They require implicit trust of the entity your dealing with not to at some point abuse your trust. They have a great deal of power, and a change in management, or a court order could cause them to abuse those powers.

      You need a lawyer to properly interpret what they mean in c. Do they mean a specific version of the Peer Cast Commerical license, or do they mean what it says after you've agreed, and they've since re-written it?

      The really stupid part, is they don't force you to give up your copyright. So if they you submit changes back to them, and they want to change the license, they aren't the copyright holder, you are, so they have to ask you for your permission. At least, if you hire a lawyer and stop them they do.

      Okay, what in the hell do they mean by revoke in part (f)?. No one but a CVS committer can "revoke" anything. Are they saying, if legal issues come up you can't force them to remove the code. Uhh, they can't usurp the legal authority that says they can't have it in the first place. Are they saying, that if you change your mind on the source, it can't be removed. Uhhh, I've already agreed to your current license, what more do they want? They can always keep the current code I've submitted under the commerical license in effect when I submitted the changes. This has potential for abuse.

      Do they mean, if they add code I don't like, I can't remove/revoke it in my local copy. Uhhh, that really not very GPL like, and clearly not compliant with GPL source.

      Depending on how all this reads, and what precisely the legal implications of it are, this is not a very nice license. If they want to say, look, we'll accept your changes into the mainline tree, but you have to give up your copyright, and it's releasable under the GPL and our commercial license. That's a lot like the FSF, except the commercial license bit.

      If they want to have terms on connecting to their network, that's fine. Make it a term of agreement for connecting to the network, but that isn't compatible with GPL as a term of downloading the source. The really ironic part, is what if you give it to me under the GPL, I never agreed to any of these terms, so they don't apply to me at all. I have them under the license of the GPL. None of these terms transfer w/ the GPL (specifically, because you can't add additional terms to the GPL). It might be a GPL like license, but it sure isn't the GPL.

      I see what it is they are attempting to accomplish, but it's pretty clear they don't have a good legal staff. IANAL, and even I can see all kinds of blantant legal problems with this. I'd expect them to fold inside of a year as a business if this is all the more they pay attention to detail.

      Kirby

    3. Re:Download conditions? by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thats modifications that you submit to them...not merely modifications that you make. So a fork wouldn't be subject to their commerical liscence. I don't think they can use your modifications for their commercial work anyway, though, because you recieved it with the right to use it but to modify/distribute it you have to accept the GPL. When you submit it back, you are distributing your modifications. Hence, what they recieve is at that point GPL-ed, and even though they own the original rights (for which they can have multiple liscenses) your modifications are not subject to multiple liscenses...your modifications are GPL only. Yes? The only way around it would be if they said "wait, don't give us that modification, here is a commercial liscense and the source you started with...NOW lets see you do the same modifications and submit it to us". But that means you know have a commercial liscense too...

  3. GPL + Commercial by XTerm89D · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lately I see more and more companies release their program/product under the General Public License, saying that, if you want to use it in a commercial product you have to buy a commercial license.
    I am modestly fond over this practice, but hey, more GPL software is good for everyone !
    However some issues arise, say I write a patch for their program, and they incorporate it. If some then buys a 'commercial license' they are selling MY patch under a non Free license...
    Furthermore, the FSF has announces an updated GPL in a few months... something tells me that the FSF might be tempted to make this sort of things impossible, since, if you look at it straighly this is a bit fishy.

    Just my 2 cents.

  4. one good application... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    if it's not already obvious to you already after reading the main page, would be for the small internet radio station.
    one of my favorite audio programs comes from a local club down the street, who streams their dj shows. they have limited bandwidth, and can only support 10 128KBit streams simultaneously. i often can't listen to some of the live shows, because there are no more available connections.
    with this software, now the number of listeners is unlimited... yay!!

    1. Re:one good application... by jilles · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Peercast also supports firewalled nodes. Streams can both be pushed and pulled. The only problem is that two firewalled nodes can't connect to each other directly. A firewalled node can push streams to none firewalled nodes and it can pull streams from none firewalled nodes.

      --

      Jilles
  5. P2P week on slashdot? by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Whats with all the p2p? Nevertheless, if any p2p network is going to survive, it needs both a legally and technically sound framework, each as important as each other. Just my 2 cents.

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  6. An interesting inference by tanveer1979 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Consider this, RIAA says 1$ per user, okay the radio station beams to one user, and that user passes it along. RIAAs jurisdiction will end at that point, ie the point of radio station. Beyond the radio station what the user is doing with stream is not under their control, unless some CARPA/DARPA bullshit comes to tackle it. So you can have live365 type stations take a breather. They can have only 5 streams, thats damn cheap by current rates, and the listenrs keep passing it along.

    I am not too sure what legal redressal RIAA has against this thing, I doubt if there is any right now. Could anyone enlighten me?

    Frankly speaking this could be a big coupe. Even if they change laws etc( I doubt that will be any time soon) they cant go running after everybody in the chain. If this network gets to be big, the hounds have a big task ahead of them. The only possible redressal for them is if they get the govt to ban the internet itself!

    Guess what, technology always stays ahead...

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography