Slashdot Mirror
AOL Pulls Nullsoft's WASTE
dmehus writes "America Online, parent company of Nullsoft, has pulled what it views as a controversial project called WASTE from Nullsoft's servers. This is not the only time it has stepped in to Nullsoft's doings. It had quickly taken down Gnutella, developed by Nullsoft co-founder Justin Frankel, and shut down an MP3 search engine. CNET's News.com has more details." For those not keeping track, WASTE was only recently released.
So where is the mirror of the software?
Hold on, Waste was released under the GPL.. exactly how can AOL plan to pull that?
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
Just download it over WASTE.
...we all love you.
But, since it's GPL and some people downloaded it, it doesnt really matter any more anyway.
Fleur de Sel
anyone have a copy of the source code for review only? :)
Bill wasn't happy about it so they were forced to shut it down ;-)
"exactly how can AOL plan to pull that?"
They can't. Dave Winer has posted the source.
I've got a copy of the install if someone wants to host it.
WASTE is an encrypted filesharing network, since the article did not make it clear. It is also, in the same vein as gnutella, an open protocol.
...and someone actually told me that AOL can't
The parent company *should* be hiring someone to empty nullsoft's dumpster...
Who didn't see this coming. Justin comes up with cool tech because he can't be touched by AOL and even if they fired him he's stinking rich from the takeover so he doesn't have to work for anyone. AOL still owns the servers and can dictate what gets released by one of their holding but once the code is out there it's there for good (assuming Justin didn't violate any sections of the GPL, specifically re patents).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The whole "unauthorized" release thing is interesting, though. I'd say that they have to prove that it wasn't an official release as it certainly looked like one. But what if somebody infiltrates Microsoft and puts sections of the Windows source on the web site under the GPL?
"If you downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy of the Software, you acquired no lawful rights to the Software and must destroy any and all copies of the Software, including by deleting it from your computer. Any license that you may believe you acquired with the Software is void, revoked and terminated."
It was released under the GPL, it's out there...the GPL is out there...they can't all of a sudden say "Sorry, we changed our minds".
Will this be a landmark case that tests the GPL now? I wonder...
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
It is released under the GPL, so I suppose putting it on a website would be legal.
Has anyone done this?
I orignally wasn't that interested in it, but since they've pulled it from their website I want to try it.
But, seeing as it's GPLed:
Waste-source
Please, mirror the file instead of using this as sole source. I have no opportunity to set up BitTorrent here, and I have maximum transfer per month constraints. I will pull the file after 1GB is transfered.
http://virtuelvis.com/
The code was written in house, and thus was the copyrighted property of AOL Time Warner. It was released without the consent of the company by some developers at Nullsoft. If that is true, isn't it still the property of AOLTW?
Are there any precedents for this type of thing?
Execute? [Y/N] _
AOL sees WASTE (and a few other Nullsoft products) as something that:
A- Doesn't provide them with a revenue stream.
B- Could bring on lawsuits
C- Competes with their other products.
AOL is a huge company, with lots of money. They could get sued for *real* money, not just Napster money. Also, the fact that they own a lot of media might cause them problems.
We are on the cusp of a new era of 'authorized' file downloads (iTunes). Finally big business is learning how to make money from music on the web, and letting another free service rear it's free little head isn't part of their plans.
It seems like Nullsoft is forgetting who butters its bread.
No reason to lie.
me thinks perhaps i should ditch AOL for my ISP needs.
Do they want this publicity?
Did the NullSoft buyout contract specify that they had to keep them on for a decade?
What is it?
Seriously, why all the AOL bashing today? AOL has done a great service by going where the sun don't shine and manually removing the waste. Thats got to beat the age-old reach-around method...
http://www.sifnt.net/waste.zipa mp.com/showthread.php?threadid=1 37077. uk/wast e-setup.exes te-source.tar .gz
http://forums.win
http://www.dhorrocks2003.pwp.blueyonder.co
http://slackerbitch.free.fr/waste/wa
But not surprising. I just don't get what these developers are thinking. Something like, "Yes sir! May I have another?!?!?!"
This is not the type of fight you can win from within. It's long past time that they free themselves from AOL.
Step 1: Write great software
Step 2: Make sure the IP for that software belongs to a meglomaniacal corporate structure
Step 3: Disappointment, Rinse, Repeat
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Yeah I know it's CNET, but damn if you are going to be a tech reporter at least try to get the details right. but not before developers downloaded it and began creating services based on its software code. No, unlike WASTE Justin did not release Gnutella as Free Software, people merely ran the binary and traced the transactions and reverse engineered the protocol. This time he really did it right and made it so no matter what AOL does they can't take WASTE back.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
He seems to be causing a bit too much controversy for them, I bet they really regret making him rich. I cant see AOL even using his tech for much longer will all the bad publicity it will be getting them, and with the MS "deal" they will probably play clean and end up using Windows Media Player anyway. Just seems like the nullsoft buy was a bad move and just another example of how to waste money.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
http://www.dhorrocks2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://slackerbitch.free.fr/waste/
distributed load/sources etc
ed2k://|file|waste-source.tar.gz|214730|F5D0DBD
i would of used a link but
I do not know why this is a surprise to anyone...
I think everybody--both programmers and users-- figured this would happen. Gnutella first... now WASTE. This is the safest way to do such projects that have COULD have questionable legal and moral aspects.
Now, Nullsoft looks like the jedi ninja creative gurus and AOL looks like the responsible authority figure.
In the grand scheme of things...
good ideas are like a virus. Once they are released, they will keep going and going...
Davak
Hello?
All this talk about the GPL is fine, but WHAT DOES IT DO?
Regards, etc.(Score:5, Not Funny)
How come you ended up with them in the first place? Are you new to the Internet?
I figured this would happen, so I made it a point to download the source and the win-32 install as soon as I saw the original /. article, especially since this is something I could really use and want to play with.
/. oblivion (which would not be hard to do since its only a Cobalt RaQ) so that eleventy-billion people who would otherwise never be interested can say "pffft!!" to AOL and pretend they are "stickin' it to The Man!".
I am contemplating putting up a mirror, since I do have a server available. I would like to see this software further developed in to something great. But at the same time I don't want to see my server hammered in to
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
i downloaded waste off gnutella :) .
smd4985
unless you are the copyright holder you can't just release it under the GPL and say "aha, it's GPL now"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
It's not like AOL is the only place to release software !
Here is a mirror of this fully legal, GPL software. Do with it as you will.
Get the source here.
--Jon
Cleanstick.org: Dumb weblog about nothing
1. AOL are the copyright holders and as such the code was never released by them under the GPL so it's not under the GPL now and never has been.
2. AOL don't own the copyright and as such the code is, and always will be , subject to the GPL.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
There developers programmed precious hours of their life at that were, and now it was "Complete WASTE of time"....
If he knew AOL would or could have pulled it, why not just release the program indepentantly of Nullsoft? Why do they have to put the company on the product anyways, instead of just their names, then AOL wouldn't be able to touch them.
.. and Waste may very well be illegal, no matter if it was released under the GPL.
What matters is WHO released it under the GPL. If the ones that released it had no legal rights to do what they did, then Waste is illegal, and redistributing it is illegal.
Why? Because only the copyright holder can release software like this. Otherwise the license is void, and you are all doing something illegal by distributing the source.
The above is pretty much clear, but lawyers might want to answer the question of wether the people that released the software did in fact have the rights to do something like this. If a lowly employee releases software, my guess is that he does not have the rights to do so. Otherwise any employee of Microsoft would have the right to release Windows under the GPL..
Before distributing Waste, you should be pretty sure that it was in fact a release warranted by Nullsoft executives, otherwise it may be illegal.
It may be that the release was warranted by someone with the proper authority, but if AOL/Nullsoft states otherwise, this might be decided by trial.
Source and binary
ftp://ftp.wiresec.net/waste
I noticed someone has already set up a SourceForge project for WASTE.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/waste/
Now go and help out! I want a cleanly building Linux port.
--Jon
Cleanstick.org: Dumb weblog about nothing
Just the other day the story about the release of WASTE was here on /., with a comment like "Download it ASAP, tomorrow AOL might yank it".
It seems that commenter got it right, and I got a copy of WASTE.
Now for the interesting part. WASTE was released as GPL (even that some RSA code didn't really make it clear - but I digress), and as such everyone that got a copy of it has got unlimited use-rights, and GPL "limited" (i.e. granted) distribution rights.
So how the heck is AOL thinking if they believe they can retract a software (or statement or anything) POST release? Does "logically challenged" strike anyone but me as an appropriate description?
Actually, since there must be people behind that logic, "intellectually challenged" must be the definition I'm really thinking of.
http://johnli.vort-x.net/waste/mirrors.txt
With Nullsoft the name is the program. However somehow the whole fits... AOL :-)
The file is now gone. Please mod this up so my server survives.
Use Dave Winers offer to download instead, or one of the other sources: waste.zip
http://virtuelvis.com/
Found these mirrors -
t ml
;-)
http://www.geocities.com/the_great_hacker/waste.h
(original mirror courtesy http://www.dhorrocks2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk)
If you ask me, I'd say put it up on KaZaa too
http://edwards.servehttp.com:969/waste-setup.exe
Well...that's a difficult question. First, Justin may have the ability to make official Nullsoft releases, unless AOL specifically forbid this when they purchased Nullsoft. If he's authorized to act as an agent of the company...then the company did the release. Second of all, while it's conventional for software developers to sign with a company saying that (at least) stuff written on company time is owned by the *company*, IIRC Justin was a founding member of Nullsoft. There may not have been any such contract when he joined up. Third, while he definitely *used* it on company time, nobody has made any statement to the effect that he *wrote* it on company time. If he did this at home, it may mean that he owns the code.
May we never see th
" If you downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy of the Software, you acquired no lawful rights to the Software and must destroy any and all copies of the Software."
:D
All of you? yeah right
daniel@starship:/src/waste$ tree | grep cpp | wc
28 56 435
daniel@starship:/src/waste$ grep "under the terms of the GNU General Public License" *cpp -r | wc
28 392 2395
Translation to English: each cpp file has a GPL license declaration in it.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
This is just like Gnutella for me. I find out about this great thing, I let others know, then I get emails back saying 'WTF the page doesn't exists' -- both times I had installed the software before the pages were taken down.
WASTE is pretty cool, in fact, I would say the only features it needs to make it a little bit more enterprise-friendly would be a feature where files within a specific folder are automatically uploaded across the network as they are updated.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
I find it quite funnty that when someone releases software which was designed with privacy and security in mind, it will be labeled as "controversial".
just in case the web mirror get's pulled too, here are the edonkey links:
nullsoft_waste-source.zip nullsoft_waste-source.tar.gz nullsoft_waste-setup.exe
I will keep sharing this for a long time, my machine is up at least 12h/day.
hopefully, some clever coder will come up with a linux built. I hate having to use windows for this... I know you /.'ers like bittorrent, but I haven't found the time to check that out.
Have a nice weekend, y'all.
FYI, nullsoft.com has been defaced. On the page is a list of WINAMP related software +, ironically P2P filesharing apps.
http://edwards.servehttp.com:969/waste/
has 1 binary, 2 source archives, and 3 other files.
If you consider this karma-whoring, go screw yourself. Do you want me to mirror the files or not?
I think this is a good example of where a Web-Installer would have been beneficial for the company/makers. (This is where you download a small, usually 50k file that retrieves the program files from the net). That way, AOL could have pulled the program files from the server, and no one would have been able to install it anymore! How silly of them
Everything sucks except musicandstuff
It's all a big conspiracy by AOL and Microsoft to WASTE the GPL and WASTE all music pirates in one fell swoop.
Functioned marvelously. Not file sharing such as Kazaa or so to exchange and also files sharen but rather which around itself coded in small groups. Evtl also which for companies.
For anybody who uses edonkey, here's a link:4 ab391487c21f9998679|/
ed2k://|file|waste-source.zip|261175|d9eff5442b2f
Both a moral and practical one.
Practical problem:
many CEOs will see OSS developers as a liability thanks to this, because, "they dont care about our company and will happily release our precious source due to their GPL fanaticsm".
That arguement will be very convincing if that actually happened (and it seems to be quite propable that it did).
Moral problem:
1) Assuming that WASTE source was actually released without concent of it's owner (AOL).
2) The fact that people are sharing the source forward claiming that "it's GPL so it is moral and legal"
Those points leads to the following: they are in essense demanding that GPL copyright is enforced so that they source won't be suppressed, even if that collides with the copyright AOL has over WASTE! Therefore, leading to the conclusion that only GPL copyright must be upheld and others must not. Extremely hypocritical conclusion that will surely backfire!
1. Offer GPL software.
2. ???*
3. Profit!!!
* - Where "???" stands for : "Couple of days later pull the software down and state that the GPL thing was a *joke*, so, technicaly, every person who downloaded the source is now an outlaw.... ;o))
Neat marketing strategy in my opinion;o)))...
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
3. AOL are the copyright holders and they did release the code under the GPL, either directly or through an authorized party, so the code is, and always will be, subject to the GPL.
"NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE An unauthorized copy of Nullsoft's copyrighted software was briefly posted on this website on or about Wednesday May 28, 2003. The software was identified as "WASTE" (the "Software") and includes the files "waste-setup.exe", "waste-source.zip", "waste-source.tar.gz" and any additional files contained in these files. Nullsoft is the exclusive owner of all right, title and interest in the Software. The posting of the Software on this website was not authorized by Nullsoft. If you downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy of the Software, you acquired no lawful rights to the Software and must destroy any and all copies of the Software, including by deleting it from your computer. Any license that you may believe you acquired with the Software is void, revoked and terminated. Any reproduction, distribution, display or other use of the Software by you is unauthorized and an infringement of Nullsoft's copyright in the Software as well as a potential violation of other laws. Thank you. Nullsoft " Isnt it assumed that anything 'published' on the internet (without any kind of security or otherwise) is intended to be downloaded? They say it was not authorized to be put up for download, but it was anyway. Further more it WASNT done by authorized parties. So whoever downloaded it can use it, and might even be able to make the argument that their license should be honored by Nullsoft...
Those krazy dudes at Nullsoft stick again! I love it! They got to be driving the tight ass suits at AOL out of their minds!
And check out the different in the web site design, here:
http://www.nullsoft.com
Great design, nicely down
http://www.winamp.com/
Typical corparate crap, overblown and gaudy
Keep up the great work, guy!
Is this just coincidence? I mean, could AOL be THAT stupid TWICE!? Or, are they doing a favor for MS, so that MS can say:
."
"See, look. The GPL IS EVIL. It just takes one employee with web access to turnover your IP. You better look into our new products that prevent employees from having such freedom . .
I mean, how good could WASTE be? Let's not be TOO eager to help the bad guys here and stick to untainted code, OK?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
We all know this.
I wonder if anyone realizes that Justin Frankel is the only one who ever puts anything up on nullsoft.com (at least his name is on every page of every piece of software offered). I'd bet my left arm that Mr. Frankel put WASTE up on the Nullsoft.com website despite the current message that resides there right now.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
for those that didn't read the previous story, the title of this one might have been misleading. It almost gives the impression that AOL cleaned Nullsoft's septic tank or something...
I am slightly disturbed that AOL have posted that message posing as nullsoft, and it is clear that it is AOL's words because they don't understand the GPL (and as such cannt pull the software). The message also sounds like it has been written by lawyers (the "Evil").
quickly drop it after one /.
what a trick to make a few developers maintain it for free. WASTE is just a waste of time. Gnutella is fine.
As far as I can see (don't have a Windows system up and running to actually run the program :), this was basically a P2P application with the same capabilities as ICQ (messaging, group chat, file transfer), along with the ability to search for files on other people's systems. Instead of being centralised like ICQ/AIM/MSN Messenger, people would form small networks consisting of the people they knew.
Currently, most people use products like AOL Instant Messenger and ICQ, which forward messages through centralised servers owned by AOL. The commercial clients also display AOL advertisements, I believe. AOL also sells a corporate version which allows a company to set up an internal server for employees only, which employees use to message each other and transfer files.
While the file transfer angle certainly exists, I think AOL's problem is that this free, open source piece of software competes with AOL's existing messenger offerings.
- - "exactly how can AOL plan to pull that?"
- They can't. Dave Winer has posted the source.
They Can. Read what they posted in its place. They say it wasn't released legally. If it wasn't released by anyone with the right to the code, it isn't under the GPL, just as an employee at MicroSoft couldn't release Windows under the GPL.
On another note, although I usually don't think companies are this Machiavellian, does anyone else see this possibility:
AOL faked an illegal release so that tons of people would have copied of illegal source code. Then, if a similar competing Open-Source project is created they can easily claim it used their code and wasn't actually developed independently. After all, they could definitely say that the authors of the other project could have easily stolen their source code. I'd only suspect something like this because WASTE actually isn't that complex of a program. It's not nothing, but its definitely something the community could put out in a month if some people tried.
However, I suspect it is more likely this was just a mistake, or Nullsoft not checking with the high-ups.
i find it hillarious, cuz those nullsoft guys manage to defy corporate authority and gpl out some great software to share filez every so often, and not get sued for it. think about it, how many gnutella lawsuits have arrived?
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
What if I work at Microsoft and I release Microsoft Bob source code to GPL? Same deal here. I do not have the right to do it.
/. make judgement 100% for selfish reasons. There will be no way to justify your selfish actions in those fields and others when you just want to claim that it's GPL even though you know it's not.
In the same way, it seems a human at nullsoft posted internal files online [Waste was used like their own intranet file sharing app]. Just because he had 1) the source code to release it, and 2) nullsoft web site FTP password, doesn't mean he has the ownership of it to declare it GPL.
Who would own the project? Well, since it is used internally in Nullsoft, it was probably one on Nullsoft's own projects, in which case the company owns it. But even if an employee wrote it during his free time at the company, if he was paid during 'free time' then the company still owns it by default (unless his employee contract says anything he does at work he keeps rights to.)
Whether stuff was posted discretely by a disgruntled programmer or whether the process of approval of distributing this online was followd to the letter, the ultimate bosses at AOL apparently don't like this so they will have some heads rolling. And by doing that, they will blame those people responsible for it and say, whether there is 1 person found or 800, that those people were not acting on behalf of the company and that the company never wanted the files online. Which.. is exactly what it says on the site now! Only time remains for public 'humiliation' of the people judged responsible by AOL.
AOL's goal will be showing how an employee was not authorized to distribute those files on behalf of the company.
Since this will be pretty easy to do as I've described above, we can safely conclude that the files were distributed illegally and posessing and modifying the code is a federal offense. NOT GPL at all.
I hope people on this site will denounce the GPL of WASTE to show that we are fairness loving people. It seems though, people will instantly assume it's GPL so it's GPL because it suffices their selfishness.
By treating the code as if it IS GPL, you are denouncing everything slashdot says for excuses that people want fairness and how the goverment is bad.
Yeah people will really take slashdot posters seriously on other issues now:
FILE SHARING -- people use it for legal uses! [Fact: illegal trading]
PRIVACY -- The government will be spying on me! [Fact: you just don't want to get ticketed]
Everyone will no longer believe any excuses slashdot crowd makes, since
Cover your eyes and click this link!
Considering that this software was and is used internally by AOL..under the same lciense
This is clearly a TW action based upon its media interests..
Which means its the next Napster for file sharing without outside control
AOL could have made some money by integrating this with its AOL client browser..once again they mess up!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I humbly suggest possibility #3...
3. AOL owns the copyright, and is trying to test whether they can "retract" a decision to release code under the GPL.
This is actually a critical point... If AOL can "retract" this decision, what stops them from "taking back" Mozilla? What keeps SAP from "taking back" SAPdb? Many open-source projects get code from, or are even started thanks to the largesse of, large corporate interests.
If they can establish in court that it is okay for AOL to "retract" an officially GPL'ed release, how long before a major player starts buying companies that have "right of retraction" on their open source competitors and exercising those rights?
Who did what now?
I saw the release announcement for WASTE and went, "ho-hum" YAPPFSS - Yet Another Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing System, and promptly forgot about it in the next two seconds.
But, now that AOL is making a stink about it, I'm going to remember WASTE and will probably grab a copy of the source for posterity and to do my part of the "internet routes around censorship" bit.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
You saw the black helicopters too, ehh?
This is exactly the reason companys will believe the "GPL is viral" statements. Piss off an employee who has access to the source, and next thing you know, your product has just been released under the GPL.
With all the comments here, saying "it's GPL'd. There is nothing they can do". What if the person who released the code did not have the authority?
This is very familiar to SCO, with one exception. When the company owning the software was aware of the distribution the source was pulled and replace d with an note explaining that the release was in error.
GPL - the ultimate revenge for being fired
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Well here are the MD5 sums of the files as downloaded by me from the original site [and verified with several other ppl who downloaded it from the original site].... if anyone has a different md5sum then they should look closer at their copy of the files....
1 d80 waste-source.zip
e3609e352afba37683c47ce60f9086bb waste-setup.exe
5645d0378b5bca6d2cf337686dca9a4d waste-source.tar.gz
554cfa7350333aa4e6eb3b6e2420
--
Time is on my side
bug.gd: error search engine. Humanity working together to solve all errors.
I sometimes wonder what goes on inside of Powell's head whenever his greusome creation periodically spasms in the direction of the public eye?
He has to know he fucked up big time. It's not something that could escape notice barring certain levels of mental retardation. Powell isn't mentally retarded. And with AOL still twitching and lurching around like the monster it is, he promtes yet another massive merging of technology with media deregulation. What kind of person does this make him? Not a moral person. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't understand why they're still allowing powell to make decisions. He's simultaneously chair of the FCC and a lobbyist for the industry he's supposed to regulate. That doesn't make any sense. Industry Lobbyists and regulatory agencies are mutally incompatible entities. You cannot perform both functions at the same time. But if you look closely at all the other regulatory agencies in this country, you'll find they've been compromised in the same way.
You better hope like hell mad cow never gets into our food supply because the FDA is kind of like the FCC. Powell is useful in a least one aspect. He represents the attitudes of our various regulatory agencies and departments. So when you listen to Powell and consider his sincerity, take a good look because that is what stands between you and mad cow, and whatever else a regulatory agency is tasked to protect you against.
Powell is interesting because be embodies so much of what's wrong with government. Appointed like royalty through powerful family connections, compromised by the industry he governs, shamelessly lies with much arrogance. I get the feeling that when I'm looking at him, I'm seeing a snapshot of a mature government.
There is one very large difference here. The code was published on the "official" nullsoft web site, therefore it was released officially. There would be a considerable difference between the Windows source code being published with a GPL licence on www.microsoft.com/windows/source/ and an employee "leaking" it and publishing somewhere else.
Warning: there are half-assed guesses below.
Seems to me that as it was on Nullsoft's server, it was probably intended -- at the time at least -- as an official release. I suspect the Nullsoft boys wrote it to be released and went ahead and did it.
Secondly, as various other things on the Nullsoft site are under weird and wonderful open-source redistribution-allowed licences, I reckon they are probably allowed to determine their own licences under their contract with TW.
So I suspect the GPL licence on the original source is legit. Otherwise, we have to assume they haven't been allowed to open source their other bits of software and TW have been turning a blind eye; TW don't seem like the type to turn a blind eye to anything to me.
Now, this is what I find interested: I couldn't find any other GPL software on the site, just stuff under some custom-written clickthrough redistribution allowed licences. Could it be that Frankel came up with this while messing around, decided to release it knowing it would probably get pulled, and put it under the GPL on purpose? Knowing that it would get mirrored to Hades if TW did pull it?
I'm just speculating, of course, but it seems to me that's the likely way events occured. We'll be able to tell in the next few weeks by the vigour TW employs in asking people to stop hosting mirrors, I suppose.
You win again, gravity!
Being an employee of the company is by definition DOING WHAT THE EMPLOYEE TELLS YOU TO DO AND NOT DOING WHAT HE TELLS YOU NOT TO DO. Only few people, Salespeople, Customer Service Reps, have jobs to ACT on BEHALF of the COMPANY.
... legally sell it on your behalf without your authorization? No. And selling software under the GPL (for free of course) is what some guy did.
Yes, anything you do as an employee could reflect badly on the employee's place of employment. But it doesn't mean you become boss to do whatever the hell you want.
Being an employee at work means the company OWNS whatever you do on it's time. So if you write source code for your company, the company owns it.
Look. If you work at the cash register and people tell you to take a shower because how you look is how people will see the supermarket, doesn't mean you are acting on behalf of the company. Doesn't mean you can go around thinking you can do business for the company just because you're the mailroom clerk. As a temporary employer to wax your car, can a guy go and
Unless this was authorized by top management, I don't think court would find this an act of the company. And even if they did, do you have paperwork that you walked up to a guy in a suit and say "Hey can I do whatever the hell I want, including to upload internal software on the internet?" "Oh , sure, go have a go at it kid." Right.
Cover your eyes and click this link!
Somebody has posted it to freenet
T JS Bctnter8Tlj6QSIg
:(
Freenet URI
freenet:CHK@by9ePv1hz40M2nTE8ellaf1O3I8SAwI,rfI
MD5SUM
e3609e352afba37683c47ce60f9086bb *waste-setup.exe
Too bad I'm firewalled, I have no way of testing the key
Internet pirates have obtained the sourcecode to a filesharing program called "waste" that was released illegally released onto the website of nullsoft. The program uses encryption which makes it difficult for law enforcement to track internet pedophiles, file traders and terrorists. Bill gates of Microsoft said , 'The original files were released under the communist open source code license known as the GPL, this thing called linux only exists to facilitate piracy and terrorism. Our digital rights management ensures that end users stay on the right side of the law, and should be mandatory'.
Jack valenti said '......'
AOL said '........'
John Ashcroft said '.....'
Slashdot said 'moderation frightening: 1, insightful: 2, flamebait: 3332 (we fear the truth)'
i saw one once.
Don't Knock AOL. All they did is cover their butts for legal problems down the road. The RIAA can't go to AOL and sue them for anything. AOL could have been held libel because a company Nullsoft that is owned by AOL released a product that allows file swapping and is encryprted so Big Brother can't watch. Now AOL can say sorry we tried to stop it and we pulled it after we found out about the program, but it is GPL and there is nothing elese we can do,
http://webspace.utexas.edu/aboulgak/waste/waste.ht ml
The source code is on the gnutella-network.
I think that p2p is just the right way to share this kind of unpopular cencored stuff.
Yeah, the law is usually 50 years behind the times, but since I am not a lawyer, I can make outrageous guesses about the law without feeling the slightest bit of guilt or lack of professionalism . . .
In this case, Nullsoft released WASTE under the GPL and AOL didn't like that. Too bad. As far as any individuals external to the organization are concerned, they thought this was legit. The net effect is AOL accidently released it under the GPL and is now trying to "unrelease" it. As far as any external users are concerned, this is the case, and I could care less about what is going on within their organization.
However, if your site was cracked THEN AOL cannot be help liable for the decisions of the hacker. But it wouldn't really matter with source code. It would not be economically feasible to claim that ALL other closed source code is now tainted and demand royalties, now would it. So the effect to the company would be just as bad.
Of course, this gives A LOT of room for lying, but I guess corporations have always had THAT going for them. . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
It doesn't matter if the source was posted on God's web site. If the individual who posted it (somebody other than God, presumably) didn't have the exclusive copyright to the code, they couldn't legally release it.
That's what AOL is saying. And they're almost certainly right, from what I can tell.
"GPL" is not a synonym for "I can do whatever I want."
I wonder if there is a niche for packaging a Waste distro with easy install/maintainance tools, and providing support? (Dressed up especially for the corpo environment.) Not exactly another Red Hat, but who knows?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The site that's there now claims that WASTE is owned by Nullsoft, and whomever posted WASTE on the server with a GPL license lacked the authority to do. As a result, AOL's view is that the GPL doesn't stick to the software because only Nullsoft held the copyright and Nullsoft didn't attach the GPL.
What a mess here... something that's really lacking from the new page is anything that says just how "unauthorized software" appeared on the nullsoft.com site.
- If they're claiming that they were hacked, this would have to go down as the hack of the century... I doubt that happened.
- If they're claiming an employee acted outside of their authority, aren't they responsible for restraining that employee's actions so they don't become visible to the public?
- If AOL's trying to overrule a decsion made by their Nullsoft division after learning about it, isn't that too little too late?
This has got to be one of the most interesting test cases of how the GPL works ever.
[note : there should NOT be any spaces in the links.... ./ adds spaces]
K QU YU25RO.3YIAXBOM3XGWON5QSA6TVIJUAXJHZI54FQ3LMVY&dn= waste-setup.exe
E VK UD2Y4G.6YKR7VR2TWYNPUUBOVGY5ROGMSPTA7ZZSGTECUA&dn= waste-source.tar.gz
7 O2 MGJLTT.CCTSJVMC4RQC67TVJDISXHS6KEXKQIRMNM2SHCI&dn= waste-source.zip
2 f4 ab391487c21f9998679|/
a 5e 7eb7a9774c7650fa306383|/
4 14 10d413a965560071e2|/
Magnet links:
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:RNADB73OZV4J56PYURKSJBO
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:SNMD7MSXP3QI6MY5IOF4DKU
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:M6HCJRTWID2MLW2EOHL2GUK
Ed2k links:
ed2k://|file|waste-source.zip|261175|d9eff5442b
ed2k://|file|waste-source.tar.gz|214730|f5d0dbd
ed2k://|file|waste-setup.exe|173589|5f2e6a0160b
--
Time is on my side
Waste Source (zip) Host
"Unlike most of you, I am not a nut." - Homer J. Simpson
Well, no. Nullsoft owned the copyright, and Nullsoft posted it. Where Nullsoft (or the employee) was authorized to do it is between Nullsoft, AOL, and that employee.
If Nullsoft had first set a precedent by releasing this another way, then I could see them saying that this was against their published policy, but they didn't demonstrate that this code was meant to be licensed another way.
AOL forced them to say it after the fact, but it's just like a trade secret. There is no secret once the secret is told. If Nullsoft wants damages, then they should go after the unauthorized employee.
So what if AOL owns the source? Even if the WASTE source can't be used legally, we now have a defacto protocol for small encrypted p2p networks. With WASTE, Justin has effectively pointed the way and said "look guys, heres a neat idea - go implement". After all, AOL pulled the plug on Gnutella and look at all the Gnutella clients out there.
Doesn't matter. If WASTE is really a simple protocol then it can be reverse-engineered. And therefore built w/o using any 'tainted' NullSoft code.
After all Gnutella's protocol (and code) was reverse-engineered. No current Gnutella s/w uses NullSoft code. AOL pulled Gnutella's release just days after NullSoft released it, yet they've been silent regarding Gnutella's propagation ever since.
Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.
I picked it up from the harvard mirror referenced at Scripting News. In it I read:
What kind of functionality does WASTE enable?WASTE provides a generic virtual secure private network that other services can be built upon. Currently the following services have been implemented for use on the network and are very functional:
Many other services and capabilities can be added to the WASTE network, these are just the basics that have been implemented.
What a WAST of time.
... Isn't it the shareholders of AOL? Then what's to prevent any company's executives (even the CEO) from releasing code under the GPL and then later taking it back, claiming the release was unauthorized? (The shareholders didn't approve it directly.)
Or else, probably some officer-- the CEO -- has authority to do this on the corporation's behalf. Can that authority be legally delegated lower down the chain? Did Nullsoft's official release of WASTE make the GPL release binding on AOL?
(Obviously, IANAL.)
SCO will be very interested to see what the outcome of this situation is. They (wrongly) feel that they are in the same situation. Their "copyrighted code" is out in public, and they want to regain control over it.
Would a judge somewhere be willing to rule that all the wild copies of WASTE are to be destroyed, and that using that code violates AOL/Nullsoft's copyright? Will we have to do line-by-line comparisons of TRASH and GARBAGE to see if it was copied from WASTE?
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
I don't see how you could be sued for distributing the code, at least until AOL has contacted you to tell you to cease and desist. If you DLed it from an official Nullsoft server and it said it was under the GPL then you are acting in good faith if you distribute it. They may have put up a page now that says the distribution was unauthorized. But surely you are not responsible for periodically going back to every site from which you DL software to see what kinds of notices have been posted---and presumably they can't prove that you have read the notice. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lwayer. But I watched the first several seasons of The Practice.)
This post is dedicated to all of those
Somebody released it under GPL and AoL trys to retroactively nullify that liccens.
Notice how a lot of liccenses permit the author of the product to change the terms of the liccens at any time with out prior notice.
Thats so they can pull stuff like this.
But the GPL dosen't include that language.
How come AoL/TW is so unfamilure with the goings on at Nullsoft that a project like this can be coded and reach release with out them knowing about it?
Is this a Nullsoft project that reached release stage then killed by AoL?
Or an indupendent work by an employee that got released on Nullsoft's servers?
Or was it just released by mistake?
The website seams to be trying to say someone goofed and the software wasn't intended for release yet.
But that's some pritty heavy handed language and it appears the software was prepaired for release. I doupt this was any sort of mistake on Nullsoft's part.
It dose seam quite clear to me (and apparently Slashdot becouse that's how the Slashdot editor called it) that what happend was AoL/TW wasn't paying attention to Nullsoft and send a legal team to pull the already released software with some unsuportable legal threats.
I don't actually exist.
If this release was not authorized by AOL, and it isn't entirely clear that Nullsoft did not have the right to do this, then I would say that you would be forbidden from distributing the code, regardless of the fact that it carries a GPL license.
You can't take, for example, Microsoft sourcecode from the WinCE SDK, slap a GPL license on it and claim it is now covered by the GPL.
If, however, the WinCE division at MS, who presumably has full responsibility and authority to handle code releases put the WinCE code under the GPL and released it, in good faith, then that would be binding.
i.e. if the city of New York sells the Brooklyn Bridge for $1 in a legal transaction, then the new owner owns that bridge, regardless of the seemingly low price.
If it was cool to buy hundreds of thousands of acres of land off the indigenous peoples of america for some muskets and smallpox-infected blankets, this is cool too.
However, the code has been released, so while you could not distribute the code as-is, there is nothing to prevent anyone studying the code and and releasing a compatible implementation, unless it infringes copyright (contains cut n pasted sections) or patents (not sure whether P2P patents exist or who owns them). You are not doing anything illegal if you use an MP3 (regardless of its origin) of a pop song to figure out how to make a pop song of your own. The person who sold/gave you the MP3 might have a problem however, and the owner of the copyright that covers the MP3 could demand you destroy/return it upon discovery of it's improper distribution to you.
This would have to be ordered by a court to be legally enforceable, but you may be guilty of a crime by delaying the destruction/return if you do this in bad faith. i.e you know the copyright they hold is valid, yet you ignore their reasonable and legal request for its destruction/return.
AOL could, assuming their claims that Nullsoft were not authorised to release the code under GPL are true, sue anyone they can prove is distributing the code for copyright infringement.
However, if such a lawsuit was pressed, you could request that AOL prove that Nullsoft were not authorised to release software that carried AOL-owned copyright, or that they prove that Nullsoft were acting in bad faith - that is they knew the licensing terms of the software in question would violate the law or go against AOL's wishes.
If they cannot prove this, then I would guess the GPL stands, and tough cookies AOL.
But certainly the mere presence of a GPL notice does not convey legitimacy to the GPL license terms.
So, what it really comes down to is 'do you trust AOL to tell you the truth that this code was released improperly'.
If you can convince a court that you were honestly unable to determine the legitimacy of their demands (not sure you could use this as a defense against AOL, it would be watertight against SCO), then you are also OK for keeping and distributing this code despite requests from them to remove it.
After all, they can lie to you about this and not run any significant risk because of the size of their bank account, yet you have no way to verify the authenticity of their claim without a court order for them to unseal the terms of their contracts with Nullsoft, or their sworn statement in court of law.
How can we know that AOL is not lying about the fact they did legitimately GPL this software, and since there is no law against making false claims outside the realm of contract or consumer law, it seems a pretty murky area. Its not like AOL has any disincentive for lying about this.
I can stand up and say 'I am the Pope of Hudson County! Bow before my lily white ass', but failing to bow is not a crime, much to my chagrin.
It is an interesting position, and bears remarkable similarity to the whole SCO debacle.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
From The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon, a covert postal service (my first domain was 'waste.com', so named for the same reasons)
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
(Warning: if you accidentally hit ENTER instead of SHIFT while editing your subject line, your comment gets instantly submitted, warts and all :))
Similarly, to help the community better understand, if somebody released GPL code under a BSD license, it would be illegal
Did AOL pull this because of the piracy potential? I imagine so. And, I'd have to say I'm not surprised. I frequent another message board popular with college students and the day WASTE was released (or at least, the day Slashdot reported it) there were threads filled with "ive got 90 gigs whats ur key" and "holy shit ____ has 25 gigs of movies!!!" messages. It would appear that there's a decent sized ring of students who see piracy potential in WASTE. It's like having your own private IRC server that's secure and makes trading easier and faster. I'd imagine this is the case elsewhere, as it seems that any time a new technology is released the first question that's asked is "how can I use this to more efficiently obtain movies, music, and software that I have no intention of paying for?"
I mean, I can see why companies get antsy about software like this. The trend seems to be "decentralized and anonymous file transfer", which allows for massive amounts of piracy. I say that if people are really serious about using P2P apps for legitimate uses, why not make a P2P app that uses a central server (like Napster) and isn't anonymous? It would make searches more efficient (and downloads as well?), make users accountable for the kinds of materials they're sharing, and allow for other enhancements. If you're really just sharing Linux ISOs and MP3s of public domain songs, you're going to be fine. Perhaps with a piece of software like that you might see little concern from various organizations as to the material being traded over the network.
Direct from NullSoft!
I hear they are making a beowulf cluster to serxor more than 50 at a time!
I've got a copy of the install if someone wants to host it.
I'm already hosting the source code somewhere but send me the installer at blixel at yahoo dot com and I'll make it available for download as well.
To me this looks like it's a cover up. Netscape has it's source located on cvs.mozilla.org and they aren't saying anything about that (and hell, a shitload of Netscape Proprietary stuff could be in there).
As far as I see, NullSoft had authorisation at local level. They released it thinking it was 'Go go go', but AOL said "Speak to our lawyers first". The GPL doesn't allow revocation. It probably was autorised.
NullSoft has other P2P stuff up it's sleeve
If there was some employee who released the source without authorization, he is the responsibility of Nullsoft. What's done is done.
Also every source file in the packages contains GPL notices. This at least creates the impression they always developed it as GPL.
Mirrored here- setup.exe
http://users.adelphia.net/~patrickpaulsmith/waste
Please go easy on this and don't mod up beyond 3...
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
cause I said so and you're my bitch.
Step 4: ????
Step 5: Profit!
File:waste-setup.exe
Length:173589 Bytes,170KB
UUHash:=42CeNSr7o3aDxHzmD5CGu+pZ/f8=
currently on supernode: 24.50.243.160 Username of supernode is smallphal
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
Blow me.
A little late to shut the gate after the horses have already bolted!
I'm sure it's just AOL's reaction to the legality issues that this program COULD raise, but it's ironic in that they use it themselves. At any rate, if you bother to glance at the other projects Nullsoft has finished (http://www.nullsoft.com/pinkumbrella.phtml), you may notice that a majority of them are posted under the GPL. I wonder for how many of them AOL actual "approved" the release and how many they just don't care about.
Companies gain many advantages from being treated as legal persons, represented by many natural persons. The downside is that a company collectively takes damage if one of these representatives makes a mistake. If the copyright to Waste belongs to Nullsoft, part of AOL, and an Nullsoft/AOL representative publishes it under the GPL, then AOL has nobody but the employee to go after. You can't however give away rights which you (or the company you represent) don't own, as would be the case if you were relicensing someone elses GPL software under a BSD license. The question is if the person who published Waste can legally be seen as representing Nullsoft/AOL. I'm not sure, but I think it is sufficient when a customer must assume that this is the case. Look at how Nullsoft usually releases software and you will certainly agree that it looks like the publisher had every right to do so. Maybe software companies should really start signing releases. That would disambiguate situations like this and it would help security at the same time.
Very interesting. Maybe the newest business model is:
1) 'Accidentally' leak code
2) ??? (Wait for it to be adopted and used in other products)
3) Sue dem bitches!!
I hope SCO is DESTROYED UTTERLY by IBM, so we don't have to worry about this shit.
AOL's higher ups have enough clue to realize this wouldn't be used for much wide-scale P2P sharing; indeed, it's limited to 50 users so something like BitTorrent is still much better suited to piracy. Rather, AOL probably saw WASTE as a competitive edge, as it was developed so that employees working on projects at different AOL field offices could collaborate without having to worry if one of AOL's competitors (or their boss) was snooping. If it's GPLed, all of AOL's competitors get the same advantage, as AOL can't snoop on their conversations, though more than likely they're using secure VPNs or direct fiber links anyway.
So basically, I don't think this was a case of AOL being worried about piracy, this was a case of AOL wanting to protect their company secret. You really can't blame them either way, but regardless, it's too late. WASTE will continue to be developed just like Gnutella was, and Open Source developers will probably try and reverse engineer it and write their own version just to be safe and in the clear with respect to copyrights. But this is just speculation, I might be wrong.
here in europe, especially germany, is a section of the civil law that deals with these issues and i'm pretty sure i've heard about similar things from the netherlands and france.
basically it comes down to the question "did the customer know he was buing illegal goods, did he had to know this if he was anything but ignorant or was it surely beyond his horizon?".
if the salesman sells the car with a rebate of 10%, the customer probably wasn't ignorant or too lazy to check the legal status. if the car is 50% or less, any sane person would have to ask some questions before taking it for granted.
bought in good faith means, the deal has to be reversed. car goes back to shop, money goes back to customer. any financial damage done by the illegal transaction is to be reimbursed by the guilty salesman.
pretty easy that way, when the deal is only some days old. it gets complicated, when the customer sells the newly bought goods to someone else. (in good faith and not negligent, as always) then THIS transaction will prevail, leaving the second customer his car, the first customer his money, giving NOTHING back to the shop, guilty salesman has to reimburse EVERYTHING.
this principle is instituted with the aim that legal incertainties cannot propagate indefinetly.
but this complicated case is about information and information with a zero dollar price to make it even worse. information cannot possibly be transferred back to a "shop" (the website) and everyone now hosting this information can host it on its website since he was in good faith it was released under the GPL. maybe...
if some corporation releases information under an open source license, even if it was for just one day, it cannot be revoked. the corp. has full rights to demand reimbursements of the guilty part, be it hacker or employee. any attempt to revoke fewer than 1mb of information circulating around the web is so futile, no judge will ever moan about. and if it is something with such a low value like WASTE (e.g. not DeCSS), any legal action is doomed. you can't sue someone over the price of an apple...
Tristero wasn't ready for his empire to be anything but silent.
Throw me a copy at richard@mysterae.com and i will host it someplace.
It's a Pynchon reference, read The Crying of Lot 49, it explained what W.A.S.T.E. was years before this got out. (the horn as the program icon is also a reference to the WASTE group in the book).
Thought people should know.
Let's *assume* that this is not a legal release (not AOL/TW trying to override Nullsoft after Nullsoft has released it legally).
Anything that "is" Waste or a derivate of Waste probably recieves a nastygram and that'll be the end of it. But what about this:
If someone picks up this code, without knowing anything about this controversy, sees the GPL and finds out that this is useful for any other project, say Gaim or Miranda or some other IM-client (or any other program for that matter) and copy-pastes away (including copyright headers, all fully legal if the licence is legal). What happens then? Does that OSS project suddenly become "poisoned"?
Also, if AOL/TW later finds out "hey, they used our code in project X", who gets the blame? Noone to blame really, unless they want to claim that you need to check with every copyright holder that they really *have* released it under the GPL.
Oh well. Someho an encrypted IM didn't sound that "advanced" to me anyway, not going to miss it...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Except that some random employee could just as easily post it there as somewhere else, assuming he had access to the source and the website farm. Right? The point being AOL can claim that Nullsoft division had no right to distribute that, and bingo, thats it.
https://cat2.ath.cx/cat2/waste.html
:)
9 :C0:2D:C0
If you intend to download it and use it follow
cert info:
Issued: 10/01/02
Expires: 10/31/02
SHA1 Fingerprint: D1:2E:5F:86:1C:FF:1A:C8:98:17:5F:F0:EE:2D:E4:65:3
MD5 Fingerprint: CB:DC:66:CB:7B:79:C4:0D:FC:43:3B:C7:BA:EF:61:3B
Nullsoft's WASTE - BLAH, Blah, blah
Ho Hum, maybe I'll check that out sometime if I'm bored.
AOL Pulls Nullsoft's WASTE
Unauthorized copy!?!?!?! Woohoo! Show me the mirrors!!!
Fat people are harder to kidnap.
https://cat2.ath.cx/cat2/waste.html
:)
9 :C0:2D:C0
If you intend to download it and use it follow
cert info:
Issued: 10/01/02
Expires: 10/31/02
SHA1 Fingerprint: D1:2E:5F:86:1C:FF:1A:C8:98:17:5F:F0:EE:2D:E4:65:3
MD5 Fingerprint: CB:DC:66:CB:7B:79:C4:0D:FC:43:3B:C7:BA:EF:61:3B
Once code is under the GPL, that's it. It's GPL'd. Fire the employee who did it, jail them, etc.--tough tittie. Be more careful next time...if that's really what happened.
I suspect they planned this all along. Suppose the RIAA/MPAA decide to sue AOL for producing this code...AOL's lawyers stand in front of the judge and say "Look! it was an illegal release! It was just an internal research project, and research is legal, isn't it? Hell, we pulled it off the net as soon as we found out! The employee has been scolded mercilessly!"
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
1.) WASTE seems to have been a proof-of-concept. Just like GNUtella. AOL got queasy and pulled it, but you can't un-ring a bell.
2.) Somebody's going to reverse-engineer the code and put out a "kosher" version. Call it Basura, call it TheRoundFile, call it Garbageman, call it whatever. Everyone will know what it is...nudge nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more. Just like GNUtella.
3.) Someone at AOHell's Nullsoft subsidiary got fired yesterday. Guaranteed.
4.) AOHell will toss the whole Netscape subsidiary over the side. This will mean that Mozilla will be forked and renamed. Hmm...where have I seen that before? Netscape 6.x will be a dead cul-de-sac. Heh, apropos, because Netscape 6.x did indeed bite the sac...;-)
You DONT know for a fact if its legal to share this. This could mean a tremendous blow, maybe even a staged trap against the GPL.
You are not "cool" if you break the law. Remember pirates are the worst enemy of open source software. If you download and use this code now, without being clear about its legitimacy, you are working against open source, against the GPL and against all that is good and lawfull.
Dont be stupid for christ sakes!
NO SIG
Anything with potential for illegitimate use is instantly shut down. Go away.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
must destroy any and all copies of the Software, including by deleting it from your computer.
Um, what do you mean "delete"? You mean simply "delete", "secure" delete, or what? You're implying "deleteing" the file is necessary, but is it sufficient?
Simply "deleting" a file may simply remove a pointer to the data location on the disk. In that case, the data in principle may be recoverable. If someone breaks into my machine, recovers the data, and redistributes the code, that would be a violation. On the other hand, you could have us subject the hard drive to matter dispersion, but you can't seriously expect us to dismantle our computers.
Here are the original md5sums so the mirrors can be validated ;]
2 4201d80 waste-source.zip
e3609e352afba37683c47ce60f9086bb waste-setup.exe
5645d0378b5bca6d2cf337686dca9a4d waste-source.tar.gz.tar
554cfa7350333aa4e6eb3b6e
Either AOL is the copyright holder or isn't.
The copyright owner chooses what & how to release things as they see fit, no going back.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
This is marketing! WASTE won't be cool unless it is yanked. It wont spread unless it is the lone voice of freedom in the wilderness. I think that this was planned from before the UML was drawn up. (do they use UML for design anymore?)
They'd have difficulty pulling that one off; as their employer, AOL is subject to vicarious liability - within certain limits, it doesn't matter whether it was authorized or not, AOL are still stuck with it. So, if (for example) a Microsoft guy gives me a free copy of Visual Studio, they can't come after me for license fees later. IIRC, the limit is whether or not it was "reasonable" (to the court) for that employee to be doing so: a PR guy handing out free samples is OK, claiming to give me authorization to post it on Usenet is not ;-)
In this case, I'm pretty sure any court would uphold the Nullsoft action: assuming it wasn't a case of their website being cracked, the software was developed and released in the usual way, as they've released other programs in the past. AOL would have great difficulty getting past that. (Of course, they're free to delete the files from their own website - they just can't retract the GPLed copies already out there...)
Well, no, there wouldn't be a considerable difference. Both methods of leaking the source would be illegal, since as an employee of a copy, you officially sign away your legal rights to anything you create. Therefore if the company doesn't want the source released it doesn't matter whether the source is posted on an "official" website or not. The leak is illegal.
Download my free songs!
go to www.nullsoft.com, press ctrl-a (or 'select all'), en behold. Strange... Look for the tag!
Passing silhouettes of strange illuminated mannequins
If somebody not reading about this on slashdot downloaded the source, believed in good faith that it was legally GPL'd, and has been redistributing, they aren't doing anything wrong until AOL/Nullsoft actually informs them that the original release was authorized.
I think AOL has a potential problem here if they really want to stop distribution, since it would be up to AOL to prove that the distributing party knew the original release was unauthorized. And that could be, uh, pretty hard.
My guess is that AOL is perfectly happy to just cut off the main distribution channel and give general notice about their legal position, and won't bother with a mirror here or there as long as it doesn't get too popular.
Of course, if it gets Kazaa'd (etc) then all they will have done is protect themselves from Lawyerly Wrath.
This Like That - fun with words!
There's been some early analysis of the WASTE system on the cryptography mailing list, which tends to attract some pretty high-powered crypto talent. While a lot of the discussion has centered on factors that would require a highly sophisticated attack (is MD5 broken, would AES be better than Blowfish, is PCBC mode appropriate, etc.) the main argument is that using a well established crypto system such as SSL/TLS would be far better than trying to design a whole new system from scratch, a conclusion that I highly agree with.
I posted the WASTE reference on the original announcement - but doubt anyone got it. And I just can't manage an ascii art horn.
http://www.northarc.com/waste_web
enjoy. there is also a forum for waste on the site.
Second, AOL might as well cut thier losses and just declare some license that they can live with. The software is wild, the source is wild, and it's too good got people just to sit down and pretend that it doesn't exist. It's going to be developed by the outside world whether they like it or not. The best they can do is either let it develop illegally or impose a license they can accept on it.
I do security
When the Waste release story ran on ./, I just thought, "Huh. Another file-sharing app and protocol."
:D
However, now that there's a big fuss about it, I couldn't help but grab it from a mirror and compile it. Just because it's illegal! Man, I'm livin' on the edge!
Maybe if I'm feeling crazy later today, I'll start Waste up and distribute the DeCSS source! Woah, I'm getting light-headed...
No, anything that has shown itself to be used PRIMARILY for illegitimate use has been attacked (Napster, Gnutella).
I have purchased over __15000__ ___CDs___, and I use use ____WASTE____ to download [X} Samples before I buy [X] Public Domain Communist Opera [ ] Grateful Dead Concerts [ ] Home made porno [ ] Bad Music My Friends Made.
If I find something I like, I immediately ___rent___ the albumn from ___Apple iTunes___, otherwise I immedately delete it. How dare does the ___MPAA? RIAA?___ suggest that people use ___WASTE___ for illegal activity? The ___DCMA___ Must be Stopped!!
When I hear those two terms together I can't help but think of millions of cds polluting my cereal boxes.
waste-setup.exe waste-setup.exe
waste-source.tar.gz waste-source.tar.gz
waste-source.zip waste-source.zip
I donwloaded the sources and found a RSA sub-directory contains material copyrighted RSA.
So this release is not really GPL ; or am I missing something ?
In most states (if not all), companies cannot lay claim to anything produced outside the office, off the time clock, unless the product is directly related to the business at the time of its conception (so if an employee makes something cool then the business decides to move in that direction they can't claim it). They cannot under any circumstances claim work created before employment began, no matter how similar it is to the business, unless the employee chooses to integrate that work into the products of the business. Some states may even require that the relevant law be quoted in the contract, as the last employee agreement I signed had such a law attached as an appendix.
I read it all over several times to make sure I would still be able to develop my Open Source projects that I started before employment began, as well as new projects that aren't related to the business.
A solution to the problem with music today
I don't see the correlation. cvs.mozilla.org sits inside the Netscape campus, and is hosted by Netscape. Of course they have their source there, it's their server.
Look, I have access to our companies websites since I manage the servers. I could very easily create an "official release" document and upload any old thing I wanted to. This doesn't make it official. It's more likely that the Nullsoft people in SF released this product without asking anyone. Once the parent company found out, they yanked it.
I really doubt there is any more to it than that.
If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
How about seeing some proof that it was illegally posted, i.e. employee fired.
"God's web site" : www.god.com could not be found. Please check the name and try again.
What's in it for AOL to do this? I don't understand what they'd gain through such trickery.
It will be interesting to see if the courts buy the idea that you can put GPL'd software on your website and within some reasonable time (48 hours, 1 week, 1 year?) say "I didn't mean to do that".
That depends on the how Nullsoft usually gets approval (if at all) to release software. Are they supposed to clear anything they release through AOL? Clear any new program they release through AOL? In these cases, if they didn't clear it through AOL, then it was released illegally. If they have never had to receive the OK from AOL to release anything before now, then this release will probably stand as legal.
As for whether they can come after you, if the release is illegal, they can certainly come after you if you use code they posted. They can't come after you for downloading it, but if you repost it or use it in another program they can certainly come after you (mainly they will be able to stop you from using or posting the code, but if you continue to do so after they have informed you to stop, then they can go after you monetarily). To use your example, MS could make you stop using the free copy of VS if the PR person didn;t have authorization to give it out. If you ignored them and kept using it, then they could try and get license fees out of you. Once you are informed of the facts (that the guy didn't have the authorization to give it out), then you can be held responsible for your actions.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
The ability to sue/kill/destroy any open source projecs that are similar to WASTE. Learn to read. Read the parent article 5 or 6 times, THEN hit reply.
I was intending to use WASTE to do secure p2p exchange of broadcast-quality MPEG-2 video files between television stations for co-production and regional distribution that was cost impractical to do by satellite.
Oh well...
e3609e352afba37683c47ce60f9086bb waste-setup.exed waste-source.tar.gz
554cfa7350333aa4e6eb3b6e24201d80 waste-source.zip
5645d0378b5bca6d2cf337686dca9a4
I've setup a quick mirror at:
http://waste.2mbit.com
If you know of any other mirrors of the data, please e-mail me so I can add them to the main page.
Brielle
This is specifically true when you are part of a small development company that gets bought into a corporate bohemoth greedy for new tech. But I assume that if you were even in such a situation, you would sign over all of your options because you would assume you had to.
------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Did this actually happen the same day it was released? Or was that message about something else?
> So, if (for example) a Microsoft guy gives me a
> free copy of Visual Studio, they can't come
> after me for license fees later.
Sure they can. If the person who gave you the free software wasn't the copyright holder, the copyright holder can come after you.
"Once the source has been downloaded, it is too late for the gorilla to vote."
All these posts about mirror sites and P2P links to the source code/program should give up and realize the inevitable - WASTE is illegal to have because Nullsoft says it was an unauthorized release. So, what needs to be done is what happened with gnutella after it was released and subsequently pulled. In the absence of the gnutella source code, the protocol was reverse engineered and new apps with their own source code were released and those people could GPL their code if they wanted to! All we the OS community need is a good idea and we should thank Justin for that! Just make your own program called WASTED or WASTENET or whatever and have it do the same kinds of things WASTE did, then GPL THAT of your own accord and let the fun begin (again)!
Here's another one.
If you downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy of the Software, you acquired no lawful rights to the Software and must destroy any and all copies of the Software, including by deleting it from your computer. What a WASTE!
put the what in the where?
I asked a lawyer friend of mine and yes the "reasonable" test does seem to be important. It seems quite reasonable for folks to assume that the software was being released under GPL.
The law in question deals with both apparent authority and inherent authority. The basic idea of apparent authority is that if the principal "cloaks" the agent with apparent authority to enter into a contract, even if he doesn't give the agent actual authority, then the principal will be liable for contracts entered into by the agent.
Inherent authority by contrast allows an agent to cloak himself in a principal's authority and to enter the principal into a binding contract.
To quote Learned Hand's opinion in Kidd v. Thomas A. Edison, Inc, 1917:
"The very purpose of delegated authority is to avoid constant recourse by third persons to the principal, which would be the consequence of denying the agent any latitude beyond his exact instructions. Once a third party has assured himself widely of the character of the agent's mandate, the very purpose of the relation demands the possibility of the principal's being bound through the agent's minor deviations."
(I am quoting from my friend's e-mail, not the actual opinion.)
So on this basis it would seem that software posted to the company website for download under a GPL would seem to bind the principal.
On the other hand, AOL did act very quickly to take the software off of the website. A court might feel that this was sufficient to nullify the rights granted under the GPL to those who downloaded the software. Or a court might feel that it was AOL's internal responsibility to assure proper security procedures to prevent unwanted posting of software under GPL terms, and that the rights granted under the GPL to recipients cannot be revoked.
I find it more likely it was released on purpose, without the AOL directors explicit (written, documented, traceable) permission to get it "out there". Then after enough time to get it spread around, "responsible" AOL "found out" and pulled it.
AOL is a very schizophrenic company. Half of it is an internet provider that wants as many users as possible (and sees benefits in this with file sharing etc.). The other half is an increasingly obsolete media publishing giant that wants the internet controlled and regulated in order to perpetuate itself. So they have these little "personalities" like Nullsoft that do the wild things their inner self could never do. The can even squish these personalities if they want...and create more later!
Seriously, just like the rest of the world, most of the money and power is in the hands of a small numer of people at AOL/TW. The rest really don't give a shit and only play-act at following the company line for political purposes. In reality they want to push agendas that helps them get resume fodder and promotions. Companies like to promote "loyal" employee's with good numbers the most. Thus they produce clever liars!
hwaste-setup.exe (e3609e352afba37683c47ce60f9086bb)z ip (554cfa7350333aa4e6eb3b6e24201d80)t ar.gz(5645d0378b5bca6d2cf337686dca9a 4d)
waste-source.
waste-source.
----
There already is one (though it doesn't cleanly compile for me). http://www.northarc.com/waste_web/
Litigious bastards
God is a company?...that begins to explain a lot about the world.
hmmm...maybe www.god.gov or even www.god.net or www.god.org but .com?
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
I told you so!
waste has been WASTED !!
..good publicity stunts ..looks like more people care downloading waste now than ever ...
serioulsy though
whoa ! i can see u !!
What does it exactly stand for ? I can't remember. Wasn't it ArseOLe ?
Nullsoft is part of AOL. When they release something under the GPL, AOL has released it under the GPL. There are no "do-overs" here, what's been officially released cannot be retracted.
The only option AOL has at this point is to stop hosting the release and not provide any updates or support, which they are doing. As far as the original release, the cat's out of the bag.
maybe the League of Inusti^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HRIAA will sue AOL out of existence for a change. Probably not because of the "warner" part, but oh well, I can daydream about it.
Ahh.. *daydreams* But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed AOL, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
There is now a (yet simple, quickly hacked together) Database of Static Hosts availablehere
hivesecurity.com/waste.html
Perhaps its just a tactic to add fuel to the fire against GPL and BSD type of licenses.
:P
"See, you cant trust what you get, just beacuse it says its free, you may still be libel.. buy our software"
Regardless of how it turns out, it gets air-play, and it influences public opinion, and the people are making the decisions..
But that would be sinister, and noone would do that
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That's their problem: the copyright holder is Microsoft. The person giving me the software is, legally, Microsoft: that's the meaning of vicarious liability. He is, legally, acting on behalf of Microsoft; whether or not they want him acting on their behalf in that way is irrelevant. (They can, of course, fire him for it, at which point he can't do it again...)
there's a Waste dedicated forum on http://www.xenobit.de discussing the further development, usage and the legal postion (no downloads on xenobit at the moment) - the site an the forum are kept in english
According to File>Preferences>About
"WASTE v1.0b
Copyright (C) 2003 Nullsoft, Inc."
So that seems to be that. Nullsoft owns the copyright and had sole ability to release WASTE under the GPL. No further questions.
put the what in the where?
I mirrored the source and the full site here. Screw AOL! The source is GPL, they can pull it but they can't kill it. Hopefully someone will keep developing this and hopefully it's going to be as widespread as Gnutella some day.
Except that there already *are* projects that do what WASTE does. Maybe they don't do everything WASTE does -- they encrypt all transactions and do just file-sharing/browsing, but not IM, or they encrypt file transfers and IM but don't do browsing, but such projects do exist.
p2p is much more than gnutella and kazaa and stuff; there are over a hundred different p2p projects out there.
I managed to compile WASTE under Linux with a few minor changes here and there, but it looks like it's only the server at the moment. The key generator looks Windows-only, and I'm betting the client is too.
Has anyone here actually used WASTE? Also, does it scale, or is it only good for small groups, as the original webpage implies?
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
This is everywhere in the source. It's GPL'd, okay?
WASTE - xferwnd.cpp (File transfer dialogs)
Copyright (C) 2003 Nullsoft, Inc.
WASTE is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
WASTE is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with WASTE; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
> They would have to have a contract with Justin that says
> all thoughts are AOL's regardless of whether he does
> them for work or not.
If the Nullsoft guys are still working out of San Francisco, as the article suggests, he's 100% in the clear. Such clauses are illegal in California, wether you sign them into your contract or not. Go ahead and sign a contract giving your employer the rights to ideas you come up with in your free time. Clauses like that are generally thrown in with the legalese to try to make you THINK they have a right to your free time. Nevertheless, said clause is illegal and unenforceable.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
"I'd still be very hesitant to publish the files until someone with the standing to do so weighs in on the issue (Any FSF lawyers reading this?)."
IANAL, much less an FSF one. You comment applies to anything in the "free" domain--the public domain (a legal concept), and the GPL domain (a presumed legal concept that hasn't been tested), and all the other domains that try to implement a public commons and sharing.
If I find a quarter on the street, it's mine. But what if I find $5.8 million dollars. Free software is like everyone sharing and tossing money on the street. We can all take millions and millions of dollars of cool stuff and it's still there after we take it (it's not tangible).
Creating "intellectual property" as a category inherently sets up the conflict--dangerous use--you now claim this software has. Some of the free money is really free, and some of it belongs to someone. Who's to say which is which? This is the essence of the legal gambit:
Intellectual Property + FUD = no free software at all.
This has nothing to do with GPL. Neither the GPL nor any other licence can "guarantee" you won't be sued by someone for some reason. The UCC has provisions for protecting you with commercial transactions (credit card purchases--what happens if you use a check to buy something stolen at a store? Who gets to sue whom?).
Once you invent a theory ("intellectual property) of two kinds of money you find on the street--the free untainted kind and the tainted kind, you have a recognition problem. Just because something is free and has GNU stamped on it, doesn't mean it isn't "counterfeit".
Voila--we remove the viral property (people's willingness to accept genuine GNU software at face value).
This is like England fighting Louis XIV by destabilizing French currency by printing fake Francs. (Did they ever do that?). It will work where it counts--it will scare people away from sharing.
The problem is restoring confidence in the shared domain where some corporations are actively poisoning the well. (Or simply miffed their "IP" is leaking).
We need to do more than say "they can't do that". We need to find a way to fight back.
It is easy to make GPL not work, by the way--a constitutional amendment against Free Software would would. They won't call it that, of course, they will write it into a treaty provision where it has the force of constitutional law but can't be reviewed by the Supreme Court (Treaties aren't).
The Freedom to share only exists if people stand up for it. Passively counting on the GPL won't work. The GPL is a strategy, not a weapon.
The contractual clauses you're talking about, the ones that run along the lines of:
"ALL IP you generate, even that which you come up with at home or in the shower, walking to/from work, etc., belong to the company."
Those are illegal in California; and they're unenforcable, no matter if you signed them into a contract. Once you walk out that office door, your time and ideas are your own. Sell that code independently, release it under the GPL, do whatever. If you do it on your own time, your employer has NO right to it whatsoever, no matter WHAT you signed.
AOL seems to be trying to apply the more authoritarian standards of the east coast, to people residing in the more employee-friendly California. It just doesn't wash.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
Yes, but if they DON'T WANT WASTE RELEASED/DISTRIBUTED, what would they stand to gain from suing similar projects?
It the way that some rappers were speaking a couple years ago.
As per usual, the hipster white people pick it up and over-use it, ex post facto.
I don't understand HOW they keep getting away with this? First Gnutella, now WASTE. Both of these projects clearly offer nothing to AOL-TW, but at the same time could end up being very costly (lawsuits) to them.
So how does Nullsoft keep getting away with releasing these projects on their own AOL-TW -owned site? I mean, if I released this stuff from a major media company that I worked for, I'd think that it would be raining pink slips the very second they found out about it!
That said, I'm very happy they DO get away with it, because they are usually groundbreaking projects that are completely open source! How many more genies is Nullsoft going to let out before AOL-TW puts their foot down?
No need to cry over WASTE. Check out the Freenet project. Its been around much longer with similar goals (encrypted, anonymous, distributed access). http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
-Cold Drink
waste.zip downloaded Sat, May 31 2003 from:
http://scriptingnews.userland.com/2003/05/30
size: 264434
md5: 115d1a2554db4490bdf97b9862df5a24
I don't know if anyone has tried to trojan the thing yet, but since NullSoft is unlikely to be publishing hashes for the source, somebody has to. Of course, you'd be a little crazy to rely on an anonymous posting on slashdot...
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Okay, so I've got one of those DeCSS shirts and everything, but how in the world am I supposed to get a few thousand lines of source on a T-shirt?
And another thing: people ask me about my 'got DeCSS?' shirt all the time, but who's going to talk to me if my clothing says 'got WASTE?'.
-- puzzled
coding is life
I saw the original headline about WASTE on Slashdot, never even read the story, forgot about it. But now that I've seen AOL has yanked it from Nullsoft's site, I'm downloading it and trying it out, not to mention posting it in a few safe places.
Scarcity is an amazing thing - by trying to put a lid on this, they're actually creating a huge demand for this program. I can't wait to try it out.
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:RNADB73OZV4J56PYURKSJBOKQU YU25RO.3YIAXBOM3XGWON5QSA6TVIJUAXJHZI54FQ3LMVY&dn= waste-setup.exe
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:SNMD7MSXP3QI6MY5IOF4DKUEVK UD2Y4G.6YKR7VR2TWYNPUUBOVGY5ROGMSPTA7ZZSGTECUA&dn= waste-source.tar.gz
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:M6HCJRTWID2MLW2EOHL2GUK7O2 MGJLTT.CCTSJVMC4RQC67TVJDISXHS6KEXKQIRMNM2SHCI&dn= waste-source.zip
ed2k://|file|waste-setup.exe|173589|5f2e6a0160b414 10d413a965560071e2|/
ed2k://|file|waste-source.tar.gz|214730|f5d0dbda5e 7eb7a9774c7650fa306383|/
ed2k://|file|waste-source.zip|261175|d9eff5442b2f4 ab391487c21f9998679|/
So they can say: "Hey, don't look at us! We *told* them don't grab that source code and run with it..."
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
> They'd have difficulty pulling that one off; as their employer, AOL is subject to vicarious liability - within certain limits, it doesn't matter whether it was authorized or not, AOL are still stuck with it.
--Something tells me that if this kind of thing happens ONE MORE TIME, Nullsoft may just be disbanded and the offending employee(s) scattered to the winds. With my luck, if I were working there it would ALREADY have happened long since!
--Hopefully the software will live on somehow tho, and find legit application in the world at large. AOL are p*ssies for "fearing legal consequences of the software."
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Seems like there is no better way to make something popular than by outlawing it
A friend put it up to the public, here it is. :)
We are talking about a website. So, you mean, if I go to an official site and download software that is described on the "Corporate Website" to grant me certain rights to the usage of this software, the company can just turn around and say that an unauthorized employee without "standing to make contracts" posted this on the website, and I am being sued now?
.)
This does not seem to go along with my interpretation of "apparent authority." No corporation would need to be responsible for the content of their website anymore, and e-commerce would disappear under this interpretation.
No, the official website of a company is the representation of the company. If someone with normal access to the website, acting as an agent (which all employees do, to varying degrees), the company CAN be bound by the employees actions, even if internally, they really didn't have the "standing" to make such a decision. Of course, the employee would be liable to the company, but that isn't my problem. Companies ARE liable for their employees actions, unless these actions are completely unrelated (and can be identified so by a reasonable person) to the normal duties of an employee in that position.
You are right about "having standing." But to the public, if we can not assume that the person in charge of putting material on the company's website has the "standing" to do so, then what is the point of having a website? The public's perception of this "standing" counts.
You do know that former employees can bind their former employer in contracts if the employer does not make a reasonable attempt to inform related parties of the termination of the employee? The final burden falls on the employer. WASTE was released under the GPL and now AOL is trying to unrelease it. They can sue their employee for the damages, but the law has yet to address recursive licenses like the GPL (though I may be mistaken . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
What exactly is Frankel's role at AOL? It isn't very clear to me how Winamp, Gnutella, etc. are valuable assets to AOL. Can anyone answer?
The source code to God is essentially released open source. It's called the Bible, and its basically all the content embodied in god except that no human can compile it (yet). I mean after all, without the bible our modern idea of god would not resemble what it does.
Visualize Whirled Peas
I'd say that the real mistake would have been checking with the high-up first.
It's easier to beg for forgivness afterwards, than ask for permission first.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I assume the burden of proof is on AOL to prove that whoever posted the source didn't have the right to GPL it. How do you prove something like this? Does a corporate subsidiary have any intellectual property ownership of its own products? The scariest part of this:
Any license that you may believe you acquired with the Software is void, revoked and terminated.IF in fact, the person who posted the code had the authority to do so, can AOL revoke your license to software? what if you paid for it? if it's void, how can you revoke it? if it's void and revoked, how can you terminate it?
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
Another factor to consider is that the code that was on Nullsoft's site includes RSA code that is not only NOT GPL'ed, it is under a license that is incompatible with GPL! (Take a look at the MD5 code).
If it's void, then how can you revoke it?
If it's revoked how can it be terminated?
If it's terminated, does that terminate it's void-ness?
Do all these terms cancel out?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Look again, this time in subdirectories.
When you get a job, as part of your contract, the company will take possession of things that you make during company time. So if you and a few of your friends at your company build software at work, and the release it on your company's website under the GPL, you had no right to the code to GPL it in the first place. Thus the code that was released was not licensed by the copyright owner (your company) and the GPL does not apply to it. You cannot license what you don't own.
If anyone takes AOL's code and tries to use it in a GPL product, they are violating AOL's copyright.
"So, if (for example) a Microsoft guy gives me a free copy of Visual Studio, they can't come after me for license fees later. "
Thats good to hear. I guess my copy of Windows XP is legit since billg2950 on IRC sent it to me.
All indications are that Justin Frankel put the source online. Since he's a co-founder of and main force behind Nullsoft, he is clearly authorized to act on Nullsoft's behalf. Furthermore, Nullsoft, not AOL Time Warner, owns the code (even the retraction page does not dispute this, as it is signed "Nullsoft," not "AOL Time Warner").
So what we basically have is that the official Nullsoft site has made two conflicting statements -- 1) the code is GPL'd; 2) the code is not GPL'd.
The only possible way the GPL release could be invalid is if (1) was not made by an authorized Nullsoft representative, but (2) was. To establish this, they would need to give some evidence of (1) being invalid (for example, saying that their website was hacked, or that an intern posted it online, etc.). Absent such evidence, I have no reason to believe that the license was not granted me by Nullsoft (it certainly appeared to be), and so I can reasonably continue to use the source under the license granted me.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
IIRC they never sued anyone over Gnutella distribution and/or modifications.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
WASTE sucks - Blowfish? Why not Twofish or AES? It doesn't scale (broadcasts), no point-to-point encryption, it must trust all nodes, no internal network anonymity, bloody awful key management, shit swarming, bad firewall circumvention... and something about the link negotiation looks wrong to me, though I can't put my finger on why (I'll go read it again and check my notes).
It's not the only project doing this sort of thing. Freenet, IIP, Bittorrent, eMule, hell even DC++... P2P is fashionable. Sometimes because it's thumbing a nose at control and copyright (hello, Freenet), often because when done right it works really, really well and is shockingly useful (hello, Bittorrent, eMule).
And it just isn't as fashionable if it doesn't include all the features on The P2P Wishlist(tm)... to be P2P's Ultimate Killer App(tm), a network/client must have ALL the following properties:
Consider that this could be an effort to get the courts to rule that the GPL can be revoked after the fact. If that happens, it would be big!
Once something can be done, afterwards there is only the drawing of the line on where it will be done.
Not to feed the conspiracy theorists too much, but AOL just did have a big settlement with MS, who would benifit greatly from any damage done to GPL.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
WASTE was released under the GPL
... imagine for a moment that crackers or other intruders gained access to Nullsoft's source repository and website. They post said source to Nullsoft's website under the GPL. "Apparent authority" is still in place -- it's on the website, right? But the crackers/intruders have no standing to release the code whatsoever. Similarly, a company employee may have authority to write code and make changes to a website -- but no standing over the works of IP he's writing for hire. The situations aren't all that different.
The crux of my argument is that it's only released under the GPL if the person who released it had standing to do so. The GPL is a contract, and if you don't have the authority to enter into that contract, you can't release something under it.
As for "apparent authority"
As a side note, any kind of "apparent authority" doctrine that implied that orders given or actions taken under apparent authority remained in force after they were discovered to be made without standing would cause a whole lot of chaos. I can see such a doctrine being used to mitigate offenses of those who believed they were acting in concert with apparent authority -- say a police officer ordered by a faked authority to hold someone on illegitimate charges -- but not to keep an action in force.
Or would you like SCO's blusterings about IP to be upheld, when they only have "apparent authority"? : )
Bottom line: either Justin had the standing to release Nullsoft's work under the GPL, or he didn't. If he had that standing, AOL can't take it back. If he didn't have that standing, it was never released under the GPL in the first place.
Any other interpretation, by the way, does exactly the damage to the rep of the GPL that the parent poster described.
Tweet, tweet.
$> md5sum waste*
e3609e352afba37683c47ce60f9086bb waste-setup.exe
5645d0378b5bca6d2cf337686dca9a4d waste-source.tar.gz
115d1a2554db4490bdf97b9862df5a24 waste.zip
I saw WASTE get announced here a few days ago and figured, 'Enh. Windows only. I'll wait until someone does the same thing for Linux.'
Today, I see that AOL is attempting to quash WASTE. And the number of people downloading the source goes up by a factor of ten if not a hundred.
How long until that Linux port now? 72 hours? 36?
How long until someone decides that they can do better and does something as a pure-GPL pure-community project so that it doesn't matter what the courts say, there's an independant means to do the same thing out there already?
You can't BUY publicity like this.
As badly mod-punished as I'm going to get for this, you're burning a hell of a lot of good will by hosting mirrors of WASTE. What if it were your own software that someone put up under the GPL without your permission? And before I get the chorus of, "All my software is under the GPL anyway!!" even software intended for free release shouldn't be distributed before the author is ready for it to be.
It's fine to speculate what exactly brought this about (And Nullsoft really should be more forthcoming than a plaintext legalistic note!), no speculation is grounds enough to justify redistribution of someone else's code that they've explicitly asked you not to redistribute. Period.
Except that the person, was an agent of Nullsoft - agents of commercial entities *are* legally capable of entering into an license agreement. This protects the 2nd party (in this case the public) from Businesses backing out of a 'deal' saying "this person didnt have the right to obligate us" - in fact, (s)he does.
imagine if some 3rd party came down on a seperate department (and previously unaware of this project) AOL for WASTE, maybe AOL's employees HAD discussed the matter with the people in their immediate sphere of relevance... all was well. teh decision to publish (and enter into the GPL license with the public) -- they cannot simply say "oh, we were just kidding". becasuse we, the public, had every reason to believe that the Nullsoft fellows had the authority (as they must have, in order to publish).
remember, IMNALBPOO/.
Just wanted to mention that waste.exe seems to run fine on linux with a recent wine version. Chat and filetransfer works fine. The only thing that made it crash for me, was when I aborted and resumed a transfer.
One thing though: I did not run the installer. Instead I just copied the directory from my Windows partition.
http://www.1014.org/finger.phtml
Actually, the Bible was a beta version. The Quran was the official release. Dianetics is the rewrite from scratch.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
5645d0378b5bca6d2cf337686dca9a4d waste-source.tar.gz
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
The .doc file that comes with the source was last revised a day before the posting by Justin Frankel. So I'd say he very much intended to release it.
you must use a desktop for wine, but once you do the installation proceeds, the keys generate and the main program launches.
Havent' taken it any further than that.
Has anyone opened the source zip and looked at the wase design.doc file?
It says the authors name is Dick Pumpaloaf.
Maybe this wasn't sopposed to get out? Would thay realease something like that?
I think you've hit it on the head there. AOL/Nullsoft may or may not have a problem with their employees working on open source projects, (i.e., Mozilla) but they have to be acutely aware of any potential licensing no-nos, esp. given the current SCO/Linux debacle.
Personally, I think it's an interesting project, but needs some serious work before it could be a viable alternative to existing chat and filesharing apps -- the design docs distributed show a number of issues with the wire protocol, including its overuse of broadcast messages, and the high (i.e., 40 bytes per packet!) overhead added for message checksumming, routing info, etc.
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail.php3?fid=1054 104235
I prefer a void in conversation to a vacuous one.
Anyone want to test WASTE with me? Reply back and/or e-mail me at blixel at yahoo dot com
c'mon, this is just a smartass move to have us all leech that source like hell... AOL removed it, and we all want it so bad now, well you go get it... i'll wait until someone figures the damn thing out the sources into a brand new open project on sourceforge rebranded to a some name like, hum, garbage, and forget about anything even AOL related ;)
GPL rocks
Seems like pulling the plug on this project has exponentially increased WASTE's availability and popularity.
In addition, if anyone wants a space to develop waste, send me an email.
d00dz! cH3kk 1t 0Ut!!!
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Exactly. It's an issue between Nullsoft-the-corporation and Nullsoft's employees, not between Nullsoft and the public. I'd like to see AOL stop someone from putting a fork of WASTE on SourceForge.
I think the idea is that Nullsoft released it under Nullsoft's name for their brand equity (everyone has heard of Nullsoft). They probably knew that AOL wasn't going to like it and pull it anyways, but it was just to get the exposure. AOL can do whatever they want with Nullsoft's software (probably in the contract somewhere when they were bought). The idea is that Nullsoft starts this open source idea, knowing they won't be able to develop it further after AOL pulls the plug, and they let the rest of the community take over (same idea with Gnutella). Notice how well the docs say where the flaws are and what areas are needed for improvement?
"GPL" is not a synonym for "I can do whatever I want."
You're new here, aren't you?
http://www.club977.com/ - The 80's Channel!
Your source for commercial free 80's music!
Pynchon effect
Also, there's a tarball of the comple original Nullsoft site, including HTML, source, etc, here. To make your own mirror just unzip the tarball in a public directory.
I would be willing to bet that, under the employee agreements of anyone working at Nullsoft, that any code they create on the job is the exlusive property of AOL. If a Nullsoft employee, without authorization, wrote an application and put it up for distribution, AOL can say they did not have permission to do this, the code is copyright AOL, and the code was distributed illegally. The fact that the code is GPL'd is irrelevant. None of you even know if anyone working at Nullsoft has the right to release GPL'd code in the first place.
Has anyone forked thist yet? Since we won't be seeing any further Nullsoft releases, how come no one seems to have started ahcking the source?
This is a fantastic comment. I have submitted this over at infoAnarchy.org. I hope you don't mind. Maybe after(if) it reaches the front page out of the submission queue you could post some more comments there.
Thanks,
-me.
I don't see a problem with AOL pulling WASTE, if it was written by an employee during work hours. If not, disregard the following.
They own it. Their immediate disapproval shows that the source code was released under the GPL without the consent of the owner, nullifying the license (forgive the pun). They have the right to take it back.
If they had let it go for weeks, months, or years, then you could say there was implied consent, and there would have been good cause to go after AOL for violating the GPL, but in this case there has been no evidence that AOL, the owner of WASTE, had consented to release it under the GPL.
This is the problem with the USA. Corporations can say any damn thing they want to, and hold no accountability...
What should you do? Trust the company to tell the truth? Ignore the company and open yourself up to serious legal liability (if their claims turn out to be true)?
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
They might be telling the truth, they might not, but there's no way to tell that, and the only option you have is to spend millions in a lawsuit against AOL to find out the truth in court. Anything said outside of court is nothing but a whisper in the wind, and is legally nothing at all.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
On the other hand, AOL did act very quickly to take the software off of the website. A court might feel that this was sufficient to nullify the rights granted under the GPL to those who downloaded the software. Or a court might feel that it was AOL's internal responsibility to assure proper security procedures to prevent unwanted posting of software under GPL terms, and that the rights granted under the GPL to recipients cannot be revoked.
DANGER: Landmark test case lawsuit ahead...
If AOL wins: The GPL suddenly becomes revokable after the fact... which could help SCO in their profit-by-lawsuit business plan, and will likely prompt somebody into trying a GPL-and-run scam.
If AOL loses: They're now stuck with it... they just wrote and released a P2P client. Their only hope will be to try to push Nullsoft far enough away so the multibillion dollar Napster-style lawsuits only bankrupt Nullsoft and not the AOL/TW mothership. If that doesn't work, it's a horrible death for a megacompany.
Wow... high stakes here... who thought a simple piece of software could cause so much trouble?
The code is (c) Nullsoft, and even AOL is not disputing this. The code is not (c) AOL Time Warner, which is an important distinction (Nullsoft is a subsidiary, and so a separate legal entity). Justin Frankel essentially is Nullsoft; he's a co-founder and principal developer. The code was released on the official Nullsoft website by him, the same way most other Nullsoft software is released. In short, the release followed the standard practice used by most other Nullsoft releases (most of which, like NetMon, are uncontroversial). This is Nullsoft release policy, and Justin is basically their release manager (for at least some of their stuff -- Winamp is handled separately). Simply because AOL disliked this particular release doesn't give them a legal leg to stand on in pulling it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
By "banning" this software, they've made WASTE the must-have of every l33t kiddie around. Look at this thread for how many mirror sites have sprung up. Everyone wants it.
This is publicity you can't buy! I'm sure AOL knows this. As soon as WASTE gets a critical mass of enough users using it, AOL will "give in" and release it officially again. The end result of these actions? WASTE suddenly becomes a hugely popular app and AOL didn't have to spend a penny in marketting.
Or then again, maybe I'm wrong....
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
CHK@wyUDTRn2FJ~tDDbIMwmrREdTC18SAwI,I96Zy-slyhJsmx WS81jWJQ/waste-source.zipm 3kBl7c3ASAwI,tcJBsuRX5f550i 3RofaHxQ/waste-source.tar.gz.tgzM 2nTE8ellaf1O3I8SAwI,rfITJSBctnter8 Tlj6QSIg/waste-setup.exe
CHK@UOvBQukBA0qqwXZK6b
CHK@by9ePv1hz40
All of the opensource licenses should never have incorperated exclusive use for corperations.
They are legally testing the water now, software development and PC's as a hobby will be a favourite past time in about 20 years.
I find it absolutely discusting, and I hope this rampant capitalistic greed and unethical behaviour will find it's place in hell before that 20 years are up
And if recent world events is anything to go by, they are leading to that conclusion. It's no longer about dealing with the customer/end user now, it's all about the share holder and uncle SAM.
Good luck in the future.
I thought that the Bible is a alpha release. full of bugs and misfeatures. Not ready for public beta...
This is the problem with the USA. Corporations can say any damn thing they want to, and hold no accountability...
well, not entirely. an officer of a corporation can obligate a corporation legally without the consent of the corporation as a whole and possibly (in some cases) against such consent. if this guy frankel is an officer of nullsoft (which i suspect he is, as the article mentions him as a founder) then he does have the authority to enter into contractual obligations (in this case software licenses) without the consent of nullsoft as a whole. aol can force them to pull the software if they want, but the license that people originally downloaded it under does still have legal clout.
ianal, but we did get into a situation not terribly unlike this at a company i was an officer of, so i have some basis for my ramblings.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
You are making the wrong arguement in the wrong place. I am not saying that Justin can't do what he did... What I am saying is that AOL could claim that a hacker broke into their website and posted the software, and it was not done legally...
If they are lying, you could have legally used the software, but if they are telling the truth, you are seriously screwed if you use the software. You have no way to tell the truth of the matter without suing AOL.
Now end the theoretical. AOL says the software WAS posted by an unauthorized individual, and it is illegial for you to even keep the software. Are they telling the truth, or was it posted by someone with authority to do so? There is no way to know, no way to tell, short of suing AOL...
Now, you may believe that Justin did this himself, and you may believe that he might have the legal authority to do so, but you really don't know any facts, and basing your decision on what you think might be true is likely going to land you in jail. Maybe this was released by some intern. How are we supposed to know?
Since corporations aren't required to tell the truth, there is no way that you can tell if this software was legally released and they are lying to you, or if it was illegially released, and you are legally screwed if you do anything with it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I was looking at some stuff on the web relating to WASTE and found an entry from Justin's blog:
The last few days have been, erm, interesting, it will be, erm, interesting
to see how they end up panning out. But I'm feeling pretty good, though like
usual feeling misunderstood. I'll try to clear it up next week.
Since he probably has rights to speak for the company this may actually be perfectly fine GPL release. If he didn't release it or if he does not have permission then AOL may start putting out a lot of lawsuits to mirrors soon
If the message is false about WASTE being an 'unauthorized release' does AOL TW actually have anything to lose? Because then you know you can't trust what they are saying....
http://www.nullsoft.com/pinkumbrella.phtml
You would see that 10 products are open-source compared to 4 products closed-source. So maybe waste is the new, 11th open-source product.
If you want to know if waste is really GPL?? Grep through the code and see if there is any GPL'd code from another project in it.. if there is.. then it doesn't matter what AOL says.. the whole thing is free for the using.. :-)
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
I'd say that more bucks flow in the the coffers of god.com that any other company out there. They have certainly wielded more power over recorded history than even Microsoft.
:)
That being said, waste seems like the next logical step in P2P applications. I was astonished how well bittorrent worked the other day when the clusteredKnoppix site got hammered after the article on Slashdot went up (speeds up to 2.9 Meg/Second).
I'll bet AOL is really sorry they bought Nullsoft.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
That site has absolutely nothing on it. It's just a project named "waste" that someone forgot to actually upload the waste code to.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
does anyone who is behind these new self destructing dvds. very mission impossible like. let me know.
Parent was not offtopic.
Dunno if the company itself has a website, but you could take a look at this.
Take a look at their tracking system, too. Pretty cool stuff. Not sure if I'd call it divine, though.
+++ATH0
wait 'til I sell my stock first, m'kay? So far, I'm only down $30/share. I don't wanna lose it all.
Here's the thing, though: Nullsoft (from what I saw when I used to work for AOLTW) is not independent of the AOL chain-of-command. If you look at the AOL org. chart, you can work your way up from Justin Frankel through a Nullsoft manager and a Nullsoft Director to an AOL Vice President. I have no idea if Nullsoft is a seperate legal entity but I'm pretty damned sure that (when I was there) the head honcho at Nullsoft directly reports to an upper-level manager at AOL.
This kind of thing happens all the time at huge corporations. Managers (and sometimes Directors) sign off on open sourcing a software project and the developers release it without ever putting it through the Legal department. I wrote the beginnings of my Bronc performance monitoring software when I worked at Ticketmaster Online - CitySearch. My manager ok'ed me open sourcing it but honestly, I don't think Legal ever got a look at it.
Personal Mirror
MD5 : 115D1A2554DB4490BDF97B9862DF5A24
Calculation took 0.320 seconds
is what I got on
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/home/wa
Well if they can fit a book of the bible into one of those little miniature keyring fob deals....
Or how about a costco-sized package of toilet paper, with the entire distribution uuencoded as one long continuous message...
The MD5 Checksums for the various W.A.S.T.E. files are:
The Technical Overview for the W.A.S.T.E. package has been coverted into HTML, courtesy of Mr. Lucas Gonze , and it is available at http://gonze.com/waste/WASTE_Design.html
A sourceforge project site has also been set up for the W.A.S.T.E. package. The project site is at http://sourceforge.net/projects/waste/ . It may be empty for the moment, but something will be cooked up very soon.
Below is just a partial list of mirrors for the W.A.S.T.E. package that are currently in operation:
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
http://www.morphedmedia.com/forums/
this site is apparently further developing WASTE.
interesting.
Except that the person, was an agent of Nullsoft - agents of commercial entities *are* legally capable of entering into an license agreement. This protects the 2nd party (in this case the public) from Businesses backing out of a 'deal' saying "this person didnt have the right to obligate us" - in fact, (s)he does.
That raises some interesting possibilities. What exactly is stopping, say... the janitor of Time-Warner getting drunk and selling me the entire company for $1?
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
What exactly is stopping, say... the janitor of Time-Warner getting drunk and selling me the entire company for $1?
1) That the janitor has no *reasonable* belief that he is acting within his mandate and 2) the purchaser, has no reasonable belief that this janitor has this authority.
AOL is a good company, its Time Warner, they are the evil side.
AOL hasnt done anything bad, all the RIAA stuff was Time Warner.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
As long as the Nullsoft employee believed they were acting in good faith, the release is valid and AOL can't change their mind.
If a store clerk sold you a new computer, only to find that it wasn't general stock but intended to be a sales terminal, it wouldn't mean that they could find you and take the computer back. (With some small exceptions.)
A more relevant example might be if I worked in a tech support job and a customer called with a problem. I write a small GPLed perl script for them run to fix their computer. Technically, the company owns that program because I wrote it on company time, but this doesn't mean the customer doesn't have the right to use their copy (and if the license allows, distribute it). I was acting as a representative of the company at the time so my actions are their actions...
Too bad it isn't that great as a P2P client!
DVD players on Linux, bnetd, region-altering modchips...
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
started working on a new key server..will probably implement it into waste sometime.
just an add/delete feature at the moment:
http://waste.acz.org/keys.php
http://waste.acz.org is waste mirror.
I've installed the windows client and generated a key that I've given to a friend. He generated a key and gave it to me. We can't see each other and when I check the network status is says "Network Down". Am I doing something worng here?
www.fatalnetwork.com/mirrored/waste.zip
jasp
You let the source code out so: take the high road, mea copa for the legal threats and the OS community will hopefully help you out in the future. This is being said assuming that the source code was legally released.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Don't know about the laws outside of Australia, but wouldn't it just be treated like stolen property, just becuase you bnought/downloaded it in good faith doesn't mean you get to keep it?
What, with the newly updated top level domains, I'd be looking for god.info.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
more items:
user must have control over uploads. I've sought an obtained permission from every rightsholder of the works I share on gnutella. They're glad that I'm distributing their art for them. I should have the ability to download first and share later. If people want to be honest and obtain permission from the artists, the application shouldn't automatically pre-empt the decision by sharing downloaded chunks automatically.
PKI for artists. An artist should be able to sign (consent for distro) their work and a user should be able to choose to narrow their search results to artists who signed their works. The artist pubkey repository should be easy to find. Some artists will never understand crypto, so it should err on the side of availability. We need people to be informed above all else.
Y'all may bitch and whine about what that may do for the protocol, but I will say this in my defense: The major label and mpaa lame-o's will never consent to distro, but independent artists will. If you really want to kick riaa/mpaa squarely in the nards, give them some real competition and do it nice and legal.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Yes, but since AOL is losing money by the truckload, they basically are now being run by the Time Warner side. That is why they're settling with MS (they need money to make up for losses, and aren't too concerned with AOL's nagging lawsuits).
For all intensive purposes, AOL is now Time Warner, not the other way around. Especially with Steve Case being removed from power.
Your analogy is good as far as it goes (other people can create messages that *only you* can read), but falls short of all the features of keypairs.
If I have your public key, you can encrypt your message using your private key, and then I (or anyone else) can decrypt it using your public key. This tells me that the message came from someone with your private key (which, hopefully, means it necessarily came from you). This is the basis for digital signatures.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
did you check the Circle?
it has about 90% of the features you request
thecircle.org.au
Something on my wish list since I don't want to pay 100$ to my provider (again!):
:_(
- A timer that closes the application from the moment it passed the u/l or d/l I allowed it for this month (my ISP gives me 5Gig u/l max
PS: Also useful if you want P2P to work for newbies that wouldn't let it run otherwise
... who thought a simple piece of software could cause so much trouble?
cough...Phil Zimmermann
Guaranteed Overnight Delivery
Been a company for many years
I reject your reality
I agree with the "AOL wins" section of your post, but with regards to the "AOL loses" section, you obviously haven't read the Grokster decision if you think that releasing a P2P client suddenly makes AOL liable.
-Mike-
Unless the janitor owns every share of AOL-Time-Warner (very unlikely), or has an officeal, notarized, SEC-approved letter of control for every shareholder of AOL-Time-Warner (very very very unlikely), then he has no legal footing so "sell" you a public-traded company. You are confusing the ownership of a Company with the ownership of a Product, which happen to be covered by very different laws.
Okay, the janitor, who was fired after trying to sell the company and rehired by Disney, is drunk again. But he's still coherant enough (somehow) to write a license similar to the GPL but for moving pictures. One of the employees left the computer on and with an active connection to the company's website. (Yeah, I know this is hypothetical beyond reasonableness, but bear with me.) The janitor uploads a copy of Steamboat Willie under the license, and people get full copies before it is discovered and taken down.
The difference here is consideration. Unless the downloaders can show that they have given some consideration in exchange for the software license, there is nothing preventing Nullsoft from retroactively invalidating the license. In this case there hasn't been enough time between the 'release' and the revocation for the normal open source consideration of gift in kind to apply.
--
BitTorrent in C -- LibBT
http://www.sf.net/projects/libbt
Unless, of course, the very nature of the GPL -- specifically, the limiting of liability, the promise of no support and no guarantees, the granting of ownership and responsibility to the users -- invalidates the possibiliy of pursuit. In which case, neither Nullsoft nor AOL has nothing to worry about...and the GPL will be propelled forward as the key to putting out grey market software.
One can dream...
Hey freaks: now you're ju
The real conspiracy is that tionfoil hats only amplify the government/alien brain control signals.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
If you open up the WORD document INSIDE the WASTE packages, the AUTHOR of the Document WAS JUSTIN FRANKEL..... which stinks of personal involvement.
This is the root of the whole argument against the GPL. Is the agreement to accept the GPL a valid contract when there's no consideration?
I don't think it's relevant in this case though. Nullsoft released code, acting as agents of AOL, and people downloaded that and (presumably) started to tinker with it in good faith. As soon as one person did anything that required them to agree to the GPL (such as sending a patch, or modified version to a friend) they accepted Nullsoft's offer of the GPL. As that offer isn't rescindable, the software is now in the open.
Moreover, if there's a single element of previously GPLed code in the Nullsoft release, AOL *can't* take it back. They're published GPLed code and they either admit to publishing it without permission (copyright violation) or they leave the whole thing under the GPL.
Finally, as to the validity of the "no consideration to the author" argument. How much attention do you think another dodgy P2P client would have gotten, if it wasn't GPLed and available for the community to tinker with? There's a lot of value in having a thousand people looking at your work within a day. Imagine the resume material that makes. People pay a lot for hosting to distribute their code, it must have value to them, inherent in just having other people see it, or they wouldn't do this. And of course, the value of being able to use GPLed software in your own is indisputably of value.
Moses' Stone tablets - Beta Old Testament - Release New Testament - Service Pack 1 Dead Sea Scrolls - CVS commit gone wrong Quran - Fork Book of Mormon - Dubious patch Dianetics - RISC port Let the Flames Begin.
Ugh. Shouldda BR'ed that... Sorry:
Moses' Stone tablets - Beta
Old Testament - Release
New Testament - Service Pack 1
Dead Sea Scrolls - CVS commit gone wrong
Quran - Fork Book of Mormon - Dubious patch
Dianetics - RISC port
Let the Flames Begin.
So is born FreeWASTE, then. If the community can hack out the free version in short order, get to it! It's important enough that thwarting AOL is part of success.
I think we can all see how beautiful that would be.
(Or perhaps a pure-Perl version? PASTE?)
I can sum that up in three words:
Lawyers lawyers lawyers. And that's it.
LOL. As complexity increases, so do the stakes. Humans like their games complex if they're important, mostly because risk-takers are the only ones who succeed.
new mirror: http://www.morphedmedia.com/waste/
One important point have been forgotten: should have a reliable search facility
WWW: http://grazzy.mjoelkbar.net/waste/
Freenet: SSK@aKNgzDZ54Z7xO9rQyAd-X2jq350PAgM/WASTE//