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.
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.
Ehm, no. Eminence said: "It's already irrelevant whether AOL would pull the plug on them. The source is out. GPL-ed."
And that remains absolutely correct. Of course AOL can pull the plug, but the damage has been done, in a manner of speaking. That said, AOL pulling the plug might mean there is no or hardly any support (user or developer) for WASTE now, so people will have to figure it out themselves. That might hinder the development a bit. Still, if there is demand for an app like WASTE - and I'm not sure there is - people will figure out just fine.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
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
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
Hmm... maybe the only way for him to get out of his "contract" might be to get fired by aol?
There may be a non-compete or other clause making it that if he quits, then he may have to give back some of the money/NOT be able to do what he likes.. (ie: he has more freedom now as an employee than he would if he quit; but not as much as if he was fired)....
just a random non-thought...
--
Time is on my side
- - "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.
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."
If parent AOL says they had approval authority over Nullsoft's releases, then that approval or disappoval should have happened before the release hit the www.nullsoft.com servers.
If AOL was really scared of Nullsoft making unauthorized releases, they could have required that Nullsoft not have a website under their direct control, and that they'd have to send all web content to the people who run www.aol.com who would of course send the content to headquarters for approval before putting it up. The fact that such a process doesn't exist tends to indicate that somebody at Nullsoft has the authority to post software.
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
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
Even if the code was posted without permission, that statement by Nullsoft is not valid.
The internet is a global medium. Anyone who downloaded the code is subject to their local laws. There are quite a few countries where the people who downloaded the code are completely free to keep, use, and distribute that code in any way they see fit - no matter what the circumstances.
Making legal threats telling people what they "must" do to a global audience is just stupid.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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...)
I had that...
... I thanked them for the vacation time, and went home. At 6am on Saturday my manager called and asked if the release was ready for Monday Morning shipping. I said no, that was what I was going to doing this weekend, but you sent me home. He asked if I could come in a get it ready, he would give me whole week-off next week with pay and get me an exeption to rules.
:-).
It was "No Jeans"
So I looked up Jeans and found "made from denim", looked up denim "100% cotton twill"
I found a blend of 70% cotton and 30% - so not Jeans.
Then was called for that. Pointed out that legal base. They then tried:
Lapped Seams -- showed 2 people in the room wore pants for that type.
Cotton Twill - showed them cords in the room.
"rivets" -- showed 2 more that had those.
"color and look" -- pointed out the Head of HR a skirt on that was all of that -- a converted blue jeans pants.
I got suppended for "bad attitude" without pay for the weekend. It was late Friday when it happend, I shouldn't have to work the weekend, anyway. I could not come into work, had to take the weekend off. And this was during a year I put in 3000+ hours of work. Documented! and got a great bonus at the end of year.
So the rule became: "No looking Jean pants of the colors blue, white or red."
I had Black Jeans
I did point out the head of HR would have to give up wearing the fadded Jeans (blue w/ white patches) - he smiled and said "Yes".