Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL Pulls Nullsoft's WASTE

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the right-hand-meet-left-hand dept.

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.

6 of 637 comments (clear)

  1. Mirrored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As linked from heise.de, the release is mirrored on the web.

    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?

  2. To everyone posting the source code by joshki · · Score: 5, Interesting
    You may not be on solid legal ground here. I didn't see the original release, but the page they have up now says:
    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.

    (emphasis mine)

    If the files were posted by someone who did not have the authorization to post them, then you have no legal right to distribute them, because that person had no right to place the files under the GPL. Of course, we have no way of knowing if that's what really happened, but 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?).
    --
    I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
  3. AOL may very well pull the source.. by GauteL · · Score: 5, Interesting

    .. 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.

  4. Re:Duh. by afidel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ownership of the equipment doesn't give them ownership to the IP. 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. That is a possibility, but with Justin's rebellious streak I doubt it.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  5. Another possible scenario: by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    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?
  6. Re:GPL by lpontiac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can't speak for elsewhere, but it turns out under Australian law that even if I release something under the GPL, I might be able to "take it back." It has something to do with the fact that the law makes it extremely difficult to give something away - that's the reason that if, for instance, I want to give someone a house, I can't "give" it to them, I have to "sell" it to them for $1.

    A lawyer called Jeremy Malcolm gave a rather good talk on this at Linux.conf.au 2003 (there should be links to his slides and audio of the talk itself on the site, if anyone's interested).