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.
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.
"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.
The parent company *should* be hiring someone to empty nullsoft's dumpster...
Sure, it was initially released under the GPL, so there are already mirrors out there that keep WASTE alive... One example: http://www.dhorrocks2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
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.
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.
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
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/
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.
i downloaded waste off gnutella :) .
smd4985
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
.. 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.
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.
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/
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
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?
It's all a big conspiracy by AOL and Microsoft to WASTE the GPL and WASTE all music pirates in one fell swoop.
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
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!
- - "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 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?
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
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!
It's code that gets itself mirrored on lots and lots of web servers.
~jeff
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."
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
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.
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.
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
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
There is the rub...
If an employee released it on his own then he's in deep trubble.
Somehow I highly doupt this is what actually happend.
It appears that Nullsoft released this software and AoL/TW is now trying to UNrelease it.
For now I'd like to suggest this software is lethal. Treat it like DeCSS and archive it for a while. At least untill we have the full story.
I however don't believe it was released illegally by an employee acting on his own but legally by Nullsoft.
I don't actually exist.
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.
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
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.
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...)
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.
http://www.northarc.com/waste_web
enjoy. there is also a forum for waste on the site.
Anyone who only weighs the opinions and statements of Slashdot users as a whole is an idiot. Picking one end of the spectrum of views and holding it as the beliefs of an entire large group is idiotic.
Slashdot has hundreds of thousands of readers. Despite popular troll claims, we are not a hive mind. Expecting every single reader to hold the same opinion and toe some sort of party line is stupid.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
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
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"
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...
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!
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...)
> 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 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?
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.
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...
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."
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).
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/.
http://www.1014.org/finger.phtml
5645d0378b5bca6d2cf337686dca9a4d waste-source.tar.gz
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
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.
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!
Maybe you're joking, but I'm being serious when I say I think that sentiment is wildly popular. By pulling the plug on this project, AOL has ensured it's success.
Myself and a friend of mine are running WASTE under Windows. Here's what I've learned so far:
In order to establish a connection with a 3rd person (or 4th, 5th, 6th and so on), the 3rd person only has to have the Public Key of 1 other person on the network. The other people's Public Keys will be automatically distributed to the 3rd person once they've established their first connection. (i.e. Jon and Jane have a connection established. Nick comes along and exchanges Public Keys with Jon. Because Jon and Jane already know each other's Public Keys, Nick automatically gets Jane's Public Key through Jon, and Jane automatically gets Nick's Public Key through Jon.)
(My findings could be wrong. This is just what I have observed to be the case with my own tinkering.)
An analogy for Public/Private keys as described by Jellybob. My Public Key is like the key to my house. I don't give it to just anyone, I give it only to people I trust, because I have to trust anyone who has that key with the contents of my house. I have to trust they won't "break" in, and I have to trust they won't give it out.
My Private Key is like the lock itself. If I decide I don't want anyone to have access to my house any more, I change the lock (the private key). Now everyone who has the old key to my house can no longer get in.
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.
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...
What, with the newly updated top level domains, I'd be looking for god.info.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
... who thought a simple piece of software could cause so much trouble?
cough...Phil Zimmermann