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.
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.
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.
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
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
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/
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
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
- - "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
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).
It's code that gets itself mirrored on lots and lots of web servers.
~jeff
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."
Very possibly ('though probably four or five years, not a decade) - buyout contracts often do, to prevent the "human capital" from taking their stock and running. The carrot to folks is that they get lots of new options, which vest annually so long as they remain.
Once the deal is signed, both sides often try their best to wiggle out. The stock options aren't paid out if the employee quits early, so the company tries to get the employee to quit. CEOs become directors of empty divisions with no staff and no mission, stuff like that. The company can't be _too_ blantant about it (i.e. make the CEO unblock toilets all day) as that's constructive dismissal, in which case the employee can leave with the stock (after lots of legal squabbling, of course). Equally, mr small-company-entrepreneur type wants to get the stock and bug out (either to his next startup or to Hawaii) and doesn't want to be a drone for the next half decade. So he _tries_ to get constructively dismissed. Fired for gross misconduct (not showing up, punching out his boss, etc.) won't work - so he has a bad attitude, doesn't bathe, says dumb things to the media, produces product that makes his employer uncomfortable, founds the aryian-spaceship-league, whatever. So a war of attrition is fought.
Naturally, I don't know the terms of the nullsoft acquisition, but it may be this is Frankel's (et al) idea (or at least in his mind). I figured this was the case when Gnutella came out (AOL were _never_ going to be happy with that) and WASTE is even more AOL-unfriendly (heck, it's got a chat client - who needs AIM?).
Someone should write a book about the constructive dismissal stories that fill Silicon Valley - Sculley sending Jobs to his own office building to do nothing (Jobs cracked rather quickly). I heard of some guy coming to work dressed in a full frogman suit (including flippers and mask) and walking down in the corridor when customers were around - company dress code said "no shorts, wear shoes" - if they'd changed it to read "no bodyglove swimming attire" just for him, then that would have been the constructive dismissal he sought.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
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
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
I have source code available on this web site.
Scratch that. I now have a mirror of the site.
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".
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.
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/.