Justin Frankel Resigns From Nullsoft

queue the llama noises by sweeney37 · 2003-06-04 05:00 · Score: 5, Funny

AOL, it really whips Frankel's ass.

Mike

Re:queue the llama noises by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:03 · Score: 0

Nice cut-n-paste job from the discussion boards at zdnet. Thief.
Re:queue the llama noises by rmarll · 2003-06-04 05:03 · Score: 3, Funny

What a waste. :-P
Re:queue the llama noises by The+Clockwork+Troll · 2003-06-04 05:09 · Score: 0, Redundant

I think about 500 people came up with that at about the same time. It's funny but it's not that clever. Do you work in the amazon.com patent department?

--

There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
Re:queue the llama noises by dimator · 2003-06-04 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hey, he made his money... Now he's free to do what he pleases, for the rest of his life.

--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Re:queue the llama noises by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:58 · Score: 0

flaimbait?

That was a funnyass comment, dude!
Re:queue the llama noises by Snork+Asaurus · 2003-06-04 06:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

LOL. I wonder if Justin gets to keep the llama.
For many years, I have been impressed with the work of Nullsoft and their unique style and approach and I have always had the impression that Justin one of the key driving forces at Nullsoft. I fear that under AOL's corporate thumb Nullsoft (like Netscape) may be well on its way to becoming Null.
Good luck, Justin, and thanks for giving us Winamp.

--
Sigs are bad for your health.
Re:queue the llama noises by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:28 · Score: 0

why not post WASTE @ Kazaa or Kazaa Lite or both - so it don't go to waste :-) i'm sure someone here at /. have downloaded and it...

also this action has a nice ironic twist - yes?
Re:queue the llama noises by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 07:23 · Score: 0

True, I haven't found it yet and I've been looking just a little bit for it...

Did it actually get out? I'd love to try it, I'm sure spreading it is the best way to honor Justin for the hellacool work he did with WinAmp and other projects such as NSIS
Re:queue the llama noises by LloydSeve · 2003-06-04 07:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Justin Frankel's Website Here he talks about his wanting to resign from the company due to recent cencorship against his products.. It's not about contracts, etc.. it's just about the fact that he isn't allowed to express himself freely doing what he loves. Here is some more comments about his leaving...
Re:queue the llama noises by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:30 · Score: 0

Don't you really mean llama, though? Justin is a llama.
Re:queue the llama noises by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 11:18 · Score: 0

http://fileforum.betanews.com/download.php?fid=105 4104235 Just sayin', if I hypothetically found a link to a download of Waste 1.0 beta on the net somewhere, I'd hypothetically share that Waste file in kazaa ++ http://doa2.host.sk/ for a while. while runnin' peer guardian 1.97b of course. http://xsclient.cjb.net/ Just sayin'.
Re:queue the llama noises by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 12:44 · Score: 0

I have all the packages that were released (3 in total)...

share and endorse them I shall...
Re:queue the llama noises by Red+Pointy+Tail · 2003-06-04 15:44 · Score: 1

Isn't it a *bit* of a coincidence that he cops out almost exactly 4 years to the day? Well, methinks that his contractual obligation to remain in Nullsoft after AOL's takeover has ended, and that he's Cashing Out Big Time.
Re:queue the llama noises by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 18:27 · Score: 0

Dude, Netscape sucked long before AOL.

Netscape began sucking as soon as they were challenged by MS.
Version 3 of Netscape was the LAST and GOOD release.
Re:queue the llama noises by hkmwbz · 2003-06-04 19:55 · Score: 1

The link to his site is in the story itself. You make it sound like it's a completely new link you discovered or something.
And if you try to read his site, you won't see anything about "censorship". Just that code he writes for a company belongs to that company. This is a simple matter of writing code in your own time if you want to own it. If you write your code while at work, the company owns it. There is no censorship here - this is how it works! Sorry to bust your bubble. I am sure Justin knew this already, which is why he isn't pulling out the big guns to attack the company. Morally and legally, the company is right. It owns the code. It does whatever it wishes to do with the code.
Now, Justin apparently does not like this, so he decides to leave so the code he writes can remain under his control. Nothing wrong with that. And it's got nothing to do with censorship!
"Here is some more comments about his leaving..."
Oh really? It looks more like your own vanity forum, and the "comments" are really just one comment, which happens to be from you, and which doesn't add anything new to the discussion. Who on earth modded you up? This is blatant karma whoring. Linking to the site as if it is a link no one else has, when it's in the main story. Coming with your own lame analysis of the situation, which brings nothing new either. Linking to your own forum with a single post - your own - about it, as if it brings anything new to the discussion what so ever. My God.

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Re:queue the llama noises by daveball · 2003-06-04 20:44 · Score: 1

This is a simple matter of writing code in your own time if you want to own it.
Unfortunately, not always the case. It depends on the contract you have signed.

It has been supprisingly common for many years that some companies clame IP rights to all your "inventions" while you are employed by them, whether you worked on / developed those inventions during work hours or on your own time.

Read your contract carefully!
Re:queue the llama noises by LloydSeve · 2003-06-05 05:22 · Score: 1

If you can't understand that this case is about cencorship, then I do not know what you are
reading. Justin Frankel is the founder of Nullsoft, which is now a subsidiary of AOL. He
is leaving because the company will not let him publish his software.. Which is CENCORSHIP.

Who on earth modded you up?

Probobaly the same dumbass who gave you points for trying to insult me so poorly.
Re:queue the llama noises by LloydSeve · 2003-06-05 05:36 · Score: 1

I think that Justin Frankel would cash out big time no matter what happens.
As Founder of the company I'm sure he got some big amount of money from AOL for
retirement no matter when he leaves.
Re:queue the llama noises by hkmwbz · 2003-06-05 09:10 · Score: 1

This cannot be censorship, can it? You basically have two scenarios:
1. He wrote the software at work, in which case the IP belongs to AOL, and it is their right to do what they wish with their own software.
2. He wrote the software at home, in which case AOL has got no right over him or his creation. So even if they tried, they wouldn't be able to "censor" him.
If you still insist on calling this censorship, I must assume that you think anyone who moves to protect their intellectual property from being stolen by others is performing censorship. A company suing a competitor for industrial espionage is performing censorship. Anything done by anyone to get back a specific set of ideas which has been stolen by someone, must be considered censorship.
But from Justin's homepage, you could only make out this: He wrote the software at work, so it is AOL's IP. Now he quits because he wants to write software which he owns himself. Where is the censorship?
And finally, I find it rather distasteful of you to use Justin's situation to basically karma whore and try to get more hits on your message board by posting useless one-liners and link to them. If only you had something to add to the discussion there, but all you said was basically "Justin has quit".

--
Clever signature text goes here.

Is this in question? by RocketJeff · 2003-06-04 05:00 · Score: 0, Flamebait

"One has to wonder whether this has anything to do with the WASTE fiasco."

In a word: duh!

Re:Is this in question? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:02 · Score: 0

Technically that's four words.

Anything to do with Waste... by Daniel+Wood · 2003-06-04 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

One has to wonder whether this has anything to do with the WASTE fiasco.

Wonder? When he says, "The company controls what I do with my code [in the past, it seemed I had freedom, but it turns out all of that was not really the case--rather, I was somehow avoiding the control illicitly (for 4 years)]," it becomes rather clear as to exactly what he is talking about.

This has everything to do with WASTE and any other projects that AOL canned.

Re:Anything to do with Waste... by rzbx · 2003-06-04 05:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

It has to do with more than just WASTE. He stated that the company controls what he does and that coding is a form of free expression to him. He basically doesn't want the company to control his free expression. WASTE is just one example.

--
Question everything.
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by Xerithane · 2003-06-04 05:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

This has everything to do with WASTE and any other projects that AOL canned.

I think it has everything to do with the lack of independance of coding, not WASTE or any other particular project. Those are just symptoms of the problem.

I've worked for companies before that have draconian contracts, "Anything you think is our property! Hah!"

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by TopShelf · 2003-06-04 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Frankly, I'm amazed the guy stayed under the AOL umbrella this long. When you read a quote like that, it's clearly coming from someone who doesn't fit within a corporate environment. His talents would be better served in a smaller outfit within which he has greater control...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by Frac · 2003-06-04 05:17 · Score: 0, Redundant

It has to do with more than just WASTE. He stated that the company controls what he does and that coding is a form of free expression to him. He basically doesn't want the company to control his free expression. WASTE is just one example.

Not just WASTE... sounds like you agree with the parent then, which stated:

This has everything to do with WASTE and any other projects that AOL canned.
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't for get the non-compete clause: "for the next 17 years you agree not to think on behalf of any other company".... guess that means you can only get a new job if it's in management.
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by spazoid12 · 2003-06-04 06:04 · Score: 1

some article
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by Gloume · 2003-06-04 06:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Like Nullsoft?
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by miu · 2003-06-04 06:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've worked for companies before that have draconian contracts, "Anything you think is our property! Hah!"
I don't sign contracts like that. My current employer sends a gentle reminder every 6 months that I need to sign that contract, and every 6 months I say, "Not until the work for the company vs. work during personal time issue is corrected". They have not pressed it too hard because many of my co-workers have not signed it either.

--

[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by miu · 2003-06-04 07:09 · Score: 1

When you read a quote like that, it's clearly coming from someone who doesn't fit within a corporate environment.
Although corporate employment has it's downsides it has advantages beside the obvious financial ones. Problems incidental to your work can be black-boxed to a certain extent and allow you greater focus, the scope of the problems you work on solving are much larger, you have talented peers to learn from, and so on.
I'll probably work in the corporate world for a few more years before starting another business.

--

[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by doinky · 2003-06-04 07:33 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I find it amazing that a guy like that could survive even at a small company. Viewing code primarily as "free expression" is a particularly goofy variant of academiathink; one which seems unsuitable for private-sector work.
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by PalmKiller · 2003-06-04 08:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I figure it was just the last straw, or perhaps he just cant handle the fact that he gave away his rights to do whatever he wanted with the company when he sold out to AOL.
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:10 · Score: 0

All your WASTE are belong to us :)
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Keep in mind that the guy is only 24. At ~19 he hit the jackpot with a "for fun" MP3 player -- a trivial app (see all the MP3 players on FreshMeat).

Had he not gotten extremely lucky, he'd probably be working as Junior Programmer on some accounting system, ready to be beat down for 'private-sector work' just like the rest of us. :P
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by pyrrho · 2003-06-04 09:07 · Score: 1

selling to AOL had more of the "make 50 Million dollars" advantages.

--
-pyrrho
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by Sacarino · 2003-06-04 09:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Keep in mind that the guy is only 24. At ~19 he hit the jackpot with a "for fun" MP3 player -- a trivial app (see all the MP3 players on FreshMeat).

Alright, I'll bite.

Perhaps you weren't around when WinAMP was in it's infancy. I remember only one other player that even came CLOSE to the stability WinAMP provided. I even registered my copy with Nullsoft, back when it was shareware. It's not like you had "all the MP3 players on FreshMeat" to choose from. It was either WinAMP or it's crappy runner-up. Couple that with the fact that WinAMP was a) skinnable, b) had some badass graphical features, and c) impressed non-geeks. It also extended mp3 support with some attempts at backward compatability.

I know it's been a while, but computers used to be slow. WinAMP would play on a 95 box running on a 486/dx2. That's IMPRESSIVE, my friend. You couldn't do jack-shit else while it was playing or it'd skip, but the fact that it would play this fancy new MP3 format that only took a couple megs for a song was nice. It made people take notice. What did you do that ranks anywhere near that? I know that crap I did in Comp Sci & Eng didn't land me anything like the deal he made for himself. I don't think he got lucky at all, he saw a need and he wrote something that took care of said need.

--
-- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by syukton · 2003-06-04 09:36 · Score: 1

A smaller outfit, much like Nullsoft was--prior to being eaten by the corporate giant which is now the international media conglomerate of AOL/Time Warner.

But I think we'll all raise our glasses to toast him in his new adventures. Here's to Llamasoft. (or whatever he wants to call it...)

--
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 10:10 · Score: 0

Not funny. Really.
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by FuzzyBad-Mofo · 2003-06-04 12:12 · Score: 3, Funny

Don't for get the non-compete clause: "for the next 17 years you agree not to think on behalf of any other company".... guess that means you can only get a new job if it's in management.

Or a job down at the Patent Office.
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by Milican · 2003-06-04 16:25 · Score: 1

Hell yes! And the crappy runner up was probably WinPlay. That thing was far less stable and took up far more resources. Not to mention WinAMP kept improving its CPU utilization. With each release you would use less and less of your processor. WinAMP and Nullsoft earned my respect and they blew *everyone* else out of the water hands down. Shit, we still use the same basic product almost 8 years later and its better than its predecessor WinAMP 3.x

JOhn

--
Campaign for Liberty
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by C0untZer0 · 2003-06-04 17:13 · Score: 1

I remember when a really early winamp version came out and it no longer played .mp2 files (hehe outdated, oh my) i sent an email asking whether this was a bug or a feature, and how i could convert my mp2s if it was a feature. A patch making winamp back-compatible with mp2s was out in lets see, a DAY. Nowadays with the joy of free software for the masses, quick patching is somewhat more common, but i was truly shocked at the level of craftsmanship from someone at my own young age. i just cant wait to see what the man does next.
Re:Anything to do with Waste... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 18:18 · Score: 0

WinAMP would play on a 95 box running on a 486/dx2.
Ahh, thanks for the memory. At the time I discovered mp3s (and naturally, WinAMP), a 486DX2/66 was my only machine. I overclocked it to 80MHz, which let me use WinAMP in full quality mode (which was kind of silly, considering the sound card/speaker setup I had) and still do other Win95 stuff at the same time.

I don't remember what the other player was either, but I do remember that it wouldn't play for me :)

Not Yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:01 · Score: 2, Informative

He is thinking about resigning: he hasn't yet. And, yes, if he does, it will be because of the Waste thing, and the Gnutella thing, and probably a whole lot of other things. :)

Re:Not Yet... by cHiphead · 2003-06-04 09:50 · Score: 1

dont forget that whole Winamp *3* thing.

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Long Decline Anyway by kavachameleon · 2003-06-04 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nullsoft seems to have been in a decline for a long while now... who uses winamp 3 anyway? certainly no one I know. Most people either use WIMP, XMMS or an old version of Winamp. So are we really losing bigtime here?

Re:Long Decline Anyway by pdbogen · 2003-06-04 05:03 · Score: 1

I'm not familiar with WIMP.. Can you provide a link?
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Winamp 3 is dead, version 2.91 is the latest version. They really need to update their webpage so it defaults to the Winamp 2 area.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by SomeGuyFromCA · 2003-06-04 05:06 · Score: 1

Actually, the most recent build version of Winamp is 2.91.

--
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Re:Long Decline Anyway by kavachameleon · 2003-06-04 05:06 · Score: 3, Informative

WIMP=WMP=Windows Media Player. Kind of a derogatory term for it. :-) Hit up MS's site for more info if you need it.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by SquadBoy · 2003-06-04 05:09 · Score: 1

Windows media player

--

Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by in7ane · 2003-06-04 05:09 · Score: 1

Isn't the new video technology that AOL contains/is working on made by Nullsoft?

What's interesting is how this will affect him - if resignation (maybe should have waited to get fired) will result in non-competition clauses kicking in etc. But I'm sure this was already discussed at length in the WASTE story.

So potentially we loose a writer of some great software. While AOL may now well loose other guys from Nullsoft.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by dubious9 · 2003-06-04 05:09 · Score: 1

I'm not familiar with their build naming conventions, but when you go to winamp.com the first download link is for Winamp 3.

It may be that the most resent verion of winamp3 is called build 2.91 or that 2.91 is a maintenance release of the 2 series, but clearly 3 exists.

--
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Re:Long Decline Anyway by kavachameleon · 2003-06-04 05:10 · Score: 1

ok, ok.... i realize that may have sounded a little trollish... wasn't my intent. See? I was so soured by recent versions of winamp that it turned me off to the product line in general.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by SomeGuyFromCA · 2003-06-04 05:15 · Score: 0

All that is true, but the latest version of winamp in terms of date-of-build is 2.91.

--
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Re:Long Decline Anyway by kavachameleon · 2003-06-04 05:17 · Score: 1

And the fact that we have to wonder/argue about it at all proves the very point that was modded Troll. The company/product is in decline. If we all used it, we'd all know the latest build numbers, right?
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

1) Non-compete clauses apply whether you quit, resign, are fired, are laid off, or just don't bother showing up for work anymore.
2) Non-compete clauses generally prevent other companies from employing you, they don't prevent you from doing stuff on your own.
3) loose == not tight (like your sister's vag). lose == not win (like you == loser)
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Alizarin+Erythrosin · 2003-06-04 05:26 · Score: 1

I use Winamp 3 on my laptop... I like the new interface with the new skins, as well as the playlist organization thing it does (can load multiple playlists).

I don't use it on my main computer yet because my keyboard's media controls won't work with it. That and it takes up about 30% cpu on an athlon 1500+ while playing non-minimized, compared to 1% with 2.7 or whatever other version I have.

--
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Re:Long Decline Anyway by rkz · 2003-06-04 05:34 · Score: 1

its ready and finished! they don't need him anymore

--
There is no god
Re:Long Decline Anyway by LPetrazickis · 2003-06-04 05:40 · Score: 2, Funny

I use Winamp3 because I like the new XML-based UI and multiple playlist functionality.

* a dustball rolls across the slash page

Uh, just thought that I should mention it.:)

--
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by plague3106 · 2003-06-04 05:41 · Score: 1

1) Non-compete clauses apply whether you quit, resign, are fired, are laid off, or just don't bother showing up for work anymore.

Always wondered about that...since its part of an employment contract. Since i'm no longer employed, it should not be in affect. The fact that i'm paid is inthe same contract..so if that keeps in affect, maybe my pay will too ;-)

2) Non-compete clauses generally prevent other companies from employing you, they don't prevent you from doing stuff on your own.

Since i doubt the other companies agreed to this when hired, you're wrong. Unless you happen to misword it, and meant that they prevent you from applying ot other companies..
Re:Long Decline Anyway by in7ane · 2003-06-04 05:44 · Score: 1

1) Your insight is much appreciated.

2) Non-compete clauses can be worded as pretty much anything, and so could apply differently depending on resignation/firing/etc and to both working for a competitior or being a competitior yourself.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Gyorg_Lavode · 2003-06-04 06:07 · Score: 1

I use it because. even though it hogs resources, is ugly, has tons of stuff I don't need amda lackluster decoding engine, it has a reasonable music library system which isn't great but works ok. With 25,000 songs I kind of need it.

--
I do security
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Nullsmack · 2003-06-04 06:13 · Score: 1

I use winamp3 because of the media library.. I like having multiple playlists available and easy ways to move stuff between them. I tried 2.91, but the media library stuff in that fucking sucks compared to 3.

Really the only thing I miss from winamp2 besides the low cpu usage is the ability to right-click on the stop button and have it stop at the end of the song.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:18 · Score: 2, Informative

There are two builds of Winamp, 2.0 and 3.0.
2.0 builds are based on the old version which nearly everyone uses with the old style interface and it's latest build is 2.91.
3.0 builds are based on a new style interface but can use the old style interface. The new style interface is similar to Sonique in that it can take any form ie. round, square or oblong etc. I'm sure there are other differences however I've not used the 3.0 builds so I wouldn't know. I've to many skins for the 2.0 builds to bother with the 3.0 version.
Check out deviant art's website for a visual idea of the difference.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Jaysyn · 2003-06-04 06:22 · Score: 1

I use Winamp2 because I can't get Ryan Giess' plugins to work with Winamp3.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Snork+Asaurus · 2003-06-04 06:23 · Score: 1

True. And as with many things they do, they have a sense of humor about it. At the top of the home page, regarding Winamp 3, it says "ALMOST AS NEW AS WINAMP 2".
(Attn. mods: Their joke, not mine.)

--
Sigs are bad for your health.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Jellybob · 2003-06-04 06:25 · Score: 1

Always wondered about that...since its part of an employment contract. Since i'm no longer employed, it should not be in affect. The fact that i'm paid is inthe same contract..so if that keeps in affect, maybe my pay will too ;-)

If it's anything like the clause in NDA for some beta testing I did of Eve (mmm... Eve), it applies for a set of ammount of time after employment ceases. In the case of the Eve beta I'm not allowed to develop an MMORPG for another year and a half.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by DrXym · 2003-06-04 06:45 · Score: 1

I use WinAmp and I find it perfectly usable. v3 certainly needs polish to remove some annoyances but I would still take it over the top heavy and even more skinned and bizarro UIs that Quicktime and Windows Media Player both have.

The one thing I would really like to see is proper and effective ripping built-in. Not just for MP3, but OGG too and not cripple bitrates like the piece of shit support in WMP. I guess WinAmp experts probably know of various filters to add this support, but I'd like to see it out of the box with the UI to support it.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Alizarin+Erythrosin · 2003-06-04 06:51 · Score: 1

Try using the Classic Visualization Component. I installed it on a friend's Winamp 3 using that, and it works fine.

--
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Re:Long Decline Anyway by GodOfNothing · 2003-06-04 07:06 · Score: 1

I stopped paying attention somewhere around the time that 3.0 was coming out, and turned out to be the bloatware edition (I remember the first wmp7, horrible, slow, buggy attempt at a home media center, the newer ones seem faster at least; Realplayer/jukebox, eurgh; musicmatch, eurgh. give me clean, fast and simple please) Anyway it was a long time before I tuned back in and discovered that they were developing both 2.x and 3.x. Is the company in decline? Who cares? I don't: and maybe that's just indicative of a company's declining fortunes.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by pacc · 2003-06-04 07:24 · Score: 4, Informative

Apart from skins in winamp 2.0 you should know that AOL has put it's mark on that too.

Since winamp 2.61 there are some support for "content management" for microsoft .wma files.
You should install winamp 2.60 copy the plugins/in_wm.dll file to replace the one shipped with winamp 2.91, otherwise you won't be able to convert your .wma files to wav using diskwriter.

Tip courtesy of apachez
Re:Long Decline Anyway by arkanes · 2003-06-04 07:34 · Score: 2, Informative

The 2 series is still being actively developed. 2.91 is the latest version of 2, not just a maintenance release. 3 is kind of dead in the water for exactly the reasion you mentioned (although Wasabi is a very cool idea).
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Jugalator · 2003-06-04 07:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Most people either use WIMP, XMMS or an old version of Winamp.

Yes, but those "old versions of Winamp" (the 2.x series) is still under development. It has had a lot of useful bugfixes and improvements, some pretty major. Take a look at the Winamp 2.9 release notes for example, to see what I'm talking about.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Arker · 2003-06-04 07:54 · Score: 1

I tried 3 but it absolutely refuses to run on my system. Never figured out why. Installed it, installation went fine, but it throws an exception 13 every time you try to start it. Deleted it, downloaded the installer fresh, installed again, same thing. Deleted it and never tried again. shrug

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Jugalator · 2003-06-04 07:54 · Score: 1

ok, ok.... i realize that may have sounded a little trollish... wasn't my intent. See? I was so soured by recent versions of winamp that it turned me off to the product line in general.

If you're having problems with Winamp3, why not go for the 2.x versions?

classic.winamp.com

It's not like the development for that series has halted or anything. It's just another branch; a much more stable one, but still rich with new features since Winamp3 was announced.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:Long Decline Anyway by oohp · 2003-06-04 08:06 · Score: 1

I tried to use Winamp2 for ogg vorbit. Now 2.92 is going to have that so I guess I'll downgrade. Winamp3 is bloated and sucks. Hmm I still miss that crossfade plugin tho.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by bmasonnz · 2003-06-04 14:09 · Score: 1

I've run into that before, but according to the change log:

"Winamp 2.61:
* In accordance with Microsoft's license agreement, we no longer allow you to use DSP plug-ins or alternate output plug-ins when playing WMA files. "

IIRC the origional one from 2.61 called it a restrictive license agreement.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 14:33 · Score: 0

Vorbis support is already in 2.91 - I'm using it now.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Xabraxas · 2003-06-04 15:30 · Score: 0

I had a plugin to play ogg vorbis on winamp 3 years ago. I think I got it from the winamp website. I've been using xmms for a while now though so I'm not sure if it's still there.

--
Time makes more converts than reason
Re:Long Decline Anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 17:33 · Score: 0

Yeah bullshit cunt! Go fuck yourself you piece of shit.
Re:Long Decline Anyway by plague3106 · 2003-06-05 01:04 · Score: 1

If it's anything like the clause in NDA for some beta testing I did of Eve (mmm... Eve), it applies for a set of ammount of time after employment ceases. In the case of the Eve beta I'm not allowed to develop an MMORPG for another year and a half.

But that's my point. The contract that states that has been nullified. How can a clause from a nullified contract still be in effect?

That's the point... by shroudedmoon · 2003-06-04 05:01 · Score: 2, Redundant

I kinda thought it was a given it had to do with waste...

The company controls what I do with my code [in the past, it seemed I had freedom, but it turns out all of that was not really the case--rather, I was somehow avoiding the control illicitly (for 4 years)

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Justin Frankel by vasqzr · 2003-06-04 05:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

I remember talking to the guy on IRC years ago when he was working on his old 3D engine, Plush.

Time sure flies!

Re:Justin Frankel by vasqzr · 2003-06-04 05:17 · Score: 2, Informative

It's not offtopic. If you hadn't just gotten a computer in the last 2 years, and hung around channels like #c and #coders, you'd know what I'm talking about. He was one of the guys who helped write something cool, and they were bought up by a big company and thats almost like a dream come true.

I remember the conversations about WinAmp and Mp3's back in the mid 90's:

"I just compressed a Rob Zombie song down to 3mb, it took 25 minutes on my Pentium 166"

"Why the heck would you want to do that? It'd take a half hour to download it over my 56k modem!?"

"Well it's this cool format called MPEG Layer 3, and a bunch of us are trading music files. Anyone know where you can find some Pearl Jam?"
Re:Justin Frankel by HBI · 2003-06-04 05:28 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Sorry dude, the lowest common denominator applies to the mods especially. Bunch of losers mostly. At least M2 weeds out the most pathetic ones.

Thanks for sharing.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Justin Frankel by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

Actually, you would have been compressing a White Zombie song in the mid-90's. Rob didn't go solo until August of 98.
Re:Justin Frankel by VoiceOfRaisin · 2003-06-04 06:14 · Score: 2, Funny

sounds like you got into the scene late. i was trading mp2 files before mp3 came out. they were pretty damn good too. mp3 is maybe only 50% better or something.
Re:Justin Frankel by DrPascal · 2003-06-04 07:33 · Score: 1

The first MP3 I ever bothered to encode was NIN's "Perfect Drug." I'm gonna say that it was something like a P133 or so that did the encoding, with a DOS utility. It probably took 20 minutes to make. Memories ...

--
DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
Re:Justin Frankel by lpontiac · 2003-06-04 12:15 · Score: 1

Winamp and the Nullsoft installer system are probably my favorite

The installer, NSIS, is really good, and it's released under a zlib-style "do what the fuck you like" license.

I'll confess to now feeling a little worried that AOL might try (although I don't think they could legally do so) to "revoke and terminate" everyone's NSIS license.
Re:Justin Frankel by flikx · 2003-06-04 13:02 · Score: 1

Big whoop. I ran into him once or twice at Van Cott Hall (dorms) at the University of Utah back in 1997. No were bestest friends!! Realy. Everybody should like me because he was a friend-of-a-friend. Wh00t!! That makes me 1337!!!1!@!!

--
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.

Good riddance :P by coupland · 2003-06-04 05:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm glad he's leaving, AOL doesn't need him anyway; after all they have lawyers. Let the lawyers write the code. I'm sure AOL 10.0 will rock the house.

On the other hand this unleashes a creative, boisterous, unwielding and stubborn geek on the world, perhaps even to join the ranks of all those amateur open source hacks. In the end you get AOL run by a squeeky-clean army of professional lawyers and another rogue hacker who acknowledges no ones authority to dictate what he contributes to their quasi-communist "community" of freedom fighters. Altogether I think both sides are getting exactly what they deserve. ;-)

Re:Good riddance :P by tyllwin · 2003-06-04 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ah, yes, but while at Nullsoft, he was (well, still is for the moment) getting handsomely paid to express himself through code. Open-source hacking may be better for the community, but it don't pay the bills.
Re:Good riddance :P by el-spectre · 2003-06-04 05:11 · Score: 1

Freedom fighters eh? Methinks that some folks 'round here take this stuff a tad seriously...

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Good riddance :P by SubtleNuance · 2003-06-04 05:16 · Score: 1

Freedom fighters eh? Methinks that some folks 'round here take this stuff a tad seriously

When the whole of ComputerDom has no viable alternative to MS's DRM-enabled, closed sourced OS & Apps, you will be thankfull people have been writing GNU/Linux.

The alternative is to stifle and choke the future of computing -- and the opportunity for dialogue, entertainment, democracy and commerce it provides.
Re:Good riddance :P by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:16 · Score: 1

"this unleashes a creative, boisterous, unwielding and stubborn geek on the world"
you may possibly have meant unyielding...
8-)
Re:Good riddance :P by el-spectre · 2003-06-04 05:23 · Score: 1

Oh, I'm a fan of the whole OSS movement, based on the quality and ingenuity. However, I've seen too much to go in for 'religious wars'. I also don't worship anyone (ok, maybe Larry) in geekdom.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Good riddance :P by cjsnell · 2003-06-04 05:35 · Score: 1

Don't worry, AOL has plenty of skilled coders who don't rock the boat. I don't think Nullsoft is a huge source of profit for the company.
Re:Good riddance :P by dildofire · 2003-06-04 05:48 · Score: 1

he founded nullsoft, which was sold to AOL for $80 million. he probably didn't get all of that, but he got a good chunk. i think he'll be alright.
Re:Good riddance :P by mixmasta · 2003-06-04 06:06 · Score: 1

I wouldn't worry about that, nullsoft was bought for 11 bills as I seem to remember.

I'm sure justin got a significant portion of that. If he's somewhat smart with his money, he shouldn't have to work again, ever.

--
#6495ED - cornflower blue
Re:Good riddance :P by timeOday · 2003-06-04 06:13 · Score: 1

Don't worry, AOL has plenty of skilled coders who don't rock the boat. I don't think Nullsoft is a huge source of profit for the company.
I think that was the point; a company controlled by suits and filled out by programmers who accept their place in the world is headed for stagnation. Sound like any company you know? (AOL)
Re:Good riddance :P by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:23 · Score: 0

Maybe he would be interested in fixing XMMS so it works without constant crashing.
Re:Good riddance :P by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 07:54 · Score: 0

You have heard the preachings of larry and admit you are his disciple.

Do not deny it!

*Now, back to my solemn prayers in code*
Re:Good riddance :P by bja · 2003-06-04 08:54 · Score: 0

My XMMS hasn't crashed since Mandrake 7.2 and I'm on 9.1 now.

--

I seem to have misplaced my .sig

One doesn't have to wonder... by Xerithane · 2003-06-04 05:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

He's leaving because he doesn't like the "We own everything you write" clause in his employment contract. I'm not sure what the WASTE fiasco is anyway. WASTE is something Nullsoft produced, as long as it's under the GPL (Yes.) he can quit and still work on it, and nobody can (legally) care.

He's probably just pissed that what he works on gets the "Copyright AOL/Time Warner" header on it, and understandably so.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.

Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Anti+Frozt · 2003-06-04 05:10 · Score: 5, Informative

IIRC, at the time that WASTE was developed, Nullsoft was owned by AOL/Time Warner. This would mean that anything created by employees of Nullsoft had to be cleared with AOL.
Therefore, it couldn't be produced under the GPL unless AOL said so. Most employment contracts specifically state that any thing or idea created, conceived, developed, etc. while employeed becomes property of the employeer (in this case, AOL/Time Warner)

--
In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by sbowles · 2003-06-04 05:14 · Score: 1

"Waste is something Nullsoft produced, as long as it's under the GPL (Yes.)"
I thought the Government owned the IP for WASTE!

--
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by tsetem · 2003-06-04 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just because he released it under the GPL doesn't necessarily mean it's legal. If all of the code he writes is owned by AOL, then AOL, as the copyright holder, must determine the license it's released under.

Don't know how serious this may be, but if AOL wanted to, they might be able to sue for loss of IP due to the dumpage of WASTE into the GPL realm. That's the real bitch when you write code for a company. Unless you beg & plead with the lawyers (or your managers) to give you a little freedom, they own your stuff.

And this leads right into non-compete clauses in your contract. Even thinking about the code you wrote for another company could be considered competing against your previous employer.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Xerithane · 2003-06-04 05:20 · Score: 1

IIRC, at the time that WASTE was developed, Nullsoft was owned by AOL/Time Warner. This would mean that anything created by employees of Nullsoft had to be cleared with AOL.

That is true, but it depends upon if Nullsoft is an actual company. If it is a company, Nullsoft still will have the ability for copyright/ownership of it's projects. AOL/TW can just bitch, and press on the officers of Nullsoft, which is probably what happened.

If someone who was able to release a project released it, it was released legitimately... sort of. Either way, it was initial released as the GPL so it's hard to stop it.

Most employment contracts specifically state that any thing or idea created, conceived, developed, etc. while employeed becomes property of the employeer (in this case, AOL/Time Warner)

This is why he left, and he states it in his .plan. He's tired of his self-expression being completely controlled by AOL/TW and Nullsoft.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Xerithane · 2003-06-04 05:23 · Score: 1

Just because he released it under the GPL doesn't necessarily mean it's legal. If all of the code he writes is owned by AOL, then AOL, as the copyright holder, must determine the license it's released under.

That depends if it was released under Nullsoft's name or AOL/TW. I'm not sure of the dynamics of that and I'm not motivated enough to go check.

Don't know how serious this may be, but if AOL wanted to, they might be able to sue for loss of IP due to the dumpage of WASTE into the GPL realm. That's the real bitch when you write code for a company. Unless you beg & plead with the lawyers (or your managers) to give you a little freedom, they own your stuff.

Corporate protection, as it was released by Nullsoft (or an acting party responsible in Nullsoft) so they'd basically have to sue themselves (or more accurately, their child.) Suing him as an individual would be just a bully act, and gain absolutely nothing. When I sign an employment contract, I make sure that what I work on outside of hours is mine. If I dont' bill them for it, it's mine. End of story. If they don't like that, I don't work there.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by interiot · 2003-06-04 05:24 · Score: 1

When software is released under the GPL, it is covered under copyright, and that's what allows the GPL to differ from public domain, and for those few restrictions to have teeth (eg. if you choose to not agree to release your variations on the code, then you fall back to traditional copyright and will have to negotiate a price with the copyright holder).
So in a sense, it is still owned by AOL, and they alone have the freedom to release WASTE under a different license (eg. MIT, or to make the next version proprietary).
On the other hand, they may have a policy that goes something like: all of our IP is proprietary confidential unless approved by Legal. If you release our IP without authorization by Legal (eg. take our code and sell it to a competitor, or post it on the internet as public domain, etc.), we'll fire you and sue your ass.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by LostCluster · 2003-06-04 05:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Therefore, it couldn't be produced under the GPL unless AOL said so.

This was discussed to death in the previous WASTE discussion. Justin, as an employee of AOL, tried to put WASTE under the GPL. AOL then came forward and said that Justin had no authority to do so.

However, just because an employee makes a deal outside of their authority doesn't automatically reverse the deal. The test is whether the other party to the deal in good faith believed that the employee had the authority, or should have known that something was amiss. That's a tough question and would likely take a judge to answer completely...
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by 2logic · 2003-06-04 05:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

If it could only be that simple...
You have to remember that NullSoft is a subsidary of AOL Time Warner. Which probably means that Justin is under contract from Nullsoft and not AOL.
He probably has pretty much all the control over what he can do with what Nullsoft creates. The problem is probably in the contract that binds Nullsoft to AOL. I think that indirectly, Justin's code is owned by AOL, but since Nullsoft is an entity of its own, it can do many things on its own: creating software, releasing code, being a pain for AOL, etc... BUT only to some extent, because Nullsoft is a subsidary of (or controlled by) AOL.
So it's probably not just a matter of a simple contract between an employer and its employees... It goes deeper than that I'm afraid.

--
// TODO
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by edrugtrader · 2003-06-04 05:43 · Score: 1

if they really had a "we own everything write" assuming in or out of the office, then he can't release his software under the GPL... AOL already owns it the second his fingers hit the keyboard.

--
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by harlows_monkeys · 2003-06-04 05:45 · Score: 2, Informative

The test is whether the other party to the deal in good faith believed that the employee had the authority, or should have known that something was amiss
It's obvious upon examing the source that something is amiss: the source includes RSA code that is under a license that is NOT compatible with the GPL. That should make people suspicious about the legitimacy of the release.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by axxackall · 2003-06-04 05:48 · Score: 1

How about Mozilla?

--

Less is more !
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:08 · Score: 1, Informative

Nah. Typically, when AOL buys a company they give everyone (or at least everyone they want to keep) new employment contracts to sign that make them employees of AOL rather than their previous employer.

I speak from experience.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by deaddrunk · 2003-06-04 06:11 · Score: 1

It's jointly owned by a number of governments and multi-national corporations.

--
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by homer_ca · 2003-06-04 06:13 · Score: 1

This may end up like Gnutella. Even though the original Nullsoft client was pulled, the idea and the Gnutella protocol is out there and others created independant implementations without using the questionable Nullsoft code. Think of it as reference code for an RFC.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by pc486 · 2003-06-04 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Last I checked, RSA is in the public domain. Even if WASTE used stolen/imporperly licensed code, opensource coders could simply replace it with a GPL compatible version.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by LordNimon · 2003-06-04 06:31 · Score: 1

However, just because an employee makes a deal outside of their authority doesn't automatically reverse the deal.
You're right. It doesn't reverse the deal, it invalidates it. WASTE is not under the GPL, since the copyright owner (AOL) never released it under the GPL.

--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Jaysyn · 2003-06-04 06:38 · Score: 1

Justin is an officer at nullsoft. I.e. he's the CEO.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Xerithane · 2003-06-04 06:42 · Score: 1

if they really had a "we own everything write" assuming in or out of the office, then he can't release his software under the GPL... AOL already owns it the second his fingers hit the keyboard.

First, which "we" - is it Nullsoft or AOL/TW. Second, was this a sponsored or independant project.
Third, what does his actual contract state.
Fourth, profit, er I mean, if he had approval from a person higher in the organizational chart to release it under the GPL, the fault lies on them not Mr. Frankel.

At least it did see the light of day, and won't go into hiding anytime now.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by jamincollins · 2003-06-04 06:44 · Score: 1

Most employment contracts specifically state that any thing or idea created, conceived, developed, etc. while employeed becomes property of the employeer
This is precisely why I made sure my employer changed the wording of that clause in my contract. I wanted to make sure that what I created was mine. They own what I create at their request only. Anything else I create is mine. This is as it should be, and anyone that does coding/development for a living should make sure they have rights to what they develop independently of the company.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by camusflage · 2003-06-04 06:50 · Score: 1

The problem comes in that Justin was almost certainly an officer of the company. More than just something to impress the 'rents and less-clued in individuals, it actually does carry a responsibility. You are, on behalf of the company, allowed to enter into legally binding agreements. When you enter into an agreement that is less than beneficial to the company, you are subject to sanctions by your employer, including termination and legal wrangling. Still though, once the genie's out of the proverbial bottle, let out by someone with the authority (by title, not authorization) to do so, it's too late to stuff it back in.

Realistically, I'm amazed that he lasted this long and with this much autonomy. Headstrong rebels have a way of being weeded out fairly quickly--Even moreso when the rogue person is from the management team of an acquired company.

--
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by DrXym · 2003-06-04 06:51 · Score: 1

I don't get this. Mozilla is open source. AOL 'own' it only in the sense that they are the people paying for the code to be maintained and thus steer its direction and development.

Perhaps the issue here is that Nullsoft.com is being used as the distribution mechanism for unapproved personal software. I'm sure if the guy got approval through a project plan to produce something that was GPL/MPL there would be nothing AOL could do about it. Perhaps if the software in question didn't have a P2P stigma about it, the AOL (a media conglomerate) bigwigs wouldn't be so quick to pull the thing for legal reasons or whatever. After all, look what happened (and is still happening) to Napster and ask if AOL is being smart or silly to yank a P2P file sharing software which enables the same thing in many people's eyes.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by doktor-hladnjak · 2003-06-04 08:03 · Score: 1

The specific RSA algorithm was released to the public, because the patent was about to expire. However, the code may still be using specific *copyrighted* code licensed by RSA. Still though, you're right--the code could just be replaced by something compatable with the GPL.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Suppafly · 2003-06-04 08:19 · Score: 1

This may end up like Gnutella. Even though the original Nullsoft client was pulled, the idea and the Gnutella protocol is out there and others created independant ....

I'm sure thats what the idea was.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by randombit · 2003-06-04 08:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

as long as it's under the GPL

Actually, though, RSAREF (which WASTE uses) is under a license that is (very) incompatable with the GPL. Nothing stopping you from distributing the source (assuming you don't mind AOL possibly coming after you), but no binaries.

And, oh, my. Just finished reading the last clasues of the RSAREF license. Looks like WASTE violates those, meaning WASTE isn't legal anyway (at least until/unless someone re-writes it w/o RSAREF).
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by harlows_monkeys · 2003-06-04 08:39 · Score: 1

Last I checked, RSA is in the public domain
The RSA algorithms are public. However, the specific code included with WASTE is not, both for RSA and for MD5. That code is from RSA Data Security, has an RSA Data Security copyright notice, and includes a license that is not compatible with GPL.
Of course it could be replaced. The point, though, is that WASTE as distributed by Nullsoft, cannot be distributed in compliance with GPL...you have to do extra work to extract the parts that say they are GPL'ed, and combine them with a GPL'ed (or compatible) implementation of RSA and MD5 to make something that you can use under GPL. Presumably, if this had really been an authorized release, they would have done that themselves, rather than violate RSA Data Security's license.
To me, this makes AOL's claim that the release was not authorized quite believable, and it makes it so that any reasonable person looking at the release would suspect there may be problems.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:40 · Score: 0

The RSA patent expired and is in the public domain. RSA's source code is not in the public domain. You're free to reimplement it but not to copy their source code.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 09:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Let me add a bit to your lexicon:

apparent authority
ostensible authority

The fact that neither of these terms have shown up in the discussion thus far indicate how little business training most slashbots have. See, sometimes, there's value to an MBA. If nothing else, we're more conversent with lawyer-ese than most programmers.

(And in case you were wondering what all this means, basically, anyone who downloaded the software might have it free and clear. AOL, via Nullsoft, via authority of Justin, may have to abide by the original terms, GPL.)

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Xerithane · 2003-06-04 09:23 · Score: 1

The fact that neither of these terms have shown up in the discussion thus far indicate how little business training most slashbots have. See, sometimes, there's value to an MBA. If nothing else, we're more conversent with lawyer-ese than most programmers.

I knew there were the terms, but couldn't remember what they were. Thanks ;) I didn't realize you were an MBA... I could definitely use some of your help if you are interested.

(And in case you were wondering what all this means, basically, anyone who downloaded the software might have it free and clear. AOL, via Nullsoft, via authority of Justin, may have to abide by the original terms, GPL.)

That was what I was getting at. If the deal that AOL has over Nullsoft allows Nullsoft to act and release software independantly of the AOL label (such as Winamp, which afaik, is still Nullsoft Winamp, not AOL Winamp) than Justin could authorize the release under the GPL (excluding the mess with RSAREF.)

Is that correct?

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 09:48 · Score: 2, Informative

I didn't realize you were an MBA... I could definitely use some of your help if you are interested.

You've got email and AIM. Drop me a line.

The situation is even more damning than you imply. The trick is that AOL didn't have to give any authority ot Null and/or Justin in the first place. Justin's job title was CEO of Nullsoft. The software appeared on Nullsoft's site, probably placed there by Justin himself. Having that job title makes it *look* like things were legit on his end. Anyone who dl'ed that software probably thought that it was on the up and up.

Of course, there are tons of 'ifs'. The first is that everyone dl'ing that software knew that nullsoft releases had been pulled in the past, so it's possible that this one would be as well. There's the RSAREF question, but if I remember the GPL correctly, the non-offending portions of code are still a-okay. There's also whether or not a judge would deem that the GPL is a legit contract. In MD and VA, it should be (shrinkwrap licenses are law, even if they haven't yet appeared in court). Also, there's little or no consideration. In any contractual arrangement, each party has to give a little to get a little. Except for the previously pulled Nullsoft software, none of these issues has anything to do with the legitimacy of Justin offering the code for download.

This is one of the reasons companies have PO systems. Someone with real authority has to okay a purchase. In my company, there's only two signatures that count without another signature. All contracted employees agree to personally indemnify the company against contracts they entered into that the company didn't okay. Any non-contracted employee knows better, and would be fired for signing another other than a UPS delivery. Even in the former case, we are not really safe. Let's say some doctor ordered a new fangled blood-widget tester for $10,000. The company would *still* have to pay for it (most likely). The only thing the contract does is make clear that we can take it out of the employee's (doctor's) ass. It doesn't change the fact that Weyland Yutani entered into what they thought was a legitimate agreement.

Of course, there's one more thing (isn't there always?) in that even apparant authority doesn't work with stolen goods. Let's say Weyland sold us a stolen blood-widget machine. Even though we acted in good faith, we can't keep the stolen goods. But, we can go after Weyland instead of the employee. This does bear on the Justin/AOL/Nullsoft issue, just because of the weirdness of computer code, legally speaking. If AOL/Nullsoft is working on some code to sell that is similar to WASTE, they could make the argument that Justin cost them sales, and perhaps retract the code. But, if they have no plans to do anything with the code (given what has happened with earlier Justin projects, I'd argue this is more likely) and just wants to sit on it, or avoid some legal exposure, they've got a weaker case.

Sadly, there is no 'trumping' action in any of this. Were it to end up in court, some judge would juggle all these myriad legal doctrines, and decide which weighs the most today and in this case. Honestly, AOL should have fired him last time around if they are truly concerned about it.

I've got no answer to the situation. I just thought I'd edumacate some folks. Perhaps if they understood some of these things, they'd know why their bosses are 'such dickheads'.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by cabazorro · 2003-06-04 10:24 · Score: 1

Not neccessarily, he could have code it on his "spare time"

--
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 12:08 · Score: 0

The company tried to own his self-expression or in other way his intellectual property.

Think about it.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by alienw · 2003-06-04 14:22 · Score: 1

However, just because an employee makes a deal outside of their authority doesn't automatically reverse the deal. The test is whether the other party to the deal in good faith believed that the employee had the authority, or should have known that something was amiss. That's a tough question and would likely take a judge to answer completely...

Not true, except when you are dealing with liability. You may not be LIABLE for doing something in good faith, but by no means can you continue to do so after you find out that it was not legitimate. By your logic, if a single Microsoft employee leaks the Windows license with a GPL sticker on it Windows would become GPL. Nothing could be further from the truth. Disclaimer: IANAL.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by drinkypoo · 2003-06-04 17:22 · Score: 1

The question is still not whether the release was authorized, but whether Frankel had the authority to label the GPL code as GPL and make it stick. HIS personal questions also include, did I distribute any code which didn't belong to me? And if so, how much trouble can I get in for that? If Nullsoft had a license to redistribute that code but not to relicense it, and he was an employee of Nullsoft at the time, then he effectively had the right to redistribute that code. I have a hard time believing that was the case though, if the code was actually owned by RSA.
But I don't see that totally separate cfiles and headers distributed as part of a GPL program necessarily terminates the GPL'ing of the rest of the code. It probably conflicts with the other code's license, necessitating its removal to ensure compliance of both the GPL and whatever license that code is under and possibly getting him (Frankel) in a lot of trouble. Everything in ./waste/rsa will need to be replaced I'm sure with something yanked from a GPL package.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-05 09:41 · Score: 0

Like, duh. If it was a real attempt, he'd have used a handshake and a cipher chaining mode that hasn't been cracked, and a protocol that scales (even for special interest groups, 50 is kind of a small number). W.A.S.T.E. is ideological rather than practical.

It's always nice to know that they were working on something so close to what I am, though.
Re:One doesn't have to wonder... by danila · 2003-06-06 03:04 · Score: 1

The fact that Nullsoft is a subsidiary doesn't mean that any direct control exists. Nullsoft is an independent company, owned by AOL, not AOLs division.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Suprisingly he lasted this long by brent_linux · 2003-06-04 05:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

When AOL bought out Nullsoft, I was sure he would leave. When they took down the gnutella stuff, I was sure he would leave. When they stopped the aimster stuff, I was sure he would leave.

I didn't really have him pegged as a corporate kinda guy from the start. I am really suprised that he could take it this long before he left. Corps are often to stifling to creativity.

Re:Suprisingly he lasted this long by brent_linux · 2003-06-04 05:08 · Score: 1

Forgot one. Minibroswer in Winamp. I think that was an AOL kinda thing too.
Re:Suprisingly he lasted this long by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:37 · Score: 1, Informative

"When AOL bought out Nullsoft, I was sure he would leave"

Generally, the terms of a buyout would require that the "principles" keep working there for some period of time (1-5 years). So, he probably had no choice in the matter.

Note that he was working on things like WASTE and not WinAmp. That may have been to encourage AOL to release him from his employment contract.
Re:Suprisingly he lasted this long by company+nuncio · 2003-06-04 05:47 · Score: 1

From the news at the time of the acquisition:

Charles Frankel, father of Nullsoft founder Justin Frankel and the company's vice president for business development, acknowledged that with no previous equity investments to dilute ownership, he and other Nullsoft shareholders will be substantially rewarded.

I figure he had some vesting to do before he left, coming up on 4 years since they were bought...

I can certainly identify with the man, but have about as much sympathy for him as I do for Phil Greenspun of Ars Digita. When you sell out to the man, you don't just get his money, he owns you. Don't want that? Don't sell.

--
Of course I don't speak for my employer. My employer doesn't speak for me, either.
Re:Suprisingly he lasted this long by gohai · 2003-06-04 05:47 · Score: 1

another one: AOL icons after Winamp install (there was no way to avoid them in the original Winamp 3.0 installer, IIRC the user can decide in more recent 2.x versions)
Re:Suprisingly he lasted this long by JoeCotellese · 2003-06-04 06:08 · Score: 1

Not really. As the founder of Nullsoft he undoubtably had a retainer to keep him on for a period after the purchase.

Golden handcuffs, happens all the time.
Re:Suprisingly he lasted this long by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 07:04 · Score: 0

You mean principals. After all, AOL doesn't have any principles.
Re:Suprisingly he lasted this long by pyrrho · 2003-06-04 09:11 · Score: 1

I think leaving any sooner would have violated the terms of his sale of Nullsoft to AOL.

I don't know. But I think. And I was at Spinner when Spinner and Nullsoft were bought by AOL and merged. So I still don't know, but I'm not totally guessing either.

--
-pyrrho

Hmm... by AvantLegion · 2003-06-04 05:04 · Score: 1, Funny

I clicked the link, but the only thing the NYTimes was reporting was that signing up is easy as 1-2-3.

Re:Hmm... by Horny+Smurf · 2003-06-04 05:11 · Score: 4, Funny

fortunately, you can use fake information to sign up.
unfortunately, they use fake information when writing stories.
Re:Hmm... by mirko · 2003-06-04 05:25 · Score: 1

use these :
user : somebaudysentme
pass : somebaudysentme

--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Re:Hmm... by Transient0 · 2003-06-04 05:43 · Score: 1

There is a pretty decent, no-reg-required story about it at news.com.au.

--
lysergically yours
Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:14 · Score: 0

That is really funny! And far too true.
Re:Hmm... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-06-04 06:18 · Score: 2, Funny

fortunately, you can use fake information to sign up
Username: Jayson Blair
Password: IMakeItUpAsIGoAlong

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Why don't they ever ask politely? by zptdooda · 2003-06-04 05:04 · Score: 5, Funny

``If you downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy of the software, you ... must destroy any and all copies of the software, including by deleting it from your computer''

Other valid means are:
- just throw the whole computer out. That way we'll have covered all the bases for future potential license violations
- hmm can't think of anymore (well this list sure fizzled out fast)

``Any license that you may believe you acquired with the software is void, revoked and terminated.''

Well Schrodinger's license is definitely dead then. I never downloaded it but now I'm wondered if I got one through some quantum license-tunnelling effect.

I wonder about the order of voiding, revoking, and terminating? Was it in series or in parallel? Sounds like the license got taken out back and worked over by the three of them at once.

--
Esteem isn't a zero sum game

Re:Why don't they ever ask politely? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 09:53 · Score: 0

I didn't want them to have to run the risk of trusting me, a total stranger, to delete the files in question. Therefore, in good faith, I simply emailed my copies to them so that they may do the deletion. I suggest that all of you do the same.

Slashdot won't like this but... by FreeLinux · 2003-06-04 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

I guess I didn't embrace the dot bomb generation or something. I can't generate any feeling of respect for a "company executive" that runs a weblog and moans about corporate issues publicly. It just isn't professional.

I'm sure that the Slash crowd won't like this opinion but it's mine. Flame on.

Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Planesdragon · 2003-06-04 05:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess I didn't embrace the dot bomb generation or something. I can't generate any feeling of respect for a "company executive" that runs a weblog and moans about corporate issues publicly. It just isn't professional.

Executives don't write software.

He is, at worst, a software programmer who manages a division. In the software world--especially the free software world--keeping a weblog and being honest in it have come to be hallmarks of a professional.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Meat+Blaster · 2003-06-04 05:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can't imagine that he was being paid that badly, either. Most people would kill to get bought out by AOL (or Microsoft for that matter), so what's wrong with taking the money and leaving it to the college students to write the piracy apps?
When you can afford most of the things you want, why is WASTE so important?
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by HBI · 2003-06-04 05:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

True. When we accept the lowest common denominator we get it in spades. I wouldn't blame Mr. Frankel, i'd blame the whole generation for it.

The lack of decorum today is pretty appalling. Maybe someday people will wake up and say 'we liked it the old way'. Not likely anytime soon though.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Openadvocate · 2003-06-04 05:23 · Score: 1

Well, it sure is serious when you talk about quitting. If things get fixed then it is good, but if not then you have to quit.(or stay and show that you just yell empty threats). You shouldn't say a thing like that unless you are prepared to do it. So I would say he have made his choice by the time he wrote it.

--
my sig
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by SubtleNuance · 2003-06-04 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

it just isn't professional.

You know what, im sick of this 'unprofessional' trash. "Professional" is inhuman. Usually, any act of honesty is described as 'unprofessional' Im tired of my personal relations being filtered through the Blanket-of-Commerce that requires people to be a cog or a tool.

I could care less that a person was 'unprofessional' -- because a person's character is not defined by how well he conforms to his employers view of how best to achieve profit.

Justin has grown tired of being a wage-slave -- so have I.. I just dont have the resources to buy life back from my Corporate Masters just yet...
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:26 · Score: 0

Ha! Free software and professional in the same sentence! That's funny.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:27 · Score: 0

... because if you work for AOL, you can't afford freedom. And that's what really matters to Justin. I salute him..
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Planesdragon · 2003-06-04 05:36 · Score: 1

You know what, im sick of this 'unprofessional' trash. "Professional" is inhuman. Usually, any act of honesty is described as 'unprofessional' Im tired of my personal relations being filtered through the Blanket-of-Commerce that requires people to be a cog or a tool.

You misunderstand what "professional" means.

Honesty is emminently professional. But so is keeping priviledged and semi-priviledged information as such. Essentially, "professional" can be summarized best as "thinks of the job when on the job", rather than "inhuman."
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by marick · 2003-06-04 05:41 · Score: 1

Well, for some, freedom(tm) the concept is more important than money. For others, money is the highest ideal.

Those in the first category are frequently referred to as revolutionaries. Those in the second category are often referred to as capitalists.

Sometimes, one can be both. Sometimes one must choose one or the other. I guess for Justin, the time has come to be a revolutionary again.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by MisterFancypants · 2003-06-04 05:43 · Score: 1

I agree. He seems a bit whiny.
Also it seems like a lot of people overlook the fact that HE is the one who made the choice to sell his company to AOL -- what did he possibly think the outcome would be? A totally hands-off approach where he could keep pulling money from AOL with no responsibility to do things that are in the company's best interest? He should just be grateful he had such a cushy position for the past few years and move on gracefully, IMO.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by MikeFM · 2003-06-04 05:58 · Score: 1

The problem is that he is evidently somebody that programs as his form of expression. It's fun for him. It may give his life meaning. Common motivations for programmers and other scientists and artists. When people start controling what you do it's as if you went from building Willy Wonkas factory in your garage to designing the caps for toothpaste tubes. Sure you might be paid well for what you do but it isn't very satisfying. When your unemployed you think you'd do anything for a good job but once you've had the job for a while the money doesn't seem as important. Sadly few of us get to do what we love, in a way that doesn't ruin it, and get paid.

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:06 · Score: 0

Somebody better get some oil for that cog, it's starting to whine.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Cloud+9 · 2003-06-04 06:11 · Score: 1

I imagine, to him, it looked like the best idea at the time. He was, after all, gearing up for a potentially crippling lawsuit over Winamp's decoding engine.
Selling out may very well have been the only good option he had in order to keep his favorite project alive. I, for one, am glad he did.

--
Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:24 · Score: 0

"When you can afford most of the things you want, why is WASTE so important?"

Rich people need secure communications too.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-06-04 06:25 · Score: 1

When you can afford most of the things you want, why is WASTE so important?
Because, unlike most other programs, W.A.S.T.E. has the potential to change the world.
To cross my metaphores, Justine probably didn't want to sell sugar water for the rest of his life.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by LWATCDR · 2003-06-04 06:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

WASTE is not a Piracy app. A program that lets you search for files and copy them is not a piracy app! If so then Windows and Linux are piracy app. I can do a seach on a network drive and then copy it to a disk. What what about FTP? I guess FTP servers and clients are also piracy apps. Good lord man. He said that AOL used it in house to do secure file transfres from on office to another! WASTE is a secure way to transmit data from one computer to another in a small network of users.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:29 · Score: 0

You mean "Socialist". Your Freedom of software is nothing more than the brainchild idea of a scored geek who wants things to be like they were in the good old days. Stop dressing up this idea as something else; People are going to wake up eventually.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by ideut · 2003-06-04 06:33 · Score: 0

You said: I could care less
You meant: I couldn't care less.
You are an ideut.

--
--
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Jellybob · 2003-06-04 06:49 · Score: 1

This is gonna get modded OT, but I have karma to burn, so I'm gonna say it anyway...

What's with the "I could care less" fashion at the moment? Read what you just said!

You said that you care to a certain degree about the subject... the opposite meaning to the phrase "I *couldn't* care less"... which means you don't care in the first place, and therefore would have to care a negative ammount to care any less.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 07:00 · Score: 0

Would your generation please just hurry up and die?
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Jaysyn · 2003-06-04 07:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's why we are seeing "professionals" getting indictied left & right over here. 50 years ago there was honesty in professionalism, now it's been replaced by greed...

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by TomorrowPlusX · 2003-06-04 07:13 · Score: 1

Get back to work!

Your Friendly Corporate Masters

--

lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 07:39 · Score: 0

whatever. software engineers are hired for their brains. not their social skills. not their suave abilities to *sell* software. not their ability to tie a tie or look nice in a suit. not their abilities to "act" a certain way. (he really is just a software programmer.) we peon programmers bring in hordes of cash for the executives. let them do their part and act out the professional side of things. as long as stuff is getting done, let the programmers do their work.
this isn't new. dot bomb companies didn't invent "unprofessional" programmers.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:00 · Score: 0

Who mods crap like this up? The idiot is clearly trolling and he gets scored *5*? He can't even get the *facts* right, mainly that Justin *isn't* a "company execute", and that he has the free right to do whatever he damn well pleases when he's off the clock, including running a weblog and discussing his life. And "moan"ing? Jesus man, the first time he says anything negative in his weblog and suddenly he has a habit of moaning in your eyes? So I suppose the person who sees a $5 bill on the ground and takes it is a "career criminal" too. What a narrow vision you have, dear Troll.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:13 · Score: 0

Dirty capitalist.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:30 · Score: 0

For me it was a pivotal moment when my former employer said to me that she had this tremendous epiphany... she said from then on she was going to "just TAKE THE MONEY."

From that moment on I never regretted losing that job even though doing so pretty much ended my IT career. Who was the boss? The ever-darkening heart of emptiness, that's who. Who wants to exist on his kind of money, and know that your work contributes to the general corruption a la WorldCom, Enron, et al?
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by HBI · 2003-06-04 09:07 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

It's great. Just sound like Marx, and you get a 5 Insightful.

They should change the banner on this site from the teal to a nice scarlet red. Just like the posters/mods, in large part.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by GlassHeart · 2003-06-04 09:24 · Score: 1

"Professional" is inhuman. Usually, any act of honesty is described as 'unprofessional'
That's not true at all. To be "professional" (or to be "unprofessional", for that matter), one must belong to a profession. This is an important line of work, with a clear (if not strict) code of ethics. One who obeys such ethics is "professional", and one who violates them is "unprofessional".
An honest doctor is hardly "unprofessional" if she blows the whistle on, for example, HMOs disregarding sound medical advice to reject patients. An honest civil engineer is also not "unprofessional" for saying that the bridge will never carry the load it was advertised to. In fact, their respective professional ethics require them to speak in such cases.
On the other hand, employees are generally required to keep various secrets for their employers. Being too candid and too "honest" about your work on a public site can damage your employer. This is frequently "unprofessional", especially if your statements fall under ranting, rather than whistle-blowing. For a programmer, if your boss decides to ship with 100 bugs (and you think it should be cut down to 10), it's unprofessional to complain about it on the website. (The professional thing to do is to take it up with your boss or your boss' boss, etc.) On the other hand, it's entirely professional to use any means possible, including a blog, to alert people to the fact that your company's product has a bug that could kill them. There is, of course, a big gray area in between.
I could care less that a person was 'unprofessional' -- because a person's character is not defined by how well he conforms to his employers view of how best to achieve profit.
Indeed, but that's not what the word means.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by falsified · 2003-06-04 12:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is gonna sound like a troll or something, but really, what has AOL done to stifle its subprojects? Yeah, AOL did shut down Gnutella. That's probably because AOL is in the music/movie business (the TW of AOLTW). So, while that's a shame, it's also somewhat expected. WASTE was pulled for the same reasons. AOL doesn't wanna shoot itself in the foot. For what it's worth, Nullsoft really DOES remain quite independent of the nice clean scrubbed creppy AOL crap. Yes, you get AOL icons when you install Winamp3, but that's the only AOL fingerprint I see.
$86 million for a free (as in beer) media player is more of a charity than anything else.
No, you will not have the freedom to write p2p programs that are invariably used for piracy if your boss runs movie studios and record labels. This is somehow a surprise?

--
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
Re:Slashdot won't like this but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 17:00 · Score: 0

Ya know, that's a very unprofessional thing to say.

'99 by Mattygfunk1 · 2003-06-04 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Despite the new corporate ownership, Nullsoft's team of programmers managed to maintain a freestyle hacker culture.

The dream is still alive people. Demand your fair dues.

__
Cheap web hosting Dragon Action Figures

justin's blog ... probably gonna be slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:05 · Score: 3, Informative

June 2 2003 @ 10:03pm For me, coding is a form of self-expression. It's probably the form I'm most effective at. Everything I code is arguably owned by the company. The company controls what I do with my code [in the past, it seemed I had freedom, but it turns out all of that was not really the case--rather, I was somehow avoiding the control illicitly (for 4 years)] The company controls the most effective means of self-expression I have. This is unacceptable to me as an individual, therefore I must leav. I don't know when it will be, but I'm not going to last much longer. I have nothing but respect for the company--I've just come to realize that it is time to do something different. May 31 2003 @ 3:00pm or so Moving my .plan here. Finger has been firewalled on genghis for weeks since the (lame) network rebuild, so it's hosed. 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. At Ian's suggestion been listening to Slint a bit. Good shit. So funny that one of the guys from Slint is now in Zwan, and Zwan sucks so hard. Well, they rule as musicians, but their songs suck. I don't want to listen to christian rock. Winamp 2.92 will have CD ripping support, with support for OGG. OGG VBR at 0.0 sounds pretty decent, listenable, at like 60kbps. I'm pretty impressed with it. Yesterday driving home I listened to Lamb - Zero a couple times. Such a good song. So simple. Mmmm.

Re:justin's blog ... probably gonna be slashdotted by an_mo · 2003-06-04 06:29 · Score: 1

why is he talking about winamp 2.92? winamp 3 has been out for months.
Re:justin's blog ... probably gonna be slashdotted by DocTee · 2003-06-04 06:41 · Score: 1

winamp 2 is better (to use, can't comment on architecture) and is still being maintained here

--
- doctea
Re:justin's blog ... probably gonna be slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:16 · Score: 0

3 has been out since December. Meanwhile 2.91 has been out for a month and a half.

2.x is clearly the active fork.
Re:justin's blog ... probably gonna be slashdotted by afidel · 2003-06-04 09:39 · Score: 1

Winamp 2.9+ are backporting of the best parts of 3 (wasabi mostly) without the horrible code bloat and convoluted ever changing plugin API. Basically take the best of winamp 2 and winamp 3 and make a great hybrid, this will eventually lead to winamp 5 which will be esentially winamp 2.9+ with the addition of the ability to run winamp 3 plugins.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Yes, it was WASTE by xcomputer_man · 2003-06-04 05:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Whereas this seems to be a long time coming, the WASTE issue clearly seems to be the reason behind this:

The company controls what I do with my code [in the past, it seemed I had
freedom, but it turns out all of that was not really the case--rather, I
was somehow avoiding the control illicitly (for 4 years)]

I completely support him here...he sees code as a form of expression, and being censored is one of the worst things you can get paid to do.

Besides, I guess we have an answer to the question of whether Nullsoft is a legal entity free from the tentacles of AOL or not ... he's only been lucky so far!

--
Am I a hipster-doofus?

Re:Yes, it was WASTE by OrangeGoo · 2003-06-04 05:20 · Score: 1

Another reason to work in government... I've heard rumors of contract clauses in private industry that give your company ownership of code you write outside of work. If there's any truth to that, then government work is the only way to go.

What I write here is theirs (and rightfully so, as far as I'm concerned - they bought the computer, the software, etc., and they're the ones putting up the millions to get this project done), but what I write at home is 100% mine, unless I choose to give it to someone.

I cannot beleive that he is too upset... by Flabby+Boohoo · 2003-06-04 05:06 · Score: 1

he has been in a tug-of-war with AOL over other projects, like Gnutella. I just wonder why didn't he quit first and then create/release WASTE?

Re:I cannot beleive that he is too upset... by hrieke · 2003-06-04 05:08 · Score: 1

Because it would be easy to prove from AOL/TW's point of view that the code he wrote and is now giving away for free is their's.
His contract states that they own all of his code.

--
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
Re:I cannot beleive that he is too upset... by Flabby+Boohoo · 2003-06-04 05:13 · Score: 1

How does a creative person in that situation, create something at home and not to worry about your boss laying claim to it?
Re:I cannot beleive that he is too upset... by jat850 · 2003-06-04 05:19 · Score: 2, Informative

Said person reads their employment contract very carefully, and if they are suspicious of any such clauses, they either a) renegotiate the contract or b) don't work for that employer.

Can't be too careful with things like that nowadays.

--
the blood has stopped pumping, and he's left to decay
the me that you know is now made up of wires
Re:I cannot beleive that he is too upset... by Anil · 2003-06-04 05:20 · Score: 1

it depends on the contract that you sign. Just try and get one (or demand an alteration before you sign) that explicitly limits the company's ownership. A clause that limits the company to paid work only, for example - or code/documents created while in the office.

He hasn't resigned... by johnhennessy · 2003-06-04 05:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Read the article. It says that he can't stick the current situation much longer, but at no point does he say that he has resigned.

--
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]

Re:He hasn't resigned... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

Given that Google News is now listing more than 50 reports of his "resignation", perhaps the proverbial stone has been cast.
As as aside ... what the heck is with the crazy fonts on the current Nullsoft page?

Goodspeed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

Takes courage to walk out on a job like his these days. Congrats to you, and anyone who dares to give up security in the persuit of ones passions.

Re:Goodspeed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:55 · Score: 0

Yeah, it takes courage to walk out after you become vested in your company, especially if your vestment is worth millions.
Courage would be walking out before you can cash in your stock options.

About time... by Eyston · 2003-06-04 05:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't understand why its taken 4 years for this to happen. The guy obviously is not suited for corporate coding and when it comes to money I would think he's pretty well off. Having the legal backing of a big corporation might be nice but not if all they do is pull your code to avoid doing anything.

-Eyston

Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:38 · Score: 0

Maybe 4 years was how long it took for his stock options to mature so that he could start selling them; if he left before 4 years they might have been worthless.
Re:About time... by company+nuncio · 2003-06-04 05:51 · Score: 1

To paraphrase the dead parrot sketch, he's *vesting*.

--
Of course I don't speak for my employer. My employer doesn't speak for me, either.
Re:About time... by sporty · 2003-06-04 06:01 · Score: 1

I am a corporate coder, and I've done it for a few companies. Some embrace the entire opensource movement and the things that I (may) like, and there are some companies which don't want to patch OSS and give the patches away. And you know what, I don't care about that either. If MY code was pulled every other project I wanted to see put out, I wouldn't care, because for me, coding isn't an extrovert form of expression, but one for my self.

But you know what, it's ok if he's not happy and that it took him 4 years. There's a LOT we don't know about his experience with AOL. Hell, a LOT of people are married for 5, 10 and 20 years (and a lot of other numbers) and get divorced well after that.

So unless he's done something that we know, let's not pass judgement, unless we be judged or some crap.

--
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Re:About time... by hendridm · 2003-06-04 06:04 · Score: 1

Maybe it's time this bucking bronco broke free from the corporate reigns. He should retire and starts his own initiative. Maybe a new open-source operating system that is designed to be easy enough for anyone to use. That way, he could have an online "warehouse" where he could store his favorite open source apps for users to click and run at will. Perhaps he could call it Jindows. I bet Microsoft would love that!
Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:38 · Score: 0

hey buddy, it's aol stock options, have you been reading the news? it's worthless now.
Re:About time... by Arker · 2003-06-04 07:51 · Score: 1

The impression I get, and it's nothing more than that, he's not been too specific, but the impression I get is that they brought him in with lots of verbal promises that he'd still have the freedom he wanted. They'd just take care of the boring stuff, and of course take the profits as well as the new owners, but he'd still run things like always. That's what the new buyers always seem to say...

But of course they have their lawyers make sure that they get the legal right to void all those verbal assurances whenever they feel they have to. So... gnutella, they put their foot down. There are discussions, a new modus vivendi is worked out... he thinks he has almost the same old freedom still... but then aimster comes along, and his wings get clipped a little more, now waste... each time they put their foot down and he gets less slack.

I guess the last round of discussions it became clear there wasn't an intersection between what they felt they had to have and what he felt he had to have, so sayonara.

I would also guess the comment about vesting isn't far from the mark, and that made the decision a lot easier for him.

It's all guesswork though.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:46 · Score: 0

That would all depend on what strike price he was given.
Re:About time... by Simon+Garlick · 2003-06-04 13:23 · Score: 1

To paraphrase the dead parrot sketch, he's *vesting*.

Nice :) sorry, no mod points today...

--

-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658

timothy, please take a hint by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:07 · Score: 0

Timothy, pleae resign.

Question about article by tkrotchko · 2003-06-04 05:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the article, it claims Nullsoft is saying there is no valid license for WASTE, yet it looked to me as if WASTE was released under GPL.

I wonder if the GPL license is valid at this point for WASTE? Or did Justin not have the rights to release it under GPL?

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you

Re:Question about article by Naikrovek · 2003-06-04 05:16 · Score: 1

if the company that owned the software (AOL) didn't officially release it, then the license is invalid.

sorry. your copies of WASTE are illegal.
Re:Question about article by tkrotchko · 2003-06-04 05:22 · Score: 1

I don't know that its that cut and dried. If it was released under Nullsoft's name, and Justin runs Nullsoft, then I'd argue that a company official in AOL has released it to GPL.

Its not like he's some staff programmer in the bowels of AOL doing it.

I'd argue that he had the authority to release.

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Re:Question about article by AlbanySux · 2003-06-04 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

You are in no position to argue anything. You do not have any relevent facts. For all you know there is a big clause in his contract that says all releases must be cleared with AOL or all releases must be closed source or any number of things that we just don't know about. So, its a bad idea to make anykind of assumtion about what he can and cannot do.
Re:Question about article by SN74S181 · 2003-06-04 05:57 · Score: 1

All organizations like Microsoft have to do is take a big dollop of the Uncertainty and Doubt that you're promoting, toss in a little lump of Fear, and they've got a living, breathing FUD campaign.

It's cut and dried. The code belongs to AOL. It can't be GPL'd. Let's move along, and someone start writing new code.
Re:Question about article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:03 · Score: 0

sorry - your wrong, there are nuances to this situation that *might* mike you right -- but also others to make you wrong.
Re:Question about article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:02 · Score: 0

And for all you know AOL/TW is blowing steam trying to cover their ass. Don't be such a condesending asshole, bub.

This isn't the parent poster either...

Frankel resignation does relate to WASTE by Shadows · 2003-06-04 05:08 · Score: 1, Informative

"One has to wonder whether this has anything to do with the WASTE fiasco."

From the Miami Herald article:

Frankel, 24, announced his intentions late Monday, less than a week after a file-sharing program called Waste was posted and then pulled from the Nullsoft Web site.

"The company controls the most effective means of self-expression I have," he said in his Web log. "This is unacceptable to me as an individual, therefore I must leav (sic). I don't know when it will be, but I'm not going to last much longer."

Looks like WASTE is.. by EinarH · 2003-06-04 05:08 · Score: 5, Informative

still available for download, including source, over at deviantart.com...

Strange they haven't pulled it off the web.

Disclaimer:
This post is of course provided as "AS IS". And I do NOT encourage any copyright enfringement.

--

Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

Re:Looks like WASTE is.. by LostCluster · 2003-06-04 05:39 · Score: 1

And further strange that AOL hasn't followed-through with a DMCA takedown notice as far as we know...
Re:Looks like WASTE is.. by pyrrho · 2003-06-04 09:17 · Score: 1

exactly, the code did not belong to the employees, but to the organization. Only the copyright holder can do that.

--
-pyrrho

He's not resigning as far as I can tell. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

Ars Technica reported on this yesterday, and the center of the story was the blog posting you see above. All the AP post on the NYTimes has done is read something into that blog post that isn't there. Nowhere in Frankel's blog does he state that he is going to resign right now, or that he has tendered his resignation. He simply said that he would probably leave eventually.

This is a very misleading story from the AP.

AOL by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:08 · Score: 0

...seems to drag down anything it touches. Nullsoft hasn't been the same since it was sold. Winamp3 isn't bad, but they took out features that I use in version 2. So I still use version 2. Netscape hasn't really ever been the same since the browser wars. But it didn't really go anywhere after AOL got their paws on it. Time-Warner would have been fine if they never merged. But at the time it was the cool thing to do, because it was their way of getting a big tech piece. Now they're looking at spinning AOL off into it's own company. It's like AOL is this parasite that needs to feed off other companies to keep it's damned AOL CD manufacturing going.

Most Winamp coders left already by Skuto · 2003-06-04 05:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Most of the really good Winamp coders left already. The guy that wrote almost all the core plugins, Peter Pawlowksi, quit because he didn't like Winamp 3 design and thought it was a dead end. Because AOL still owns his code, some of the plugins are 'dead' now, and the code can't be used any more. Bummer.

He wrote his own player instead, which is, eh, quite different from Winamp, Foobar2000.

Anyway, Frankel has little to complain about. Nullsoft was bought out for almost 86M$. For that much money, he'll never have to code, err, express himself ever again.

Re:Most Winamp coders left already by yppiz · 2003-06-04 05:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anyway, Frankel has little to complain about. Nullsoft was bought out for almost 86M$. For that much money, he'll never have to code, err, express himself ever again.

The compelling desire to express yourself doesn't always end when you make money.

The Nullsoft folks sound like they made money because they had the drive to express themselves in a heartfelt way - resulting in compelling, well written applications.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Re:Most Winamp coders left already by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:47 · Score: 0

I had no idea foobar2000 was written by the same guy.
I love foobar - in a word, it's 'minimalistic'. My favorite thing about it - besides it's tiny resource footprint - is that I can play .zip/.rar/.ace albums by just dragging and dropping it onto the foobar window.
Re:Most Winamp coders left already by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:00 · Score: 0

Winamp3 is terrible, I downloaded it last week just to play with it and within about ten minutes I uninstalled it.
Re:Most Winamp coders left already by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 09:05 · Score: 0

>The guy that wrote almost all the core plugins, Peter Pawlowksi, quit because he didn't like Winamp 3

Peter Pawlowski was not a Nullsoft employee, get your facts straight. He left the project because the changes he would ask for would never be implemented (a simple issue between two coders), rather than over winamp3 itself. Not that winamp3 is that great anyway...
Re:Most Winamp coders left already by cHiphead · 2003-06-04 14:16 · Score: 1

for $86 million dollars I'd definitely be compeled to express myself by sitting on my ass in one of those $5000 vibrochairs with fridge, in front of a webcam all day, giving all your poor fuckers the finger.

but thats just me...

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

shame to AOL!!! by ravinfinite · 2003-06-04 05:08 · Score: 1

It is such a shame that AOL is just letting Justin's programming talents slip away. Even though winamp isn't as popular as it used to be, none-of-the-less, it is still a fine piece of coding and I still use it once in a while. I believe that WASTE is definitely the reason why he was pressured to make (or consider) such a decision.

Multiple topics by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:09 · Score: 0

How long has it been possible to post stories under multiple topics?

Good for him by Arbogast_II · 2003-06-04 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is always a pleasure to see a person who realizes a good life is more important than money!

--

HenryJamesFeltus.com

Re:Good for him by RealityMogul · 2003-06-04 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Spoken like somebody that makes enough money to have a good life.
Re:Good for him by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:27 · Score: 0

Since he has enough money to never have to work a day for the rest of his life, that's an easy position to take.
Re:Good for him by ichimunki · 2003-06-04 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're being funny, right? I mean, otherwise how do you explain selling your company to AOL in the first place? And do you really think he's risking going hungry here? Somehow I think someone who's had the opportunity to sell their company to AOL has more money in hand than most of us will earn in a lifetime (unless, of course, he's squandered it or invested carelessly in the last four years).

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Good for him by grub · 2003-06-04 05:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It is always a pleasure to see a person who realizes a good life is more important than money!

That is soGene Roddenberry/Star Trekish... :P

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:Good for him by br0ck · 2003-06-04 06:36 · Score: 1

I wonder how much of the original purchase was a 'careless investment' of AOL shares which are now worth 1/3 the original value?
Re:Good for him by AvitarX · 2003-06-04 12:17 · Score: 0

Didn't AOL pay 100 Million Dollors for Nullsoft?

Wasn't that his "Fuck You" money so that he could do whatever he wanted?

I believe this is really AOL's loss and not his, he probable will be doing well for a long time time to come.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg

Non-Free? by obfuscated · 2003-06-04 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe AOL's mgmt wanted to shift Winamp to a pay for or adware product.

I never liked it when they proudly boasted that there were NO ADS! and it was FREE!

--

-- dK ... Narf Poit!

Re:Non-Free? by Squarewav · 2003-06-04 05:48 · Score: 1

Maybe AOL's mgmt wanted to shift Winamp to a pay for or adware product

back in the day winamp was shareware I dont remember the limitations if any, but it was ~20$, thing is no one was buying so they just said screw it and made it freeware
Re:Non-Free? by Cloud+9 · 2003-06-04 06:17 · Score: 1

I never liked it when they proudly boasted that there were NO ADS! and it was FREE!
I would assume that that's just another example of Justin's tongue-in-cheek attitude towards AOL. For a few releases after Nullsoft was bought out, the installer added a "TRY AOL" shortcut to the desktop. Then it mysteriously disappeared and all the "NO ADS! FREE!" messages appeared on the download links.

--
Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)
Re:Non-Free? by Asgard · 2003-06-04 06:42 · Score: 1

I bought it when it was $10, and no there were no unregistered limitations at all -- all you got was a reg. # that you could print out.
Re:Non-Free? by alecto · 2003-06-04 08:06 · Score: 1

Me too. I still have that number somewhere :).

iTunes for windows anybody??? by snuffdiddy23 · 2003-06-04 05:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

i am keeping my fingers cross that he can continue with his work. apple is looking for a coder for the iTunes Music store for windows, Justin Frankel would be perfect. only to switch him over to the darkside now.

Re:iTunes for windows anybody??? by Boing · 2003-06-04 06:12 · Score: 1

apple is looking for a coder for the iTunes Music store for windows, Justin Frankel would be perfect
It seems likely that work he would do for Apple iTunes would be prohibited by a non-compete agreement. But maybe he was able to avoid that pitfall as part of the Nullsoft buyout. I hope he'll continue to be able to do media stuff too; he's so good at it.
Re:iTunes for windows anybody??? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 13:45 · Score: 0

Actually, Justin is also a Mac user; he has 2 macs, and he ported winamp over Carbon for OSX, so his desktop could "feel more liek home." He also wrote the WASTE mac server app, that lets WASTE run on OSX as a file server. Basically, writing another mac ap woulnd't be a stretch to him :)

- `jars

Huh by Erik+Fish · 2003-06-04 05:10 · Score: 1

Judging by that blog entry it doesn't sound like he had much of a plan here or like he was expecting this. Weren't WASTE and Gnutella just attempts to provoke AOL and get him out of his contract?

What exactly was he expecting? Even if he didn't have a plan, you'd think that after Gnutella was pulled he would know where he stood.

His Blog by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:10 · Score: 0

Sounds like a suicide note.

Sad by d3designs · 2003-06-04 05:10 · Score: 1

It's just sad to see him go. He was such a good programer. Hopefully he will come back with some more great software thouhg.

Re:Sad by azzy · 2003-06-04 08:32 · Score: 1

> It's just sad to see him go. He was such a good programer.

Did I miss something? Has he died?

> Hopefully he will come back with some more great software thouhg (sic).

Come back? From the dead? Is he like the messiah or something?

A good thing, i think. by Naikrovek · 2003-06-04 05:10 · Score: 2

welcome to the very large group of unemployed folks, Justin. ;)

I think this is a great thing, other than the obvious distaste you have in your mouth right now from leaving a job. Resigning always sucks, even when it sucks a lot less than not resigning.

But I belive you can do some more cool shit now without worrying about getting your work eliminated, and I think your stuff has made the world a better place. (I don't however, believe that demanding the right to distribute other people's property is a good thing, music swappers.) gnutella is a good thing though, and waste was (is?) too.

keep using that noggin you got and keep writing more cool software. you'll be happy again (or happier) in no time.

Re:A good thing, i think. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:05 · Score: 0

"welcome to the very large group of unemployed folks, Justin. ;)"

The very small group of independently wealthy, self-employed folks, you mean.
Re:A good thing, i think. by Jaysyn · 2003-06-04 08:08 · Score: 1

s/large/small
s/unemployed/idle rich

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.

Version 3 doesn't whip the llama's ass by tkrotchko · 2003-06-04 05:11 · Score: 1

Its too slow on startup. I still use 2.04 because its small and its quick. It doesn't have a browser, it doesn't look up where I want to buy stuff, it doesn't try to lay video. It doesn't try to be everything to me.

Bigger isn't always better.

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you

Re:Version 3 doesn't whip the llama's ass by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:57 · Score: 0

And what does this have to do with Justin Frankel contemplating quitting his job.

Well Gosh... by moehoward · 2003-06-04 05:11 · Score: 1

This comment is looking aweful "Insightful"... http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=66073&cid=6083 991

--
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus

Re:Well Gosh... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:18 · Score: 0

don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back
Re:Well Gosh... by moehoward · 2003-06-04 05:30 · Score: 1

Well, I didn't see anyone else around here throwing a party for me. Take it where you can get it.

What good is a discussion among a few hundred thousand people if you can't refer back to your historical intelligent comments in order to boost your credibility. With a name like Moe Howard, I'll take credibility where I can get it!

Don't even get me started about my predictions of SCO accidently suing themselves. When that happens, I fully expect to be modded to a 6.

--
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus

About time! by thdexter · 2003-06-04 05:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Really, I figured he would've quit right the second that AOLTW bought Nullsoft, as we've seen happen with countless other small good companies when bought by AOLTW or Microsoft. Winamp 2.92 (2.x branch is still maturing--though probably not after this) is super. Anyway, I'm sure that a talented developer such as himself can get a job most anywhere, or even just work like Linus does at some place that gives him money while he essentially independently develops kickass software.

--
I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.

Waste by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:13 · Score: 0

Yep this is a waste. Frankel's made a big
mistake. Where else can you write cool GPL
code and get paid for it? So what if AOL
yanked it. It's still GPL'ed.

Yeah, but... by kotj.mf · 2003-06-04 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative

The previous entry in his blog is even more interesting:

Winamp 2.92 will have CD ripping support, with support for OGG. OGG VBR at 0.0 sounds pretty decent, listenable, at like 60kbps. I'm pretty impressed with it.

'bout damn time. Hopefully his leaving won't change Nullsoft's plans to provide real OGG support. I still can't get it to pick up very low bitrate HTTP Vorbis streams via a straight .m3u ala XMMS.

--
hang brain.

Re:Yeah, but... by rudy_wayne · 2003-06-04 05:15 · Score: 1

WinAmp 2.92? I'm using WinAmp 3.0c -- am I in the future or something?
Re:Yeah, but... by ceejayoz · 2003-06-04 05:24 · Score: 1

Winamp 2.x is still being updated, despite 3.x being out. I personally dislike Winamp 3... so I'm glad they're still doing so.
Re:Yeah, but... by pebs · 2003-06-04 05:41 · Score: 5, Informative

WinAmp 2.92? I'm using WinAmp 3.0c -- am I in the future or something?

No, WinAmp 2.92 is newer than the current Winamp 3 release. Winamp 3 was more of an experiment that pretty much failed and they are scrapping it for the most part. They are taking some of the Winamp 3 features and adding them to 2. This new version is tentatively going to be called Winamp 5 (2 + 3), and to be released end of summer 2003. This is what I read on the message boards a while ago, their plans may have changed.

I'm kinda pissed that Winamp 3 for Linux pretty much disappeared. The alpha version, though really buggy, sounded much better than XMMS. Hopefully they will release a Linux player some time in the future, but I don't see it happening.

--
#!/
Re:Yeah, but... by stefanlasiewski · 2003-06-04 06:03 · Score: 1

Many people still run Winamp2.92.

Personally, 3.0 is very slow and memory intensive on my machine, and the new UI leaves alot to be desired.

I just downgraded from 3.0c to 2.92 today. I forgot how speedy 2.92 is.

--
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Re:Yeah, but... by Schnapple · 2003-06-04 07:39 · Score: 1

Winamp 3 was more of an experiment that pretty much failed
Really? I figured it was like a Netscape 4.7/6.0 situation where you continue to support the older for a while until you get the newer up to speed. Winamp 3 did just enough things wrong for me to not use it, plus at the time I was saddled with a CD-ROM drive at work that couldn't stream an MP3 for shit so I used Winamp 2's MP3 Decoder ability to cache a file to the hard drive before playing it. Winamp 3 didn't do this, as far as I could tell.
To some degree Winamp 2 is done (as far as MP3 is concerned), so I had no problem with the idea that Winamp 3 would try out some more experimental features. Hell if you're getting mad paid why not play around?

--
Schnapple
Re:Yeah, but... by RussGarrett · 2003-06-04 08:14 · Score: 1

I remember saying this about 3 months ago here on slashdot, but the Linux port really is nearly finished (about 170 files left to port out of 1200). Winamp3 build #499 will be released with linux support. Should be out in the next month or three.

Why doesn't he just... by vasqzr · 2003-06-04 05:13 · Score: 1

Can't he use a pen name or psuedonym?

WASTE, by Ian Cognito. (IanCognito@hotmail.com)

Big Duh. by suntse · 2003-06-04 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

And no, I don't mean "big duh" as to why he's leaving. I mean "big duh" to "gee, the company really DOES own my code, after all?"

Working as a programmer is very, very simple. You work for a company. That company *pays* you to make things. The company owns the things you make.

This isn't even a case of AOL saying it owns something he made and distributed on his spare time. He wrote code and put it up for distribution on a web site owned by his employer, using a brand owned by his employer.

Very simple rule: if you don't want your employer to control your code, don't write the code at work and distribute it via work. If your employer has a ridiculous clause saying they own everything you write in your spare time as well, then either don't write anything for yourself, or find a new job.

Re:Big Duh. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:59 · Score: 0

>If your employer has a ridiculous clause saying they own everything you write in your spare time as well, then either don't write anything for yourself, or find a new job.

This is illegal in Minnesota, which is kinda cool.
Re:Big Duh. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 12:24 · Score: 0

Very simple rule #2: If you don't want to allow your employees to post "official" releases under the GPL, don't give them write access to the official website. Filter it through someone who can do quality and liscense control.

/. Mishap again by MmmmJoel · 2003-06-04 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Justin has not resigned as /. has prematurely concluded. The NY Times article only says he plans to, which we could all come to the same conclusion by reading the blog. There is no additional information in the NY Times article and both parties have declined to comment. There is no indication that the NY Times had access to anything further than what we already knew.

Yes, it is probably inevitable, but this writeup is wrong as so many others have because some /. rogue reads something, draws a different conclusion, and the /. editors don't pick up on it.

Re:/. Mishap again by msblack · 2003-06-04 06:33 · Score: 1

According to the June 4 2003 edition of the Los Angeles Time:

Justin Frankel, 24, announced his intentions late Monday. He plans to resign after his latest piece of rebel code was pulled from the Internet.

--
signature pending slashdot approval

Justin is leaving?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:16 · Score: 0

I thought he launched his own solo career. What is NSYNC gonna do?

"everything i code is owned by the company" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:17 · Score: 0

Well, DUH.

Of COURSE everything that you code is owned by the company that employs you. You are using THEIR equipment, getting paid by THEM to produce a product for THEM on THEIR time. This might come as a surprise to the Slashdot high school crowd that has never come close to holding down a REAL job as a software developer, but it's the standard practice: your employer owns what you produce for THEM. This is not some AOL oddity. It's the way things are in the whole industry.

Sure it would be nice to get a nice fat paycheck to sit around and hack on our own code that we get to do whatever we want to with, whenever we want to however we want to. But this is the real world, not Fantasyland. Sounds like the esteemed Mr. Frankel has some growing up to do.

(Candid observation, not a flame)

Re:"everything i code is owned by the company" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:52 · Score: 0

Excellent contribution, for it is EXTREMELY truthful. Why is this guy complaining anyways? AOL's paychecks keep him off the street and he can still do his stuff on the side.

Justin reminds me of the typical Slashdot nerd who has to "fight the system" to make some sort of nerd cred stand. It is quite pathetic, immature, and not normal by any standards. All you do is outcast yourself from normal society (yes that means the opposite sex) leaving you sitting on your computer in your free time trying to make a stand for yourself by coding some "133t app" in a text based program for a buggy and unproductive open source operating system.

This guy just found out what the real world is, so he bitches. I do not feel sorry for the troll in anyway, for he got what he deserved for holding the cloak over his eyes for all this time.
Re:"everything i code is owned by the company" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:57 · Score: 0

The problem is that his employment contract, like many other companies' also includes programming that he does outside of his job as "code we own" which, understandably, a lot of people have a problem with.
Re:"everything i code is owned by the company" by Rary · 2003-06-04 06:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Generally, these contracts go much further than that. It is the case, for example, with my own contract that any code I write on my own time, using my own equipment, for my own use, based entirely on my own ideas, belongs to the company I work for.
If I have a spark of creativity one Saturday afternoon whilst drinking a beer on my deck, and it's such a good idea that I think I can quit my job and start a company based on the idea, I will have to get my employer's permission to use that idea, or else cut them in on the profits, because the idea, legally, belongs to them.
I'm pretty sure that applies to our friend Justin as well. Welcome to the world of Corporate Domination of our Very Existence.

--
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Re:"everything i code is owned by the company" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:16 · Score: 0

by coding some "133t app" in a text based program for a buggy and unproductive open source operating system

LOL. I work on multimillion-dollar research projects and you won't find a windows pc around here anywhere. Okay that's a lie - the secretary uses one. Apart from that we use Solaris and Linux because that's how real work gets done - not with an insecure, feature-bloated, multimedia-infested piece-of-shit OS like Windoze
Re:"everything i code is owned by the company" by i_am_nitrogen · 2003-06-04 06:45 · Score: 1

In some states, like California, even if your contract says that, it is a right you cannot waive. That section of the contract is void. If you do have a spark of creativity and want to quit, talk to a lawyer. She/he will probably assure you of your legal standing if your company decides to come after you. Usually the law says they can only claim your ideas if they're on company paid time, or directly related to the company's business at the time of the idea's conception. The law was even directly quoted in the last employment contract I signed.

If your state is different, please let me know, so I don't end up taking a job there. My ideas are mine. The ideas I intentionally come up with for the company are the company's. They can't own my thoughts, even if it came to my head while I was on a soda break or something, as long as I don't use their equipment to do anything about it.

--
A solution to the problem with music today
Re:"everything i code is owned by the company" by Rary · 2003-06-04 07:04 · Score: 1

That's good to hear. I live in Manitoba (ie. Canada), and I will ask a lawyer about that. I'd like to know if I can be held to that agreement. It's not that I expect to come up with a multi-billion-dollar idea or anything, but just on principle, I'd like to know that my ideas are actually my ideas.

--
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Re:"everything i code is owned by the company" by Arker · 2003-06-04 07:27 · Score: 1

Absolutely, do that, I am no expert on canadian law but from what I've heard your chances are probably good.

I would never sign such a contract, enforceable or not. I was asked to for one job, I struck out the offensive lines, initialed them and pointed out what I had done. They didn't have a problem with it. Another job they insisted, and I walked. Was a shame, it was a lot more money at a time I really needed the job, but I just couldn't do it. I'd rather work at mcdonalds, at least then my free time would still be my own...

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:"everything i code is owned by the company" by ShieldW0lf · 2003-06-04 11:09 · Score: 1

That's your own silly fault for signing such a contract.

I've been developing for money for years without signing a contract, and I'd take a sales job before I'd be bullied into signing one like the one you have.

If corporations couldn't find people like yourself to agree to these contracts, they would be powerless. Try looking a little closer to home if you want to bitch.

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Re:"everything i code is owned by the company" by Rary · 2003-06-05 06:31 · Score: 1

"That's your own silly fault for signing such a contract."
You're absolutely right.
It's unfortunate, but the simple fact is that at the time, I was a bit eager to take the job, and just didn't fully consider the ramifications of the contract I was signing -- if I even bothered to read it at all. I don't remember if I did.
But now time has passed, and I've come to fully realize what I've gotten myself into, and I realize that it really sucks. Unfortunately, I also like my job a lot, so I'm not willing to quit just to get out of the contract.
Believe me, I'll never sign a similar contract in the future.

--
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

Easy to do when you're rich by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Even if you assume his $86M was in options, the guy has still got to be worth $20M worst case.

So, there was no courage involved here as far as I can see.

Not much of a surprise... by Blic · 2003-06-04 05:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

It'd be curious to find out exactly what happened at Nullsoft. I mean, things seemed good for a while after the acquisition. Then it seems like they brought in a lot of new people and came out with the bloated beast that is WinAmp 3. How much involvement did Justin have in that fiasco? Then recently they brought out WinAmp 2.9X which sort of undercut WinAmp 3, but in a good way. Gnutella, and then WASTE which was such a perfect name for the program, hehe, as long as you've read Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49. Well, as long as Justin diversified and didn't have all his money tied up in AOL stock he's probably doing pretty well and shouldn't have to put up with the headaches if he doesn't want to.

Re:Not much of a surprise... by gid · 2003-06-04 05:49 · Score: 1

As am I. I'd definitely love to see a "Ask Justin 10 questions" article on slashdot. But ya, from what I hear Justin didn't really do much coding on winamp3, looks like he's still working on winamp classic aka winamp 2.9x.

I don't believe the man's capable of writing crappy bloated code. Look at waste, the exe is like 170k for all that it does and is blazingly fast. gnutella was the same way back in 2000. Now all gnutella clients are like a 2-3 meg download at least. It's just sad really. Of course his code might be a nightmare to maintain, but I can't really say anything about that. The WASTE code looked quite decent from what I've seen of it.
Re:Not much of a surprise... by Aliencow · 2003-06-04 06:56 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure Justin didn't work on Winamp 3 at all, which would explain why it sucks.. And on Winamp.com there's a lil' piece of text saying: ALMOST AS NEW AS WINAMP 2 Nullsoft Winamp3 Meaning probably nobody working for Nullsoft use Winamp 3 either..

Aimster? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:19 · Score: 0

Why would he have left over Aimster? He didn't have anything to do with it.

Re:Aimster? by cioxx · 2003-06-04 08:19 · Score: 1

Why would he have left over Aimster? He didn't have anything to do with it.

Indeed. Aimster was the failed idea of interconnecting AIM users to share crap with their buddies which was later renamed to Madster and quickly disappeared. Slashdot featured a story recently with the half naked jailbait who used to model for that software. Totally unrelated.

I think what the parent wanted to say was the AIMazing plugin. It was later pulled by AOL just like every other 'questionable' piece of software.
Re:Aimster? by autopr0n · 2003-06-04 10:49 · Score: 1

Slashdot featured a story recently with the half naked jailbait who used to model for that software. Totally unrelated.

Yeah, the daughter of the CEO. The claim was it was named after her (Amiee).

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

(OT) Slint by mekkab · 2003-06-04 05:19 · Score: 1

Its truly sad how far slint members have fallen. I guess once yr on top, the only place to go is down...

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.

Re:(OT) Slint by nosferatu-man · 2003-06-04 06:29 · Score: 1

No joke. Dave Pajo might be the most pathetic of the bunch.

'jfb

--
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Re:(OT) Slint by mekkab · 2003-06-04 06:58 · Score: 1

nice user name!

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.

JUSTIN, GO TO APPLE! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:20 · Score: 0, Interesting

I hear they are looking for a talented software engineer to spearhead a certain *ahem* music project.

Its a job. by Bluelive · 2003-06-04 05:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Your getting paid to write software, then they own that and can kill it if they like to do so. Its called a job and it sucks :)

Re:Its a job. by LynchMan · 2003-06-04 05:28 · Score: 2, Informative

So True. I have been on many a project that I have invested years of work, research, coding, blood, sweat, and tears on only to have it cancelled at some point. Yeah it sucks, but I still have a job. Do I go an get 'revenge' and leak the source. No.

If you were being paid, it belongs to the company and it is up to them what to do with it, not you. You can ask if they will open soure it, but it is up to them. I cannot imagine how one would keep their job if they did this - not to mentioned being attacked by the former company's legal squad.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for open source and GPL, but be honest about it, not vengeful.

as I submitted last night... by lost+sheep · 2003-06-04 05:22 · Score: 1, Funny

According to Yahoo! news the resignation was explicitly caused by AOL's treatment of WASTE.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lost Sheep to Shepard, you got your ears on?

P2P time, baby by drgroove · 2003-06-04 05:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Justin first releases Gnutella on his/AOL's site, then WASTE... now that he's no longer going to be working under AOL's thumb, I wonder what kind of P2P file swapping/sharing/pirating marvels he'll unleash upon the world? Maybe the RIAA should just go ahead and begin their lawsuit now...

linuxpunks account by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:29 · Score: 0

username: linuxpunks
password: linuxpunks

Real reason he is leaving... by Chetmurray · 2003-06-04 05:30 · Score: 1

To start yet another rocket company.

Isn't that what every geek does when he has money and free time?

Waste Reborn? by dolbywan_kenobi · 2003-06-04 05:30 · Score: 0, Redundant

Can it be inferred from his resignation that Waste can be used? Will Nullsoft poste Waste again? Stay tuned. Same Slash-time. Same Slash-channel.

Re:Waste Reborn? by snuffdiddy23 · 2003-06-04 05:36 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

i took that to mean "grab waste-source.tar.gz!!!! it's on!!!!" after reading this article.

Your code is your kids... by malakai · 2003-06-04 05:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

can't imagine that he was being paid that badly, either. Most people would kill to get bought out by AOL (or Microsoft for that matter), so what's wrong with taking the money and leaving it to the college students to write the piracy apps?

seriously. Money is great, I like money, it pays the rent and lets me do what i want half the year. But if all I did was "nothing" I would not be happy. Coding makes me happy. I'm sure coding a app like WASTE for Justin made him happy.

I feel there are at minimum two kind of coders out there right now. Type A joined the ranks because they want to make money. They could have easily done something else. Most were drawn into the big bright light of the Internet boom. They want to code from 9 to 5pm, and then be done. They expect to move into mangement at some point, and consider coding a menial task that can be pushed down the ranks.

Type X started coding because someting intially didn't do what they wanted it to do. This led to coding addiction, consuming massive amounts of dry reading material, working crazy hours, but always coming back to the keyboard like the crack head to his pipe. The irony is, in present economy, Type X makes the money, and the Type A is trying to learn another skill, move to project management, go back to school and get a degress in business...etc..etc.

When you can afford most of the things you want, why is WASTE so important?

It's his baby. You'll understand if you ever code a baby of your own.

Having said all this, I think I would have fought it out until they fired me. but not knowing his legal/contractual situation resigning may be his best bet.

-malakai

--
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage

Re:Your code is your kids... by kcm · 2003-06-04 06:04 · Score: 1

I feel there are at minimum two kind of coders out there right now. Type A joined the ranks because they want to make money. They could have easily done something else. Most were drawn into the big bright light of the Internet boom. They want to code from 9 to 5pm, and then be done. They expect to move into mangement at some point, and consider coding a menial task that can be pushed down the ranks.

I resent the idea you imply here that Type A is just in it for the money and that Type X is the ideal which represents the only "tech" type that you respect.
There is indeed a middle-ground which involves having other hobbies at home, raising a family, brewing beer, etc., that is indeed a profitable, enjoyable life.
There's certainly a thought that if you don't spend your free time chained to the computer as well as your on-the-clock hours, you're a failure and an impostor. That's what I see from those who haven't entered the real world yet, or have a jilted view of it. "Burning out" is the first thing I think of. I know plenty of people who let themselves be chained to Emacs since their employer KNOWS they'll do it voluntarily.
I think another idea I've read comes to mind: there's two types of technical people; Type C likes to solve problems, Type D likes to implement those solutions. Neither is better or worse, just different personality types. Some people work 9a-5p, some people work 5a-9p, and it's really just a matter of priorities.
Your Type A is a people person, and Type X is perhaps not. That's OK. The world needs both. :) Enjoy those around you instead of expecting everyone to wear a trenchcoat and have a badly-grown-in goatee.
Re:Your code is your kids... by malakai · 2003-06-04 06:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is indeed a middle-ground which involves having other hobbies at home, raising a family, brewing beer, etc., that is indeed a profitable, enjoyable life

I prefix my statment with: "I feel there are at a minimum two kind of coders out there right now".
And then choose variable A and variable X, leaving a lot of variables in between.

I simply feel it's an upside down bell curve. I'm not a statistician, I could be wrong, but this is my instinct from my experiences.

Yes i've met succesfull, happy coders that have a family and balance/manage time effectively, but none of them are lead coders on anything. And they are rare.

Burnout is a fact we all live with. It's one morning away. Its solvable though, taking minimum 2 months vacation each year helps. Or spending half the year working on light, simple, few days at the most projects.

In the end though, you are an addict or you are not. If you are not an addict, then you can draw distinctions between Type A and (Type B to Type W).

-malakai

--
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Re:Your code is your kids... by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 08:53 · Score: 1

Spoken by someone without a real baby. At the end of the day, the grownups have diapers to buy and mortgages to pay. That baby trumps your 'baby' any day of the week. Relish the freedom you have.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Your code is your kids... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 09:54 · Score: 0

Still bitter she didn't get abortion, eh?
Re:Your code is your kids... by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 10:23 · Score: 1

Funny joke. Read my journal, and you'll see that I am quite the doting father.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

no kidding by Artifex · 2003-06-04 05:33 · Score: 1

What exactly was he expecting? Even if he didn't have a plan, you'd think that after Gnutella was pulled he would know where he stood.

No kidding. Why'd he sign a contract saying all his work belongs to the company, if he wanted his work to be his own?

This guy probably made a ton off the buyout. Not only that, he's had other stuff pulled by his management. He gets no sympathy from me for not negotiating a better contract at the beginning or at any point thereafter, or not leaving and starting another company as soon as he could. He sounds like he's just whining about how he'll have to let go of the gravy train if he wants to keep doing stuff that isn't in the company's interests.

On the other hand, of course, if he didn't sign that type of contract, and he didn't use any company resources or time to work on his own projects, and put them up on his own website (so much for the argument that nullsoft.com is his only outlet, etc., his blog is on another website already) then I agree with him, and he should sue them if they try to force him to take his independent stuff down. Otherwise, it sounds like AOL's in the right, here, and he's just trying to make them look bad because he no longer wants to play by the rules he agreed to and is getting paid to follow.

--
Get off my launchpad!

Re:no kidding by arkanes · 2003-06-04 07:59 · Score: 1

The implication is, obviously, that he believed that he had alot more autonomy than he thought he did. Perhaps he was naive. Perhaps since the clauses in his contract were never brought up, he didn't think about them. Perhaps the clauses are in sufficently complex legalese that he didn't understand them. Perhaps lots of things - but the clear implication of his blog is that AOL is now exerting pressure that they didn't before and that he would rather leave than fight it.
Alot of people are talking about how it's not hard for him because he's got alot of money, or that he should expect it for selling out, blah blah blah, but regardless it's hard to walk away from a project you've spent so many years on.

Why did this take so long? by buckminster · 2003-06-04 05:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Frankel reportedly sold Nullsoft to AOL for $86 million. Seems like $86 million would go an awful long way towards starting a new company and doing whatever he damn well pleases. Why does Frankel need AOL? They certainly don't seem to be providing him any resources or support. Unless you count the "support" of their legal department.

Re:Why did this take so long? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Was that $86 million in Cash or AOL shares? If it was in cash, he's sitting pretty. If it was in AOL shares, he'll probally need a new job and fast.

Last thing we need, another unemployed programmer on the market. Quit in this economy?! The fool.
Re:Why did this take so long? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 09:21 · Score: 0

AOL shares, but it's still tens of millions left.
Re:Why did this take so long? by tom+e+udo · 2003-06-04 10:37 · Score: 1

Very good question. According to an SEC filing in 1999 (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/883780/000 0883780-99-000067-index.html) Frankel owned about 72% of the 722,000 shares Nullsoft sold to AOL. That was worth about $62 million in May 1999, the time of purchase. The filing says Frankel could have sold 90% of them any time after July 1999 and the other 10% any time after May 2000. Bottom line, by my math, the most he could have made from selling the shares is $107,000,000. If for some bizarre reason he decided to hold on to them until today, they'd be worth about $16,000,000. As for options, it's highly unlikely they'd be worth anything these days. AOL's stock was worth $119 a share when it bought Nullsoft. Now it's worth $15 a share. AOL could have priced the options down, but not that much without shareholders screaming. AOL could have offered other sweeteners to keep Frankel there (and likely did), but they'd pale against the tens of millions they paid Frankel right off the bat. Note that he says that he does have "respect" for AOL. Maybe he just believed he could take the rough edges off a big corporation. And get up their nose in the process.

What did he expect? by Jack+Comics · 2003-06-04 05:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Honestly, what did the guy expect? You only own your own work when you either do it and provide it on your own time and space, or if you own your own company. When you work for a company, and make something on company time and put it up using company resources, guess what? It's owned by the company. If they like it, it stays up. If they don't, it comes down, as was the case with WASTE. You have very little or no say in the matter once you finished creating it.

Mouthing off in his blog doesn't help matters either. Honestly, to me this just displays immaturity. Not a good thing, not a bad thing either. Just stating it as I see it. He's still young, he'll probably eventually mature and realize the world works on different terms than his, and not vice versa. It would be naive and immature otherwise, and naivety and immaturity is what Justin Frankel has displayed in spades the past few weeks. Welcome to the real world, it's called "growing up and accepting responsibility."

--
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde

Re:What did he expect? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:58 · Score: 0

i feel sorry for you
Re:What did he expect? by Trespass · 2003-06-04 07:22 · Score: 1

What a fucking copout.

I have yet to encounter a single use of 'welcome to the real world' that didn't actually mean something more like 'Yay! Life has disappointed me, and now it looks like it's disappointing you as well.'
Re:What did he expect? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 12:30 · Score: 0

Mouthing off in his blog doesn't help matters either. Honestly, to me this just displays immaturity. Not a good thing, not a bad thing either. Just stating it as I see it. He's still young, he'll probably eventually mature and realize the world works on different terms than his, and not vice versa. It would be naive and immature otherwise, and naivety and immaturity is what Justin Frankel has displayed in spades the past few weeks. Welcome to the real world, it's called "growing up and accepting responsibility."
Those who can, do; those who can't, bitch about those people on slashdot. Just because you can't stick up for something on a blog and have it be slashdot-worthy, don't shit on someone who is out there making programs that change things. Winamp and Gnutella are two VERY popular programs, and the AOL IM one was pretty good, and I think waste will end up being useful too. I don't see anything he said as immature. He didn't badmouth them, he said he didn't like the situation.
Re:What did he expect? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 14:06 · Score: 0

When maturity becomes acceptance of confinement, it's time to terminate your life.
Re:What did he expect? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 16:03 · Score: 0

"I have yet to encounter a single use of 'welcome to the real world' that didn't actually mean something more like 'Yay! Life has disappointed me, and now it looks like it's disappointing you as well.'"

Welcome to the real world. ;-)
Re:What did he expect? by Trespass · 2003-06-04 16:48 · Score: 1

Oh snap. :)

You silly silly boy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You actually expected slashbots to have basic reading comprehension skills?

How naive you are!

It must be nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:37 · Score: 0, Redundant

...to be able to up and quit a comfy job like that.

Most people don't have that luxury.

Justin Frankel by Trent+Polack · 2003-06-04 05:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, you gotta give the guy some credit. I went through Nullsoft's site the other day, and there are just a whole lot of cool little programs that Nullsoft put out. Among them all, Winamp and the Nullsoft installer system are probably my favorite.

I give it up to Justin for being a good guy, and giving a lot of cool little utilities to the programming community.

--
Trent Polack
www.polycat.net

Selective by krumms · 2003-06-04 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

I find it really strange that AOL should pull things like Gnutella and WASTE, considering that Nullsoft's primary product, WinAmp, is perhaps the most frequently used by Joe Internet for playing often illegal MP3s. Admittedly, people can use it for legal music too - but go on, most people don't give a fuck.

Likewise, Gnutella/WASTE could be used for good or evil (in the political sense). What makes them so different from WinAmp? Why is file sharing worse than playing music? Given that they already provide the criminal community (so to speak, I mean - call me a crim) an excellent tool for playing their often illegaly acquired music, as well as to the RIAA-friendly users out there - what makes file sharing so goddamn different?

Re:Selective by Dynedain · 2003-06-04 06:28 · Score: 1

I use it more for (legal) streaming audio and playing my cds than for anything else.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:Selective by realmolo · 2003-06-04 06:34 · Score: 1

Quiet, man! You're giving the RIAA new ideas for lawsuits!

But you're right. Both Winamp and Gnutella and WASTE are simply tools. That can be used for breaking laws, or not.

Should a tool that can be used for both evil and good be made illegal because of the "evil" parts? Who knows. That's where the lawyers come in. Well, first the lobbyists, then the congressman, THEN the lawyers.
Re:Selective by krumms · 2003-06-04 06:45 · Score: 1

That's fine, but you have to admit: you're not exactly in the majority.

I'm not trying to stereotype - rather, I'm trying to point out that one man's hacksaw is another man's harmonica.

While you're imagining the gruesome mess of a man trying to play "Lady in Blue" on a hacksaw, take a moment to think about what the logic behind AOL's repeated pulling of Nullsoft file sharing projects must be.
My guess would be fear of getting their asses sued, ala Napster. They have a lot of money to spend, which means they have a lot of money to lose.

Still, I look forward to the day when a big company gets behind file sharing. And by 'get behind', I don't mean for them to fuck it up the arse - in both senses of the phrase.
Re:Selective by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 13:08 · Score: 0

Put yourself in AOL's conglomorative shoes.

AOL bought Nullsoft so they could have a media player that competes with Windows Media Player.

Gnutella was pulled because they didn't want to be associated with file sharing.

WASTE was pulled not because it could be used as a file sharing app (it wouldn't be a good one anyway), but rather because it was work for hire to be used internally at AOL. They really don't care that much about the software itself so much as protecting their assets. To them, it's just as bad as if he had posted the Winamp source. They're not going to get legal on him, but they don't seem to mind that he's leaving. They got their media player, and now they don't need him.

(AC because I work for AOL, though not in any area related to this -- this is just what I've heard from a coworker in SF)

Link from HTML-impaired parent by p3d0 · 2003-06-04 05:42 · Score: 1

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=66073&cid=6083 991

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

you're free not to work for them. by Artifex · 2003-06-04 05:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've worked for companies before that have draconian contracts, "Anything you think is our property! Hah!"

If you take the contract, you shouldn't complain about the conditions later. I don't mean just you, Xerithane, personally, but anyone in general, and him especially. If he really agreed to this kind of contract, he's given AOL the high road in this matter.

Besides that, even if he worked on it completely independently, without Nullsoft resources, and without a contract giving all IP developed during employment to AOL, they're still free to refuse to let it sit on corporate servers, where it generates legal liability and bandwidth costs for them.

--
Get off my launchpad!

Re:you're free not to work for them. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:47 · Score: 0

No...
We're not here to choose whether we're gonna work for some company or not. The choice has been made. We are here to understand why did we make that choice.
Re:you're free not to work for them. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:55 · Score: 0

but we already know what you are going to do, dont we?
Re:you're free not to work for them. by MunchMunch · 2003-06-04 06:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

"If you take the contract, you shouldn't complain about the conditions later. I don't mean just you, Xerithane, personally, but anyone in general, and him especially. If he really agreed to this kind of contract, he's given AOL the high road in this matter."
Not to sound trite, but I think this is maybe oversimplified. Contracts are compromises, and compromises always leave room for either side to get an advantage over the other. As with many corporations, the power dynamic is such that a contractee may in effect be forced to agree to less than fair provisions because they have become 'standard,' or the job market is tough, or the company is exerting monopoly power, etc. That agreement doesn't make draconian clauses or terms any less draconian, and the "free-market, free choice" ideal shouldn't be an absolute argument when there are such exceptions.
That said, I think it looks like Frankel more or less agrees with you, and that's why he's resigning instead of filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Re:you're free not to work for them. by DarkZero · 2003-06-04 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you take the contract, you shouldn't complain about the conditions later.

He's not just complaining about it, he's doing something about it, which is leaving the company. Don't act like he's just bitching and moaning about a contract that he could easily get out of, but is still holding himself to for the sake of money and position. He doesn't like his situation, so he's taking action to resolve it. That is not just pathetic little piss ant whining. That's really following through and I think that's worthy of a little respect.
Re:you're free not to work for them. by kribor · 2003-06-04 06:50 · Score: 0, Flamebait

What load of crap! HE SOLD HIS COMPANY TO THE DEVIL!!! Now he's whining about censorship. Gimme a fjorking break! If he didn't want to lose his freedom of expression, he should have kept his company. I hear him complaining about not being able to "express" himself. BFD, there's a lot of us who don't get to "express" ourselves in code and get paid for it -- that's why we HACK! Justin's a big boy and he knew who he was getting in bed with and the price is right. How come we didn't hear him complaining when he was cashing those checks. Now that his stock options aint worth shyt, he bitchin about not being able to express himself. Grow up for crying out loud!

--
"You can never win or lose if you don't run the race"
Re:you're free not to work for them. by cc_pirate · 2003-06-04 08:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you take the contract, you shouldn't complain about the conditions later. I don't mean just you, Xerithane, personally, but anyone in general, and him especially. If he really agreed to this kind of contract, he's given AOL the high road in this matter.

That's crap. The company has all the power and you have none. If you say no, I don't agree to that clause, then the company (and all companies over a certain size have this clause) will say, "Sorry, we won't hire you."

If you want to work, you don't have a choice. They could say "We demand your firstborn.", and you'd have to sign cheerfully or you're screwed. Does that mean they can make it stick later in court? Almost certainly not... but never fool yourself into thinking you can negotiate as an individual with a multi-national corporation. They will just drop you and grab another disposable employee from the world pool.

--
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
Re:you're free not to work for them. by kribor · 2003-06-04 09:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

The point you're missing is that Justin Frankel SOLD Nullsoft to AOL. He didn't have to sell his company to AOL. He could have stayed independent. Of course, he probably would have gone under, so he made a deal with the devil to keep his little company alive. Frankel's situation is not the same as your regular employee. In this case he could have told AOL to F.O., but he didn't. He took the money and now he's bitching up because he doesn't like the rules of the game he chose to play.

I agree with you, an invididual vs. a corporation is almost always a losing proposition and "regular" employees get rufu'ed all the time. However, I have no pity for anyone who sells their company to AOL and then has a pity party on the Net because he's not being allowed to "express" himself. Screw him. There's a truckload of good programmers in this country who just want to be able to go to work, but can't because American companies would rather use cheap labor from the "world pool". And over here we have poor little Justin Frankel, sitting on a bunch of cash and stock options from selling Nullsoft, and you want ME to feel sorry for him? In a pig's eye. Tell the little maricon to grow up.

--
"You can never win or lose if you don't run the race"
Re:you're free not to work for them. by Anders · 2003-06-04 10:07 · Score: 1

They could say "We demand your firstborn.", and you'd have to sign cheerfully or you're screwed.
Well, you would also have to get screwed to provide the firstborn, so I guess you are screwed either way.
Re:you're free not to work for them. by daveball · 2003-06-04 21:12 · Score: 1

There is still a compromise and a choice

Either you and the company reach a joint compromise on the terms of your employment, or one of you compromises on your conditions, or you or the company decide the contract (and therefore the sale or job) are not worth the compromises.

We may not like the alternatives (i.e. being unemployed) and therefore may make compromises which we are not happy with - but there was still a choice there. Frankel wasn't forced to sell Nullsoft to AOL - it was a choice based on the offer put in front of him (including terms & conditions, and contracts for his employment) and the compromises he would have to make (i.e. not owning the company and whatever restrictions AOL put on him - like not owning his code)

If Frankel didn't realise what he was getting himself in to, he was naive at best and utterly stupid at worst - but i don't believe either to be the case. I suspect (with no evidence what so ever to back me up) that he knew exactly what he was doing, and thought he could cope. Now he's found that he's not enjoying the freedom he wants, and so he's planning to leave.

Simple, fair, and sensible.

Hopefully he will be able to bring more great GPL'd code to the community once he has left AOL.
Re:you're free not to work for them. by danila · 2003-06-06 03:15 · Score: 1

Another important thing is that in addition to written contracts there are unwritten ones, the expectations of both parties. If you have a contract that says the company owns all your ideas, but the company in the past gave a lot of freedom to employees, always compensated them generously for their creations and sometimes even let the employees retain the creations that lied outside of the company's main business, then you have the right to be pissed off, when the company suddenly makes a 180 degree turn.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

WASTE... by methangel · 2003-06-04 05:42 · Score: 1

could have prevented his weblog from being slashdotted.

Slashdot: People magazine for the geek world by swb · 2003-06-04 05:43 · Score: 1

Who cares?

Why is it important to do a story about some rockstar coder who is annoyed at working for some megabuck$ corporation? This is interesting *how*?

I'm sure that MOST slashdotters are annoyed at the megabucks corporation they work for. I know I am from time to time.

Re:Slashdot: People magazine for the geek world by mabu · 2003-06-04 06:11 · Score: 1

Why is it that people seem to feel money/success and artistic/creative integrity are mutually exclusive concepts?

Nonsense by jgerman · 2003-06-04 05:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Therefore, it couldn't be produced under the GPL unless AOL said so. Most employment contracts specifically state that any thing or idea created, conceived, developed, etc. while employeed becomes property of the employeer (in this case, AOL/Time Warner)

This is nonsense last time it was said and it's nonsense this time. Who is AOL? Who has to approve? Who fucking cares. An employee working for AOL releases code under the GPL (not talking about things done on his own time) it's under the gpl, he is a representative of the company.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.

Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:03 · Score: 0

Uh, sure, yeah, you keep believing that. Good luck on your future employment opportunities with that attitude too.
Re:Nonsense by jgerman · 2003-06-04 06:06 · Score: 1

Don't have to believe it. That is the case. The company is made up of individuals. Those individuals actions constitute the actions of the company, case closed. If one of those employees makes a mistake that hurts the company financially they have little to no recourse outstide of the company. They can fire him or penalize him in any legally allowable way.

I don't have to worry about my future employment, I've stayed employed because I don't make mistakes like that. It has nothing to do with attitude.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Nonsense by CatOne · 2003-06-04 06:22 · Score: 1

He should read his employment contract. I really doubt this is the case. What's to take someone from going to work for Microsoft, downloading the sources to XP to their local machine, and sending out the bundle with the headers changed to say it's GPL'd? How is that really different from what you've mentioned? Typical employment clauses state that everything you develop (or create) while in the employ of the company is the property of the company. Thus, he has no authority to say "well I'm releasing this (which is the company's property" under the GPL. Just because he says it's GPL doesn't mean it is... it's not his property to release.
Re:Nonsense by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2003-06-04 08:14 · Score: 1

An employee working for AOL releases code under the GPL (not talking about things done on his own time) it's under the gpl, he is a representative of the company.

That's obvious bullshit. If it were so, a rogue employee could release the whole of Windows XP under the GPL. The fact is that, to release a company's code under the GPL, you must first have that authority.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Nonsense by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 09:03 · Score: 1

I've got another post that explains it a bit more in depth, but not just any joe blow could do this. It requires a reasonable assumption that the person doing the release can enter into such an agreement. Ballmer could do this at Microsoft. Joe Intern can't. Given that Justin was CEO (?) of Nullsoft, it could be argued that he had apparant authority to enter into such an agreement.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

For this, I think we can safely blame... by hndrcks · 2003-06-04 05:45 · Score: 1

SCO!

...well, today, anyway.

--
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.

Re:For this, I think we can safely blame... by Fefe · 2003-06-04 06:48 · Score: 1

You are new here, right?

We always blame Microsoft here.

Have a nice day.
Re:For this, I think we can safely blame... by donglekey · 2003-06-04 10:16 · Score: 1

Can't it be both? They are obviously both in it with AOL.

--

This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org

You fewkin' tool by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:50 · Score: 0

Keep spinnin, corporate cog.

Non-compete clauses by glrotate · 2003-06-04 05:50 · Score: 2, Informative

IANALBMSOI (I am not a lawyer but my signifigant other is) and in many states non-competes aren't worth the paper their printed on. One has a right to earn a living that cannot be contractualy waived.

Re:Non-compete clauses by Jaysyn · 2003-06-04 06:18 · Score: 1

It depends if you are in a right-to-work state or not. Non-Competes in California & Florida are pretty much a joke...

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Non-compete clauses by klocwerk · 2003-06-04 07:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

non-compete and right-to-work has nothing to do with this. I live in PA which is a right to work state.
All that really means is that your current or former company can't prevent you from taking another job regardless of what you've signed, IF your other option would be not working.

This guy released code which was created using Nullsoft resources (brainpower, cpu power, company time) and released it under the name of the company. They have every right to rescind that release. The only real issue here is the GPL question, if it's released under GPL can it be pulled back?

He has a job he's choosing to leave, anything he signed in terms of a non-compete is very valid and in place, as he has a perfectly good job he's choosing to leave.

(ianal, but I have just gone through an ordeal with a non-compete and learned a lot.)

--

"You worthless post!"
-Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147
Re:Non-compete clauses by GreyPoopon · 2003-06-04 07:35 · Score: 1

All that really means is that your current or former company can't prevent you from taking another job regardless of what you've signed, IF your other option would be not working.
So, does that mean that if I'm laid off or fired, any non-compete clause I've signed would be void?

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Non-compete clauses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

I think the point is that he's leaving of his own free will - he could stay and have a job, he's choosing not to do so. If it's hard for him to find a job that doesn't violate the non-compete agreement he signed with AOL, well, he should hafve thought about that before he left the job, right?

In any case, things get distorted because he's a principal for the company (NullSoft, AOL, whatever).

Judges tend to interpret non-competes for us poor peons pretty liberally, becuase we generally don't have any choice in the matter: signing one is usually a condition of employment, often presented after the start of employment, and companies generally do not provide compensation in any way, shape or form for signing the agreement. Principals, OTOH, often get pretty generous packages that include "X months pay" or even "X years pay" upon termination. In those cases, they are obviously getting compensated for the time that they might have to be out of a job because of a non-compete, so judges tend to be more strict in the interpretation of the agreement.

(Disclaimer: IANAL, but what I've said above is what real, live, honest-to-gosh lawyers have told me about how non-compete agreements are generally viewed and dealt with by courts in the state of PA).
Re:Non-compete clauses by klocwerk · 2003-06-04 15:20 · Score: 1

only in a right-to-work state, and even then there's provisos, addendums... a few quid pro quos...

--

"You worthless post!"
-Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147

no brains, that's why. by Erris · 2003-06-04 05:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

``Any license that you may believe you acquired with the software is void, revoked and terminated.''

As you noticed, that's really funny. Waste was released GPL, no? They only hope it does not take off without comercial backing. Soon they shall learn how unimportant they really are. Music, software and all other forms of innovation have no need for big dumb middle men like TIME. So long, greedy grabbers, you sucked while you could.

--
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.

Re:no brains, that's why. by zptdooda · 2003-06-04 06:36 · Score: 1

So the license is real but the termination imaginary. No wonder what they said sounded off. Thanks for straightening it out.

"Soon they shall learn how unimportant they really are".

That's great! It has an ominous air, like it should have been in Star Wars.

--
Esteem isn't a zero sum game

yeah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:50 · Score: 0

...as if Apple would hire the brainchild of the user interface nightmare that is winamp...

Re: yeah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:32 · Score: 0

Have you *seen* Quicktime player?
Re: yeah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:33 · Score: 0

Has there ever been a media player of any kind that had a good UI?

Every one I've seen has sucked royally.
Re: yeah, sure by archen · 2003-06-04 09:45 · Score: 1

I'm probably going to go down in flames for saying this, but Windows Media Player 6.4 is probably the best media player period (for movies, not music).

The interface was simple compact, easy to understand - and for the most part lightweight. It's one of the things which I will wholeheartedly say Microsoft made a very good product, and I have yet to see a media player match it. It didn't have much for configurability, but for the most part that wasn't really neccesary - it just worked pretty well. The only drawbacks being that you couldn't STOP it from trying to download from MS.

Of course then came media player 7 and everything went to shit, but that's what MS seems to be good at.
Re: yeah, sure by Cuthalion · 2003-06-04 10:11 · Score: 1

There is a skin for WMP9 that looks like WMP6.4. It's called "classic" (NOT "windows classic"). If you also go to the configuration screen and deselecting "display anchor window when in skin mode" from the Player tab, it's pretty similar, UI-wise. But you have to go to some ugly mode for playlist support.

--
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!

Nice way to start unemployment by blowdart · 2003-06-04 05:50 · Score: 1

When you have to use your all of savings to pay the bandwidth cost for the slashdotting of your personal web site ...

Poor Little Justin by smack.addict · 2003-06-04 05:50 · Score: 0, Troll

A one hit wonder makes millions and then has temper tantrums because the people who gave him the millions won't let him do things that harm them.

Wah! Wah! Wah!

What an unprofessional little twit.

Re:Poor Little Justin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:41 · Score: 0

Envy is a terrible thing.
Re:Poor Little Justin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 11:26 · Score: 0

Ten bucks says you posted this from work.

I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by tkrotchko · 2003-06-04 05:50 · Score: 1

You're right that I don't know any internal details, but as a downloader of the program, I shouldn't have to.

Nullsoft put software on their website. Nullsoft put a GPL notice along with the source code. From my viewpoint, I do have a legitimate license. I suspect this could only be resolved by a judge really.

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you

Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by AlbanySux · 2003-06-04 05:55 · Score: 1

I remember this being said before but, if some low-level microserf was to post the src to windows on the web with a GPL license attached and then you downloaded it. They did a no-no by osting it and you keeping it is wrong too, ignorace of the law does not make you exempt from it. It's the same way with stolen property, you can buy a car from some one, pay them the money and even get a title, a fake one, and when the cops come knocking on your door they don't let you keep the car because you paid for it. It's still STOLEN no matter how you got it.
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:59 · Score: 0

I remember this being said before

It had no relevance then, and it has no relevance now, so why are you wasting bits by posting it?

if some low-level microserf

Read the post you replied to. Just is acorporate officer of Nullsoft, not some "low-level microserf"

Your analogy might be worth something if you'd changed it to "If Bill Gates was to post the src to windows..."

Until you do, STFU.
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:08 · Score: 0

Justin Finkel is a low-level serf at Nullsoft?
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by Moridineas · 2003-06-04 06:14 · Score: 1

You're right that I don't know any internal details, but as a downloader of the program, I shouldn't have to.

Nullsoft put software on their website. Nullsoft put a GPL notice along with the source code. From my viewpoint, I do have a legitimate license. I suspect this could only be resolved by a judge really.

That's, quite frankly, a ridiculous point of view. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you buy goods you know are stolen, you are an accessory to crime. Likewise, you can't just claim that because you didn't KNOW that WASTE was wrongfully released it's yours and no one has the right to take it from you.

Furthermore, if Nullsoft had no right to release that code on their own, the GPL is invalid. If I went to work for Microsoft, got all their windows source code, and released it (on some microsft www page for my department let's say) under the GPL copyright Moridineas, would it be legally released? Absolutely not.

Opinion?
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by tkrotchko · 2003-06-04 06:31 · Score: 1

"That's, quite frankly, a ridiculous point of view."

No, its not. If I go to IBM's website and I download the Eclipse IDE, its GPL. I use it, and two months later, IBM says "Oh, just kidding, its not GPL".

Have I stolen something? I don't think so. I have a legitimate, perpetual right to use it. The GPL doesn't allow you to revoke it. It's not a criminal matter, since IBM gave it to me to begin with.

"Furthermore, if Nullsoft had no right to release that code on their own,"

As an end user, how could I possibly know this? I downloaded a GPL's program from Nullsoft's site. You're saying its not a reasonable assumption that this site represents Nullsoft? Its not a warez site we're talking about, its the official corporate site of Nullsoft. What assumption, as an end user, should I make about something I download from Nullsoft?

And since the person who put it on the website was a corporate officer of Nullsoft, that would seem to be an internal matter for AOL and Nullsoft, but the genie is out of the bottle.

By this reasoning, if I strike a deal with Microsoft, two months later, Microsoft could simply say "The person who signed the contract didn't have authority to do it, sorry". You could void any contract this way by simply claiming the person who signed it didn't have any authority to do it.

Seems like its AOL's problem, not the end user's.

But what do I know? I'm not a lawyer.

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by Fnkmaster · 2003-06-04 07:08 · Score: 1

Copyright law distinguishes between a "user" and a "redistributor". You can feel free to use WASTE legally, I don't think they can revoke your right to use it, but _if_ the person who posted the source wasn't acting as a legal agent of the copyright holder, then the fact that they stuck the GPL on there means nothing. Only the copyright holder (or authorized agents) can do that. Whether Justin/Nullsoft was authorized at the time to make releases or whether they have contracts with AOL that say "all your code are belong to us" is another issue. My guess is AOL has enough lawyers to sufficiently CYA on their $86M acquisition of Nullsoft. But that's just a guess - without knowing the contracts in place, and really unless and until a judge decided on a case in a court relevant to the situation, there would probably be no clarity on whether WASTE was legally under the GPL or not.

In short, it's IP situation is muddied enough now that the code is tainted for good. Easier and cheaper to reverse engineer and rewrite than to hassle with AOL about it.
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by arkanes · 2003-06-04 07:53 · Score: 1

You're actually wrong - as long as the person receiving the product has reason to believe that the posting was in good faith (like being on the official company website, posted by a major (CEO?) office of the company, and with the companies name in the copyright notice, then it's yours. You'd be suprised at how hard it is to get stolen goods back if they've been legitmatly re-sold (hard to have it be legit unless it's passed through a fair amount of hands, though...)
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by Moridineas · 2003-06-04 08:46 · Score: 1

Like I said, I think a really good example is buying stolen goods. If you know the goods are stolen--you can be arrested. And regardless the goods are not yours, so you are supposed to return them. AOL is clearly taking the stance that Frankel had no right to release code that they claim ownership over. You can't put a license on something you don't own.
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by GeorgieBoy · 2003-06-04 08:47 · Score: 1

Two things: the Eclipse IDE is CPL, not GPL. It's a more BSD-like license.

Secondly, the original author of GPL'd software DOES have the right to relicense their software under a non-GPL license - new versions can be put under a proprietary license, but the old versions (that were released under GPL) would still need to be available.
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 09:11 · Score: 1

You sir, are working under ignorance of the law. rather than repeat myself

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 09:15 · Score: 1

The situation is not quite as muddy as portrayed. rather than repeat myself

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 10:04 · Score: 0

but as a downloader of the program, I shouldn't have to.

On the contrary, you should be acutely aware of legal agreements that you make.
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 10:11 · Score: 0

By this reasoning, if I strike a deal with Microsoft, two months later, Microsoft could simply say "The person who signed the contract didn't have authority to do it, sorry". You could void any contract this way by simply claiming the person who signed it didn't have any authority to do it.

Um, no. There's this thing called the legal system that tends to prevent people from making rediculous retractions like this. If XYZ company does this, you can take them to court, where they've got to prove it.

There are exceptions for minors, who can IIRC, void any contract they sign.
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by Fnkmaster · 2003-06-04 10:32 · Score: 1

Well, I differ with your interpretation. I am aware of the concept of apparent authority (I have run a business before), but apparent authority has limitations and standards associated with it. I think it's quite possible that if AOL sued somebody who used the WASTE source code and it went to trial, AOL might lose on this. On the other hand there are standards like "reasonable reliance" - at this point everybody who has downloaded and checked out WASTE probably has become aware that AOL did not consider the release authorized. A third party that knows the agent lacks actual authority cannot rely on the appearance of authority to seal a contract - in other words, it would certainly be foolhardy to rely on the GPL to protect your redistribution rights when the company declared that they considered the release unauthorized so rapidly.

I think this case is also less clear, because there's the question of whether the source code's appearance for a few hours on the website is sufficient to create contractually binding apparent authority. As other people have mentioned, clearly if a rogue employee sticks some source code up on a website with an Open Source license (the Microsoft Windows source code example people keep throwing around), I doubt any court would rule that its temporary presence on a website created apparent authority.

If anybody has more info on limitations on apparent authority and any lawyers have any thoughts on whether it is likely to apply here, I'm curious to hear it.
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by SuiteSisterMary · 2003-06-04 10:36 · Score: 1

No, its not. If I go to IBM's website and I download the Eclipse IDE, its GPL. I use it, and two months later, IBM says "Oh, just kidding, its not GPL".

You make the assumption there that IBM are the people who GPL'd it. And in that case, you'd be correct.

In the Nullsoft case, though, it seems that Nullsoft did NOT have the right to place the code under the GPL.

If you walk into a car dealership, and the janitor says 'here, have a free car,' and you drive it away, it's theft. You likely wouldn't get charged, if you honestly thought the janitor was authorized to make the give-away, but you wouldn't automatically get to keep the car, either.

You made the correct assumption; it was a legitimate release. Now, however, you have had that assumption corrected. It is NOT a legal release. Hence, to continue to treat it as such, you are willfully breaking laws.

By this reasoning, if I strike a deal with Microsoft, two months later, Microsoft could simply say "The person who signed the contract didn't have authority to do it, sorry". You could void any contract this way by simply claiming the person who signed it didn't have any authority to do it.

Yes, they could. This is why you get things witnessed, and notarized, and do your due dilligence, and make sure that the person signing DOES have authority to sign.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by Moridineas · 2003-06-04 10:40 · Score: 1

Ok, thanks for the links, but what is the point? You've given a pertinent terms but how does this affect the issue at hand? The central question is did Nullsoft ever have the right to release the software they did under the gpl?

I'm more than willing to change my mind if there is some evidence that they DID have this right, but I have yet to see any. Are you saying that Frenkel's authority was only apparent and that he overstepped his authority by releasing the code without approval? If you are, that's been the exact point that I've been arguing, so I don't see how we differ :)
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 10:41 · Score: 1

I expanded on this somewhere else, and made some similar points as you WRT limitations of apparent authority. I even came to a similar conclusion (code no good), but for different reasons (I think:) The protestations after the fact by AOL do not matter, and don't change how the code was released a couple of weeks ago. They don't negate the situation. What does screw things up is that AOL/Null have pulled Justin's code in the past (gnutella?) It is clear that even being the CEO, he doesn't have the authority to release his company's code.

So, I would argue that AOL pulling gnutella and Aimster (or whatever it was called) are more important WRT the current case. Actually, my final analysis is that some judge will toss all these things up in the air, and see which weighs the most. If it came to court, which I doubt.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 11:06 · Score: 1

I didn't intend to say that you were right or wrong. Just that having the definitions of the terms may facilitate the discussion. But what I did mean to say is that if the downloader *thought* and had *good reason to believe* that Justin was in the right, then the company (either AOL or Nullsoft) may have to stand behind that. (If I get any requests, I may be able to equivocate a little more, but it'll probably be tricky. Maybe.)

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by Fnkmaster · 2003-06-04 11:28 · Score: 1

Actually, my final analysis is that some judge will toss all these things up in the air, and see which weighs the most. If it came to court, which I doubt.

That was my assessment too. :) And the other part of my assessment was that it's almost certainly cheaper and less effort to rewrite the damned thing than to litigate with AOL (just get Justin to rewrite it when he's outta there, or if he can't for contractual reasons, then via clean room re-engineering). From my past experience, once you've written something like this once, you can generally recreate the whole thing from scratch in about 1/8th the time it took you the first time around.
Re:I'm looking at it from a "user's" standpoint by drinkypoo · 2003-06-04 17:28 · Score: 1

I read this comment, I'm rereading it now. It's not like some microserf posted the windows source, it's like bill gates posted the windows source. Actually, it's more like god posted the human genome, because frankel actually wrote code, whereas billyg would have to be posting marketing strategies. Or perhaps, publishing a book. Frankel has apparent authority as others have pointed out. Only a court can decide now, even if his contract specifically says that all his releases must be cleared with AOL via AOL mail.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Google Cache of 1014.org by Azathoth!EDC · 2003-06-04 05:51 · Score: 1

So far no one has posted this: Google Cache of 1014.org

It amazes me by darthtuttle · 2003-06-04 05:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm always amazed when people get in to business deals, the deal turns out badly, they are forced to move on (for personal convictions, or through corporate moves) and they are amazed and suprised!

Frankel sold out to AOL. He made a LOT of money doing it, but he should (and maybe did) understand the price of that money is freedom. AOL controls Winamp, and as long as he's an employee they control much of his actions and ability to publish.

Were I him I would have not published anything new until the contract requirements to stay with the company were over, then I'd leave and start a new company with all the money. I'm sure his share of 86 million, after taxes could start a new company to do new things.

If you value your life based on what you have done, then investors and selling out is often a bad idea. You are selling control over the products you have created. If on the other hand you value your life based on what your able to do going forward, take the 86 million, walk away from one software product and do something new. Sure, it's a PITA, but 86 million funds a lot of new things. If nothing else you could probably manage a half million a year from investment (even in this market) and live off that while writing new software and paying a buddy or two to write with you. There's bound to be a new idea in there somewhere that will start another company that sells for twice as much, which gives you more allowance, and so on.

It's all personal values.

--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect

Re:It amazes me by pmz · 2003-06-04 06:32 · Score: 1

...the price of that money is freedom.

True. However, one person's freedom is another person's hell.

If I could only become a software-contractor-whore...but, then, I would have to do positions that I find immoral...sigh.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:It amazes me by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 10:37 · Score: 0

I'm always amazed when people get in to business deals, the deal turns out badly, they are forced to move on (for personal convictions, or through corporate moves) and they are amazed and suprised!

Me, I'm always amazed and surprised when people are amazed when people get into business deals which turn out badly and and they are amazed and surprised. It happens all the time that people are amazed and surprised by how their business deals turn out, and that you would be amazed by that both amazes and surprises me.
Re:It amazes me by adolf · 2003-06-04 16:18 · Score: 1

I assume the gentleman is in his 20s, somewhere.

I assume that the gentleman recieved 86 mil, personally, in the Nullsoft sale.

I assume the gentleman is still sitting on the majority of 86 mil.

I assume that men in the United States are still expected to live an average of ~76 years.

Given these assumptions, it would be easy to declare that, with $86 mil, he'd be doing justfine by banking it (even with the terrible interest rates these days) and giving himself respectable salary, and maybe employ a couple of other good people out-of-pocket.

I fail to realize how eighty-six million dollars would not sustain him, and any reasonable endeavor, through death, while also providing a non-shabby inheritance for his grandchildren.

.5mil/year from the stock market?

*shrug*

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:It amazes me by danila · 2003-06-06 03:11 · Score: 1

When you sell your stuff, you don't usually complain, you just take the money and give the stuff away. But when you sell the company, including yourself, you usually have some expectations for the future. You and your new owners need to get along, otherwise what's the point of the deal?

If you buy a software company for nearly $100 mln and then piss off the programmers to the point of resigning, what is your benefit? The application that you are unlikely to be able to sell (just look at Real and how low they need to sink in order to sell their player)?

No, the only important assets that you bough are the people. However, they are the only thing that you don't have direct control over. Behave badly and that would mean you WASTEd your millions.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Justin, if you're reading this... by crashnbur · 2003-06-04 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's been a good run and, for what it's worth, Nullsoft has generated some of the niftiest and most useful programs I have ever used... Winamp, Sex, then SafeSex, and several of your utilities. I learned quite a bit by examining the code of some of Nullsoft's creations. Thanks for all you've done for the Internet community, and best of luck on your future endeavors. I hope to see your name applied to a new development project in the not-too-distant future...

Re:Justin, if you're reading this... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 07:54 · Score: 0

My personal favorite offering of his was the ASS I/O library-- it was a simple file librarian that basically stored multiple files into one file with a .ASS extension (sort of like when you use PKZIP except use the 'store' compression method). The utility to ADD files to a .ASS file was PACKASS.EXE.

Quite a humerous guy, that Justin. =)
Re:Justin, if you're reading this... by asr_man · 2003-06-04 09:12 · Score: 1

So the program to encrypt it with a password is...wait for it...

PACKASSASKPASS.exe

Say that 10 times fast.
Re:Justin, if you're reading this... by ragingmime · 2003-06-04 09:21 · Score: 1

Don't forget Plug In Mini Packager (PIMP), which was later renamed to NSIS. I have a lot of respect for the culture that Nullsoft's maintained and the software that it's written in spite of the AOL ownership. So long, Justin, and thanks for all the Winamp.

--
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.

Huh, dont follow you amigo by Arbogast_II · 2003-06-04 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am a long time gardener. I hardly have a large income.

Money has little to do with happiness. Unhappy people are unhappy with or without material possessions in most cases.

The man has chosen a wise path, placing his own life ahead of maximizing financial gain at any cost. I dont know the man, but I would bet he is in a much better position in life now. There is a shortage of people following their own life path in this world, and an oversupply of sheep mindlessly plodding along.

As to saying it is easier because he is wealthy, I disagree. Because he is wealthy, it is EASIER for him to get trapped in a world where only money matters, making the choice more difficult.

--

HenryJamesFeltus.com

Re:Huh, dont follow you amigo by maxpublic · 2003-06-04 07:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Money has little to do with happiness.

The lack of money, however, does. The lack of money can lead to living in piss-poor conditions, or being homeless, or not having enough food to eat. The lack of money, in many places in the world, can lead to death.

When one is simply concerned with scraping enough together to feed one's family, the question of 'happiness' is irrelevant. These questions come *after* the basics have been taken care of.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Huh, dont follow you amigo by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 09:03 · Score: 0

Do you really think that a programmer of Justin's statue will lack the basic necessities like food, shelter, and clothing anytime soon?

Your mention of "basic needs" is not relevant here ... he could probably contract for 15 hours per week and afford his rent, food, and health insurance, and still have money left over for vacations and cocktails.

I agree with Arbogast - it sounds like Justin left the filthy-rich-greedy-fat-cat-path for the i-can-meet-my-basic-needs-standing-on-my-head path, while taking back posession of his soul.
Re:Huh, dont follow you amigo by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 15:58 · Score: 0

homeless

Please, say "houseless". It makes the focus clearer. People need housing, not homes. A sufficiently large garbage can could be a home.

He just doesn't like AOL by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 05:55 · Score: 0

For instance, back when AOL had just bought Nullsoft, they requested to have Winamp install the AOL icon with it. they reluctantly did it, but added in the changelog, "added AOL evilness" or at least something simular. I'd take a look back at it, but it was removed (big suprise there).

4 years at AOL by cejones · 2003-06-04 05:55 · Score: 1

My bet is that he had to stay at AOL for four years to become "vested" so he could buy out his stock options... just a guess

For those that don't have NYTimes accounts.... by Jontu_Kontar · 2003-06-04 05:58 · Score: 2, Informative

You can get a similiar story at CNET.

Poor guy. by i_am_pi · 2003-06-04 05:59 · Score: 1

His weblog tells me he resigned because he's a small web server.

*ahem*

Ah well. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sad to say, but I think he deserved it to some extent.

It's hard enough to push open source development within a company of any kind when this kind of thing happens. You spend months convincing your boss that the free software community is totally altruistic and then BLAM, this happens and they get scared again. Wonderful.

I had almost persuaded my company to impliment a very large scale GPL application deployment, affecting 10,000 or more desktops - a MAJOR undertaking. All the hoops had been jumped (yes, we will modify GPL code, no we won't distribute our modifications or development code unless it gets cleared through IT, yes we will play nice with the community) and some little shit _steals_ code from his employer and puts it out under the GPL. This is not the bad bit - the bad bit is that the community, insead of helping AOL by respecting their wishes instead just said 'too late, we have it now, sod off' even though it was never intended to be released under the GPL by the legal owner.

Wow, not that surprising then that the edict comes down from on high to freeze the project pending review (this means forever, basically, unless I kill myself with effort once more). Another potential convert lost, who might have followed one GPL app deep into the open source world.

You would scream murder if a company violates the GPL (as would I) - why shouldn't companies extract vengance if the community breaks the same rules, no matter how good they think their reasons are? The end just does not justify the means.

Re:Ah well. by I_redwolf · 2003-06-04 07:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ahhh stop with this... The community didn't break any rules. The program was just removed because they didn't want the program to have even been made, or maybe it's because in reality Frankel released it under an unacceptable license not verified by said company or whatever. I mean, to speculate on such things are pointless and for a company to base a decision about Open-Source/GPL on such a situation is rather foolish. If Frankel did release the program under an unacceptable license then that is his bag; it is his fault just like if you decided to release some of you companies software on their website under the GPL. Jesus Christ people, What ever happened to a person commiting a crime and being held responsible for it?? Do we not adhere to that system anymore?? Remember?? That's how it works now??

Then you're saying "he deserved it"; I'm not aware that he was fired or terminated, all it says is that he's unhappy with the current situation, it sucks and he wants out. If he was fired or terminated then I'm sure instead of saying I want to leave because xyz.. He'd say something more like.. I got canned, fuck it I'm happy now. Lastly, AOL should of made sure that this situation didn't happen, that is why they have lawyers, that is why Mozilla is under a different license; etc etc ad nauseam. Not only that but Frankel has released stuff before causing the same exact type of hysteria and the only thing that happened was that the protocol was reverse engineered and is being used widely in/as p2p applications.

The only thing we know for sure is that Frankel and AOL have never seen eye to eye on what he programs and releases and when he does release it's subject to be unauthorized for whatever reason.

If your company has decided to put things on hold based on this, here a hint. They weren't planning on going through with it anyway. You don't tip toe into a situation affecting 10,000 or more desktops and then decide that because a programmer released a program under Opensource/GPL (which he has done before) that was removed; the project needs to be put on hold pending review. Especially since closed/open-source it doesn't matter. Someone can do the samething right this second at your place of work.

Again, be clear.. The community didn't break any rules. Justin Frankel doesn't speak for the community and no one knows the details of the situation. It's also highly unlikely they'll ever be made public. So how your company and yourself come to your own conclusions is beyond the scope and comprehension of the actual situation, extremely premature and bordering childish.

Man... by RdsArts · 2003-06-04 06:03 · Score: 1

What a WASTE....

Re:Man... by Kredal · 2003-06-04 07:01 · Score: 1

Sorry, your joke is too late, considering this is posted in the "what-a-waste dept."

--
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my

Some people would rather... by CrazyDuke · 2003-06-04 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

...die than live in bondage.

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry

Oh, but this is the modern day United States; we're all supposed to be corporate butt boys and prostitute our lives as wage slaves. All hail the almighty dollar! ...for nothing is more important!

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.

Re:Some people would rather... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:12 · Score: 2, Funny

...die than live in bondage.

Are you kidding me? I'd kill to live in bondage. It would save me that $100 bucks I shell out every week for an hour with the chick in the black leather outfit with the whip...
Re:Some people would rather... by digitalsushi · 2003-06-04 08:16 · Score: 1

Do you have to go through the big room with the day star to get to her?

--
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue

OT: F' Winamp. QCD all the way by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:05 · Score: 1, Informative

http://www.quinnware.com

does he own waste? by porkface · 2003-06-04 06:06 · Score: 1

It is my uneducated understanding that if he pushes the issue and AOL refuses to do anything with Waste or makes one slip-up in their comments regarding its future, Justin could go to court and show it's not really AOL property because he did it apparently without their blessing, and AOL is showing no intent to use it.

hey leave me^H^Hit alone... by vierja · 2003-06-04 06:07 · Score: 1

hey leave me^H^Hit alone, i'm^H^Ht's just a little webserver on a dsl line. weblog slashdotted...

Money Money Money by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:09 · Score: 0

So this guy sells himself to AOL for $, and now is crying that AOL wants to control the company he bought. How noble.

All I wanna know is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:11 · Score: 0

When the heck will Justin finally stick it to the man--once again--and quit the Über-nasty Monopoly that is AOL/Time Wanker, and release some Über-schway code that rocks my casbah once again, further putting my hopes in the free/open programmers of the world that we will overcome you damn dirty conglomerates out there...

Oh wait... he did. My bad.

P.s. AOL/Time Wanker can bite me, and I'll never sign-up for their lame front-end for the Internet, or their craptacular cable service (RoadRunner)--because you just KNOW those are gonna merge someday... Just like AIM and ICQ are setting up to do... Just like CompuServe and Prodigy. Won't that be a little mutant? An AOL/CompuServe/Prodigy/ICQ/AIM/Winamp/RoadRunner little bastard child running about... Kinda seems like AOL 28-f**king-billion will still suck harder than a hooker who works the old-folks home district...

Continuing development of WASTE by gartogg · 2003-06-04 06:13 · Score: 1

Since he's leaving, is he allowed to touch code developed while he worked for AOL?

It also seems strange that I haven't seen anybody discuss the question of how to continue development of the possibly GPL'ed program, especially in terms of the fact that hypothetically it would make an amazing encrypted filesharing engine, once someone can get it to scale.

--
I'm a concientious .sig objector.

Re:Continuing development of WASTE by berniecase · 2003-06-04 06:38 · Score: 1

Since he's leaving, is he allowed to touch code developed while he worked for AOL?

Probably not, unless he buys the programs/code back from AOLTW. AOLTW owns it all now. If they were really evil, they might even own code that he created for personal use while he was in their employ. I wouldn't be too surprised if that were the case.
Re:Continuing development of WASTE by iseth · 2003-06-04 06:59 · Score: 1

Does AOL have to keep Justin's name in the copyright information?
Re:Continuing development of WASTE by berniecase · 2003-06-04 07:15 · Score: 1

Probably depends on the contract that Nullsoft agreed to when purchased. I would think not, but I'm not sure about that.

Assignment of copyright and the GPL by tjwhaynes · 2003-06-04 06:14 · Score: 1

Don't have to believe it. That is the case. The company is made up of individuals. Those individuals actions constitute the actions of the company, case closed. If one of those employees makes a mistake that hurts the company financially they have little to no recourse outstide of the company. They can fire him or penalize him in any legally allowable way.

If you work for almost any software development company, the stuff you write is (C)The Company and not (C)Joe Programmer. As a result, you can't slap the GPL on stuff you write because you are NOT the copyright holder. Ergo, you can't release GPL'd software you write on company time UNLESS the company authorises you to.

Feel silly now?

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

--
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.

Re:Assignment of copyright and the GPL by GodOfNothing · 2003-06-04 06:51 · Score: 1

Toby,

While I agree with what you're saying, I think that the claim jgerman is actually making is not that the employee owned his own code (a different argument entirely) but that every employee has the right to do act as if he were an *agent* of the company, in which case (under UK law, and I suspect US law to be similar) a contract made in good faith is binding whether the rest of the company likes it or not.

Of course this is not true as, while employees may have the power to act as an agent, employee!=agent. It would be madness if every employee had the power to act unilaterally for a company - what would happen when the new employee fresh from school joined as a junior dogsbody/teaboy/cleaner and began GPL'ing your software? How could that possibly be considered a contractually binding action by the company? (unless of course that was his job/in his contract...)

With respect to Justins statement it seems that he believed himself to have a great deal more power over his work and Nullsoft until recently when AOL decided to redefine that power and claim he never had those powers in the first place and had been flaunting them for four years without AOL noticing. Of course this is utter bull, and has helped precipitate his resignation.
IANAL (and jgerman you are being silly)
Re:Assignment of copyright and the GPL by jgerman · 2003-06-04 07:04 · Score: 1

No because at no point was I arguing that the programmer owned the code. So your entire statement has absolutely no bearing on the thread. Feel silly now?

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Assignment of copyright and the GPL by Stormalong · 2003-06-04 07:06 · Score: 1

But Joe Programmer works for The Company. Therefore, acting as a representative of The Company, he can quite legally release the stuff under GPL.

Now, whether or not he was supposed to do that or not is an internal matter at The Company. If he was not supposed to, Joe will probably find himself looking for a new job really fast. But I believe that doesn't give the company the ability to revoke the GPL release. Its released, its under GPL, sorry about your luck. Next time hire employees that are more trustworthy.
Re:Assignment of copyright and the GPL by GodOfNothing · 2003-06-04 07:11 · Score: 1

See above, and ignore the bit after IANAL. It was needless and poorly thought out.
Re:Assignment of copyright and the GPL by nettdata · 2003-06-04 07:13 · Score: 1

employee!=agent

Exactly.

Can any employee of the Company turn around and sell the software for $2 to someone? Can he sell the entire company?

Probably not.

He can only be considered an "Agent" if he's doing something that is consistant with his job description and his role in the company.

Now, if it was reasonable to expect him to be able to unilaterally assign these rights as part of his job function, then yes, it would be enforceable. If not, then no.

If he was the Pres/CEO, and it was HIS company, then he could probably act as it's agent in those situations... if he's a mail-room clerk, then probably not.

--

$0.02 (CDN)
Re:Assignment of copyright and the GPL by Hard_Code · 2003-06-04 07:15 · Score: 1

The hair you guys are splitting here is whether what somebody creates is automatically copyrighted by the company, or whether it is copyrighted to the person through some sort of "natural law", yet stipulated by contract to be immediately converted to the company. In the former case the developer might not have authorization to GPL it and therefore be fired, in the latter case, he might be able to GPL it and because of that be immediately fired.

We don't know enough to make assumptions about the contract Frankel signed.

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Re:Assignment of copyright and the GPL by egomaniac · 2003-06-04 07:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

But Joe Programmer works for The Company. Therefore, acting as a representative of The Company, he can quite legally release the stuff under GPL.

Bullshit. The fact that someone works for a company does not ipso facto give them the right to negotiate contracts. For instance, if Justin had publicly said "Hey, AOL's monthly charges are now all $0.00! Have fun, everybody!" he would be instantly fired and his statements would be unenforceable, as he does not have the right to make such decisions. Likewise, his job does not entail the right to stipulate licenses (GPL in this case) on behalf of the company, so any such statements he makes are utterly meaningless. This is the only sane way for a company to operate -- imagine if the janitors from two companies negotiated a major deal, and the companies were both then bound to obey it simply because two of their employees made an agreement with one another.

If a used car salesman gave away fifty sports cars for free before his boss noticed what he was doing, do you think that the recipients would ever get their free cars? Of course not, as the employee is acting completely outside of his bounds and any such contracts he negotiates are unenforceable.

--
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
Re:Assignment of copyright and the GPL by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 09:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Justin was/is the CEO of the company (Nullsoft) that released the software. It can be as legal as any other contract, thanks to the doctrine of 'apparent authority'. If the other party (someone dl'ing WASTE) has good reason to believe the other person (Justin) has authority to speak for the company (as CEO of Nullsoft, he has at least the appearance of authority) then the contract can be upheld.

The janitor couldn't release this software. Well, he could, but it's unlikely that a reasonable person would think that a janitor could speak for a company. Not so the CEO. Similarly, Justin is not CEO at AOL, so could not change pricing there. However, whoever replaced Steve Case could do something like that.

The car salesman probably couldn't give away fifty free cars. The owner could. Further, if there was a sales manager, he could probably give away the cars.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Assignment of copyright and the GPL by Daniel+Phillips · 2003-06-04 09:46 · Score: 1

If you work for almost any software development company, the stuff you write is (C)The Company and not (C)Joe Programmer.

It depends what your contract says. I suspect Justin's isn't the standard, evil boilerplate.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?

Weblog?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:14 · Score: 0

Anybody per chance mirror that weblog before it imploded?

Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by Fefe · 2003-06-04 06:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Has has a perfectly fine other web page, and he certainly has enough money to buy a few hundred other domains and servers.

I don't get his complaining about freedom and oppression and stuff. Why can't he just publish his software on some other web page, maybe even under a pseudonym or something.

Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by Jellybob · 2003-06-04 06:22 · Score: 2, Informative

He may well have a contract that says anything he develops is the property of AOL - meaning that he wouldn't be allowed to publish it anywhere without their consent.
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by Fefe · 2003-06-04 06:46 · Score: 1

Is that kind of slave labor contract even legal in the US? That would be quite shameful. How can they claim any rights to software he develops at home in his spare time?!
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by John_Booty · 2003-06-04 06:56 · Score: 1

If you sign the contract, you're pretty much bound to it. I was faced with an employment contract like this at my current job. Thankfully I read the fine print, and thankfully my employer was flexible to edit those clauses out before I signed it. I certainly wouldn't have signed it otherwise.

But hey, if I'd signed a contract holding me to those sorts of terms, why shouldn't my employer be able to claim rights to everything I've done? I think it would be my fault for signing the contract, really....

--

OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by Jellybob · 2003-06-04 07:10 · Score: 1

That's not slave labour in the slightest... look at the copyright statements in the code.

They say Nullsoft.
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by maxpublic · 2003-06-04 07:11 · Score: 1

I think it would be my fault for signing the contract, really....

So Rumpelstiltskin was really just screwed out of an honest contract, eh? I mean, the bitch agreed to hand over her first-born, then cheated to get out of her keeping her word....

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by John_Booty · 2003-06-04 07:43 · Score: 1

I forget the specifics of the fable, but if she agreed to the contract out of her own free will and wasn't coerced in any way... then yes, it's the bitch's fault. :P

--

OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by Bob+Uhl · 2003-06-04 08:28 · Score: 1

It's not slave labour--it's a contract, and in fact for most people a good one. Most folks don't produce anything outside of work, and the extra $1,000 or $5,000 a year their employers pay just in case they have an idea is worth it to them. It's the folks who do have ideas that want to have their cakes and eat them too: they want to be free to own the idea and get paid by their employers to come up with them.
The fundamental idea of a contract (of any free transaction, really) is that both parties are better off than they were before. You're better off with the $1,000; your company is better off with the idea. If either of you didn't wish to be a party, he could have refused to sign.
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by autopr0n · 2003-06-04 10:10 · Score: 1

If you sign the contract, you're pretty much bound to it.

Actualy, that's not true. If the law says you have certan rights, then a signed contract can't take them away. You can't sell yourself into slavery, for example.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by Hobbex · 2003-06-04 12:04 · Score: 1

Well, she was certainly coerced in the sense that she had no choice for survival other accepting Rumplestiltskin's terms. But he wasn't the one who put her in that situation, he offered her a way out of what otherwise was certain death.

Just like when every employer requires you to sign away all intellectual property. You may sign freely, but in truth you have little choice.

The simple truth is that there are plenty of contracts that are not supported by law. I cannot sign a contract that binds me to slavery, and I cannot sign a contract permitting somebody to kill me. Is it so strange to say that contracts signing away peoples thoughts should not be valid?
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 16:36 · Score: 0

Oh, I totally agree! Actually, slavery has never, ever actually even existed in the US. Even so-called black slaves before the US civil war had the OPTION to work or not for their so-called "owners". Of course, if they chose not to work, there were consequences. But aren't there always consequences to decisions? Sure there are! The point is, they all had a choice. Now, we can't all always have the choices we want, right? I know I sure don't always get to pick my own options. And if they didn't like being "owned", well then they should have just worked real hard at second jobs and bought themselves. Money talks, that's how capitalism works! And plantations were just businesses trying to compete in tough labor markets. The whole US economy depends businesses being able to compete freely. So remember, there is not, never has been, and never will be slavery in the US. There is always choice!

I hope everyone sees the sarcasm in the preceeding rant.
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by drinkypoo · 2003-06-04 17:14 · Score: 1

Actually, in some places, it really isn't legal, and it can be contested basically anywhere. What you do on your own time really is your property. Also in some states even the noncompete clause where you agree not to work for any of that company's competitors (which can be interpreted to mean basically anything) is totally crippled and in most cases utterly ignored. California is one of 'em, and where most of the jobs traditionally have been, because people with money want to live here and can afford it. Of course, I have no money, so I'm stuck in a little armpit town in the central valley.
But I digress. He probably signed a contract that said it, so they have a possible claim. If he develops software on his own time and without company equipment then he can likely win a suit and then win damages and legal costs, though he would have to have some backing from someone with a lot of money if he does not have a lot of money himself, and a really good lawyer which is where this money is going to go. It does depend a lot on the state...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by daveball · 2003-06-04 21:24 · Score: 1

Indeed - unfortunately "thought" is not a right we are guaranteed to be able to keep.
Re:Why did he have to release it at nullsoft.com? by John_Booty · 2003-06-04 23:44 · Score: 1

Just like when every employer requires you to sign away all intellectual property. You may sign freely, but in truth you have little choice.

Now, that's just not true. In my experience, and from what I've gathered from my general reading on the topic... 1) Many/most employers are willing to negotiate the terms of the contract, including intellectual property clauses. 2) While clauses like this are all too common, they're the far from "the rule" in my experience.

In my case... the clauses offered by my current employer basically said all IP created by me during the term of my employment were the property of my company. I asked it to be amended to simply say that all IP created by me during company working hours on company property/equipment was the property of the company. Also I had a clause inserted specifically stating that my website, Bootyproject.org, would remain my property.

They had no problem with that at all. Not all employers would be that flexible I'm sure, but to say a job-hunter has "little choice" is just not realistic.

--

OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.

New company? by Alizarin+Erythrosin · 2003-06-04 06:18 · Score: 1

If he leaves, will be create a new company called 0x0soft?

for those who don't get it, in C the macro NULL is defined as 0x0 (0 in hexidecimal notation) or something like that... either way, 0x0 is null on pcs... on macs I think that's a legitimate address

--
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't

Re:New company? by Cave+Dweller · 2003-06-04 08:07 · Score: 1

Erm, no.

#define NULL (void*)0
Re:New company? by Sludge · 2003-06-04 12:08 · Score: 1

0 is 0 in a lot of notations.
Re:New company? by Alizarin+Erythrosin · 2003-06-05 07:20 · Score: 1

I was referring to how in C you have to put "0x" in front of a hexidecimal number

--
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't

NSIS and other cool stuff by hutman · 2003-06-04 06:19 · Score: 1

Would this mean that AOL could potentially pull the same stunt with other excellent Nullsoft items. I assume that anything released under the GPL before the buyout is good to go. Can they stop anyone from using code that was released post buyout?

Another thought on this by SolemnDragon · 2003-06-04 06:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Money is like health: Having it doesn't mean that you're definitely happy, but not having much of it greatly increases your odds of being unhappy.

There are poor people who are happy and rich who are unhappy. there are also starving people who are too busy looking for something to eat to discuss the question, and rich people who really do enjoy their lives and give back to the community. IANAM (i am not a millionaire) far far far FAR from it in fact, but i think that a person should choose their own path in such a way that it preferably doesn't leave them starving and gives them enough that they can share. And to do this by ethical means in the American culture is sometimes difficult, yes, but a good thing to aim for.

Will leaving make his life better? Probably. Will it make him poorer? In the short run, probably. In the long run, probably not- if he has the skills, there will be a way to apply them, and hopefully in an environment which better suits his temperament. Mind you, this is coming from someone who works a day job unrelated to any of her interests (but not against my ethics) in order to stay solvent. For the moment, it's where i'm at. I couldn't imagine doing it for the rest of my life, however.

May we all have jobs that we can live for, enough to live on and to share, and the good sense to appreciate both??

--
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.

Re:Another thought on this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:03 · Score: 0

Beautifully said.
Re:Another thought on this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 13:16 · Score: 0

I suggest we all learn and use this acronym at slashdot. I think it could save us a lot of time that could be better spent making up other acronyms.
GWNCUYIYJMUABYTIOAEIT4DTHMNPIWDYUAAYEUTTWTOA (Guess what, nobody can understand you if you just make up acronyms, but you typed it out and explained it. thanks for doing that. however, my next point is, why did you use an acronym? You ended up typing the whole thing out anyway.)
Re:Another thought on this by actor_au · 2003-06-04 13:52 · Score: 2, Funny

IANAM (i am not a millionaire) far far far FAR from it in fact

I on the other hand, am a millionaire, I invested in AOL about three years ago, no doubt by now my shares have increased tenfold, just like they told me they would.

--
Read Errant Story.
Re:Another thought on this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-05 05:10 · Score: 0

Mind you, this is coming from someone who works a day job unrelated to any of her interests (but not against my ethics) in order to stay solvent.

MacDonalds cashier?

- Rico

Free no-subscription news... recursively by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:19 · Score: 0

According to Google News there's a Slashdot article about this very thing, and no subscription is required!

geeks... by KingRamsis · 2003-06-04 06:24 · Score: 1

never mix well with suits..

Cardinal rule of humor. by Cloud+9 · 2003-06-04 06:26 · Score: 1

If you need to explain the joke, it's not funny. HAND.

--
Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)

NYTimes gets it wrong...again... by mrex · 2003-06-04 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

From the NYT article:

Nullsoft's latest creation was a file-sharing program that allowed users to set up secure networks of no more than 50 people.

WASTE was pretty obviously not a filesharing program. It was a small group collaboration program, that allowed encrypted chat and transfers. Its use as a file-sharing mechanism in the way that your average NYTimes reader would interpret that term is extremely limited to non existent. It's a "file sharing program" in the same way that AOL Instant Messenger is. Does the NYT refer to AIM that way?

Then again, maybe I'm the silly one for expecting accuracy, nay, competence, in reporting in the major media outlets.

Re:NYTimes gets it wrong...again... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:33 · Score: 0

Mod that up, it is 100% accurate.
Re:NYTimes gets it wrong...again... by Annamite · 2003-06-04 10:34 · Score: 1

The article is clearly marked:

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 2:58 p.m. ET

Per argeement, the NYTimes uses that article on their paper/website. They have nothing to do with the reporting or fact-checking.

Yes, but..... by Ride-My-Rocket · 2003-06-04 06:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Open-source hacking may be better for the community, but it don't pay the bills.

Selling one's company for $86 million certainly does, though. I think he's stayed on this long to continue working on the project he loved...... I don't think it's about the money any more. So does exist the possibility he'll go OSS, or perhaps form another company, cherry-pick his former co-workers at NullSoft and finance the operation out of his pocket. I bet he's waiting to see what the terms of his noncompete mean, and whether they're something he can get around.

Re:Yes, but..... by caino59 · 2003-06-04 06:57 · Score: 1

exactly, i can't wait to see what this man can do without any boundaries...

wonder if has anything up his sleeve AOL doesn't control and/or know about.
Re:Yes, but..... by afidel · 2003-06-04 09:24 · Score: 1

I hope he takes Geiss with him, that man is as much a genious with visuals as Carmack is with FPS engines. I personally use mildrop to perform as a VJ at a bunch of underground parties and everyone is always blown away by it.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

choices and consequences by mlong · 2003-06-04 06:37 · Score: 1

I have little sympathy for him...he should have known what would happen when he sold out to AOL. If he wanted to retain control he shouldn't have sold. Hopefully now he'll start a new company where he can have complete control over released software.

--
//m

Thanks for the Foobar link! by Radical+Moderate · 2003-06-04 06:38 · Score: 1

Nice little player...just what I've been looking for.

--
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.

Maybe AOL is switching to MS' products by Hank+Powers · 2003-06-04 06:38 · Score: 1

Hmm! I smell a little conspiracy theory here. Just like recently with Mozilla, AOL is now dropping Winamp for Windows Media Player. Microsoft is going to pay AOL several million bucks for abandoning Winamp... And mr. Frankel is leaving the sinking ship, Nullsoft.

--
hapo

So are copies of Winamp, ICQ, etc. by HanzoSan · 2003-06-04 06:38 · Score: 1

Because these peices of software were released not directly by AOL, but by Nullsoft and Mirabilis on their own websites.

So if Winamp is Legal, how do you figure Waste isnt?

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:So are copies of Winamp, ICQ, etc. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:48 · Score: 0

Because AOL authorized the release of Winamp, moron.

Too bad. by HanzoSan · 2003-06-04 06:45 · Score: 1

Once its released to a website, if even ONE person downloads it, the license takes effect.

If what you say is true, Nullsoft, AOL, etc could say "oops, we released Winamp 3.0 by mistake, please destroy your copies, your license is invalid."

Or they can say "Oops, Mirabilis released ICQ without or permission, please destroy your copy of ICQ, we know 100 million of you have downloaded it but we changed our minds"

If people could just recall software like this, then the licenses become totally pointless.

You cannot recall software, if one person downloads it from the nullsoft site and has the logs to prove it along with the website documented, theres no way nullsoft can win in court, one person downloads it and gets that license and the license takes effect.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:Too bad. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:51 · Score: 0

Total bullshit, idiot. If an employee without authorization publishes employer-owned software, it doesn't matter what license the employee attached to it.

What a retard.
Re:Too bad. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 06:51 · Score: 0

The license can't take effect if the person who put it there didn't own the rights to the software.

By your logic, I could slap a copy of WinXP on a website, together with a copy of the GPL, and it someone downloaded it, it's GPL'd.

You can only release code you own the rights to. All evidence so far suggests that Justin in fact did NOT own the rights to the code, and thus, said code is not GPL'd.

You're not doing the free software movement any service by arguing this point. It's cut and dried. The only possible argument would be wether Justin had the right to put the code up in the first place. Given AOL's a mega-corp with many laywers, I'd bet against that.
Re:Too bad. by HanzoSan · 2003-06-04 06:57 · Score: 1

Annonymous yes you could, if it were Microsofts website you put it on.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Re:Too bad. by eht · 2003-06-04 07:45 · Score: 1

WASTE was up for one day(until the lawyers could find out), Winamp and ICQ have been out for years, I think there's a bit of difference in the two
Re:Too bad. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:26 · Score: 0

Shut up, Yoda.
Re:Too bad. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 10:22 · Score: 0

Yeah. You certainly are the legal expert around here too, you stupid prick.
Re:Too bad. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 10:24 · Score: 0

Annonymous yes you could, if it were Microsofts website you put it on.

Sorry, but where you put it is completely irrelevant. If someone broke into my house, dumped all my stuff on my front lawn and put up a sign that says "Free Stuff", it isn't somehow 'more legal' because it's my front lawn. It also isn't 'more legal' if someone from my own house does it.

The important point in all of this is that the source code of WASTE is tainted. It may or may not be legally GPL, and therefore should not be touched by anyone writing any code remotely similar in function.

ANY GPL-ED PROJECT USING CODE FROM "WASTE" RISKS THE WRATH OF AOL'S LAWYERS. Just write your own code and GPL it. Don't even touch WASTE.
Re:Too bad. by dr.badass · 2003-06-04 10:46 · Score: 1

Once its released to a website, if even ONE person downloads it, the license takes effect.

You're completely missing the issue. The issue is whether whomever is responsible for it's release (presumably Justin Frankel) held the copyright, and thus had the right to do so. This comes down to contractual agreements between Justin and AOL.

It appears that AOL holds the copyright.

It could be that it is considered work-for-hire,(a previous article mentioned that WASTE had been used internally for sharing files between AOL's San Francisco and Dulles offices) a possibility I haven't heard voiced yet. This might explain why WASTE has been treated somewhat differently from Gnutella.

--
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Re:Too bad. by HanzoSan · 2003-06-04 10:47 · Score: 1

Not in the eyes of the law.
It doesnt matter if it were up for 1 day, 1 hour, 1 year, once its up its still up and you cannot take it back!

This would be like car companies sueing people for using something they recalled.

Yes you can recall something but people have to volunteer to give or destroy the software, and usually you have to replace it. You cannot however say they cannot use something which YOU gave to them.

Face it, AOL gave us waste, so what it was only day, no one hacked their website, it was legit, there was a whole press release and website designed explaining it.

I'm sorry but without proof that someone hacked into their servers and put it up there, theres nothing they can do now.

No judge is going to care that they pulled down the site after a day, millions of people downloaded the software within that 24 hours believing AOL released it, they got it from Nullsofts website, the same site which is giving Winamp.

So if you were a lawyer and your best defense is "Well it was only one day" You are going to lose.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Re:Too bad. by HanzoSan · 2003-06-04 11:19 · Score: 1

AC, if that guy lived in your house and gives away your stuff you have no way to prove to a court that the people buying it knew you werent selling it. Combine this with history of your brother selling stuff in your house before and you never saying anything.

Take the case with Winamp, Nullsoft released Winamp, it wasnt released on the AOL website, so suddenly its illegal?

"ANY GPL-ED PROJECT USING CODE FROM "WASTE" RISKS THE WRATH OF AOL'S LAWYERS. Just write your own code and GPL it. Don't even touch WASTE."

Wrong, saying this is like saying, "Well, because AOL didnt release it, signed with the signature of the current CEO of AOL, its not authorized."

You ignore the fact that Justin worked for AOL, you also ignore the fact he was a CEO, you finally ignore the fact that he has released many software products under the Nullsoft name before, such as Winamp and others on the Nullsoft site, hey if hes not authorized to release any software, well then why the hell is there all those software links on his site? Shouldnt they be at AOL.com? I mean Nullsoft cannot own any copyrights or release any software!

Now, if you come back and say "Well Nullsoft can release authorized software like Winamp, Shoutcast etc" How the hell are we the consumers supposed to know which software is authorized and which isnt?

How can AOL prove to us Waste was not Authorized? Even if they can prove that it wasnt, its already too late, millions of people have downloaded it, started using it, looked the the source code, edited and compiled the code, etc.

What can AOL's lawyers do? Sue people for using something AOL released? Mistake or not, AOL released Waste. IF it was not authorized, Justin should be the one in trouble, not the people he influenced, lied to or tricked into downloading it.

You can say the source code is tainted but guess what, Lets assume this, lets assume tomorrow Redhat pops up and says "WAIT WAIT WAIT, the sourcecode for Redhat is not GPLed, it was all released by accident, some rogue in our company released Redhat 9.0 code which we didnt authorize and attached A GPL."

Do you think it will matter after people already saw the code, edited the code and so on?

This is as ridiculous as what SCO is trying to do, you cannot release code under the GPL as open source by ACCIDENT and then change your mind. You just cant, if you can well every company who ever used or released anything under the GPL can turn around right now and say they released it be accident, and suddenly sue everyone.

What stops Redhat, IBM, and all these other Linux companies, like Lindows, etc from saying "Well we released our code by ACCIDENT, we arent REALLY GPL even though you see the code and GPL license in that zip file, we didnt really write it, a hacker broke into our company and wrote that GPL msg along with posting the code they stole from us, oh and the hacker happens to be a CEO"

It will NEVER work.

Its a scare tactic, just like what the RIAA uses to keep people from sharing files, AOL knows they couldnt hire enough lawyers to stop Gnutella, so how can they suddenly hire a million lawyers to sue a million people.

The only way this will be an issue with lawyers is if a company pops up and uses Waste code within the next month or so.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Re:Too bad. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 15:00 · Score: 0

You're an idiot. Fucko.
Re:Too bad. by firewood · 2003-06-04 17:56 · Score: 1

Once its released to a website, if even ONE person downloads it, the license takes effect.

If what you say is true, Nullsoft, AOL, etc could say "oops, we released Winamp 3.0 by mistake, please destroy your copies, your license is invalid."
This is in fact a real risk if you do not, in fact, have a signed contract from the copyright owner(s) or other representative with proper legal standing. A text file on a website may or may not be a binding contract, whether or not anyone downloads it. The GPL is a license grant from the copyright holder. If someone sues you for distributing code, you may have to prove that the legal copyright holder actually agreed to granting you a license under the GPL. Whether or not a Google cache of a text file is legally admissible evidence of an enforceable contract has not been tested in court.
Telling the nice officer that honest looking person gave you this stolen car, and here are the photocopies of some (forged) papers to prove it, isn't likely to keep you from spending a night in the slammer... (but IANAL)

Re:Why did this take so long? This is why! by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-06-04 06:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why does Frankel need AOL?

You are clearly not familiar with most buyouts. The buyout is contingent on an identified number of key people remaining with the company, usually for set periods of time. Buyouts can be reduced, or cancelled entirely, if enough key people refuse to sign-on to the new company. (Btw, being a key person in a buyout is a great place to be.)

Furthermore, top people are often contracted to remain for a set number of years. These are usually the people who are getting the bulk of the buyout money to start with. No doubt in my mind that Justin had to remain with Nullsoft for a long period of time...

...unless something like this comes up, that is.

I'm sure Justin isn't wanting for money these days. Freedom yes, now that he can afford it. I just wonder about the scope of his non-compete agreement and his lack of ability (these are also parts of buyouts) to hire away anyone else he already likes working with to any new company he forms for some long set period of time.

Buyouts are seldom, if ever, you get the money and can then go and do as you wish with it.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Wait AOL is going to recall Winamp! by HanzoSan · 2003-06-04 06:48 · Score: 1

Nullsoft Released Winamp, how do we KNOW for a fact its legal to use ? I mean what if AOL decides to recall it! We all could go to jail!

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

I predict Justin Frankel was prompted to say... by defile · 2003-06-04 06:50 · Score: 1

...this after reading that article yesterday about Jawed Karim's plans for a vicinity-based instant messenger program (Trepia?).

Jawed Karim and Justin Frankel were both part of nullsoft, in whatever capacity that was.

He probably read about someone he knew doing something cool and wanted out. Maybe they're planning to do something together?

he should have looked at his NDA harder before... by louissypher · 2003-06-04 06:51 · Score: 1

He should have looked at his NDA harder before signing it if he was so worried about AOL having control over his "personal" projects. I put personal in quotes because if he really wanted to have free control over his personal projects he should have coded them on his own time, and posted them to personal, non-work public machines. Even if he is under a NDA or contract that his personal software projects are controlled by AOL, he certainly could have used a fake name...I mean, its "the expression" right?

No one can really blame AOL for pulling some of the projects that this guy has released...lets see, the last one was replacing banner ads in AOL IM to display winamp visializations, and this one was a p2p app. Both were basicly a big FUCK YOU to AOL.

Personally, I'm suprised he had the chance to quit instead of being led out by security.

--
www.bleepyou.com

Why are people missing the obvious? by johnthorensen · 2003-06-04 06:52 · Score: 1

There is a good explanation for why AOL did what they did. Quite simply, WASTE provides something that they would like to be in the market for, namely secure communication and filesharing over the corporate intranet. When Justin goes and releases it under GPL, this keeps them from being able to sell it. I guarantee that if he had kept WASTE's existence between him and AOL, in a few months we'd see it released as a commercial product, perhaps being expanded upon and used in corporate environments in the same way as Lotus Notes or Microsoft Exchange. That's the killer app for WASTE, IMHO...an extensible, secure, distributed network would kick all sorts of ass if they had the ability to build calendaring and rendezvous-type collaboration tools on top of it in addition to filesharing and IM.

Come to think of it, why doesn't this exist yet???????? Surely I'm not the first to think of it.

-JT

Re:Why are people missing the obvious? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:28 · Score: 0

>I guarantee that if he had kept WASTE's existence between him and AOL, in a few months we'd see it released as a commercial product

You are quite wrong, in fact, you are entirely wrong (hint: aol sitting on this for months with no intention to ever do anything with it)

I'd guess he was fired by now... by aralin · 2003-06-04 06:59 · Score: 1

... nothing like your boss reading that you plan to resing in the news :)

--
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.

Professional disdain by lysium · 2003-06-04 06:59 · Score: 1

Yes, the thing that comes to mind when "professional" is used in this fashion is the English manservant who was born into his position. Their whole purpose of being is literally to serve as his father (perhaps even father's father) served, and as such, get the most power of the servant class. They are the enforcers of the Master's will on those with less....enthusiasm for their menial calling.

--------

--
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.

he mentions slint and zwan. by overbom · 2003-06-04 06:59 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I know how he feels wrt slint. My favorite band in the world is Chavez; one of the best dissonant post-punk albums out there. They put out 2 albums and an EP, and then they were gone. (look for them on http://www.matador.com)

One of them is a guitarist for Zwan (Matt Sweeney), and his talent is wasted in that band. The best thing that could happen for that band is for something bad to happen to Billy Corgan. :-)

mod me down off-topic, but it had to be said.

THE REAL STORY by joe_bruin · 2003-06-04 07:10 · Score: 1

so, here's the real deal:
this has nothing to do with "freedom of expression".
aol bought nullsoft 4 years ago. in their purchase contract, it was probably part of the deal that frankel must stay with the company for a number of years (i'm guessing 4). he may also have had to stay to see all of his stock options fully vested.

that time is now up. he's been pretty much hanging around, writing software for fun, and at times irritating aol (i'd love to have that job). i bet he even had a countdown calendar ("days til i'm out of here"). well, the day of freedom is at hand. before going, he stuck one final thorn in aol's ass (waste) to give them some bad press, and now he's walking away with his millions.

we should all be so lucky.

Re:THE REAL STORY by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:05 · Score: 0

winamp is a nice piece of work.. even though the latest version sucks! the truth is this guy got millions for is efforts thanks to the internet bubble, so don't feel sad for him - he doesn't have to work ~ever~. He can easily start his own company and do whatever he wants. boo-hoo. big bad wolf AOL curtailed his creativity. boo hoo. here's a few million dollars, kids.now shut the f*** up!
Re:THE REAL STORY by S.Gleissner · 2003-06-04 10:01 · Score: 1

> winamp is a nice piece of work..
WASTE is a nice piece of work, too (yes, it works very well)... i just ask myself, where inside the secutity hole is...

Re:Long Decline Anyway - Actually we are gaining by stretch0611 · 2003-06-04 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

So are we really losing bigtime here?

Actually, I think we are gaining. After all, AOL is losing a good programmer, and the world is gaining a programmer that is not bound by corporate interests.

--
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!

4 words? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 07:26 · Score: 0

de uh hah ... but how do you pronounce an exclamation point?

Re:4 words? by BasharTeg · 2003-06-04 08:49 · Score: 1

>but how do you pronounce an exclamation point?

Like this: "!"

Is this News? by Exousia · 2003-06-04 07:28 · Score: 1

Justin Frankel? Who is Justin Frankel? And who cares what he does?

--

--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.

Re:GOD Hates Fags and Muslims!! by _KiTA_ · 2003-06-04 07:30 · Score: 1

How the hell did this crap get modded up?

Idiots with their white-sheet covered heads up their asses should be -1 troll, not +2 like it is as of this posting. :P

Free speech? Give me a break. by SuperBanana · 2003-06-04 07:34 · Score: 1

It has to do with more than just WASTE. He stated that the company controls what he does and that coding is a form of free expression to him. He basically doesn't want the company to control his free expression.

Gasp! An employer controls how employees do their jobs? The injustice!

This would be like a full-time reporter for a newpaper who thinks he can write about whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants, etc...and then when the editor says, "No, I don't want you working on the blond-bimbos-in-Florida story, I want you working on the old-men-ice-fishing-in-Michigan story", turning around and screaming "1st amendment! Free speech!" You don't want to have someone telling you what to do? Freelance. If the contract he signed forces him to turn over ALL his work to AOL, that's his fault for signing it without reading it or consulting a lawyer. If the contract doesn't force him to turn over all his work to AOL, then he should work on whatever he wants to, outside of his job with AOL.

Contrary to popular belief, you don't have the constitutional right to do whatever the hell you want to at work. If AOL says "don't make p2p network programs", amazingly, as an employee of AOL, you've got to follow that, or you can expect to be disciplined for not following instructions.

Sorry, in this job market I have ZERO sympathy for a crybaby who finally got a reality check. By the way, what exactly makes him such a god, worthy of front-page slashdot news? Winamp is JUST an mp3 player- and a pretty basic one at that. WASTE didn't look particularly clever, either- just a small-scale P2P network, whoop de do.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Frankel vs. JWZ by VooDoo999 · 2003-06-04 07:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does anyone else see the parallels here?

Talented young programmer, burnt out by the system, chucks it all after a few years of corporate slavery to AOL and rides off into the sunset with a lot of cash.

Zawinski left when his options vested, and I'm guessing Frankel has some other contractual or monetary force keeping him there, otherwise he'd be out.

Doesn't bode well for AOL at any rate.

MOD PARENT DOWN! by WeeBull · 2003-06-04 07:42 · Score: 1, Informative

Someone modded the parent "Insightful"?!?!? It's bad advice at best, a sackable offense at worst!

Who is AOL? Who has to approve? [...] An employee working for AOL releases code under the GPL (not talking about things done on his own time) it's under the gpl, he is a representative of the company.

You, Sir, are wrong. What's more, you're a moron. If you'd done any research, such as, say, read the recommendations on the GNU pages, you'd know that you're spewing utter rubbish.

GNU advices, among other things, that in order to release code under GPL, even WRITTEN ON YOUR OWN TIME, you should get a statement from your employer saying that they claim no ownership of the code.

If you write code ON COMPANY TIME, then guess what, hotshot, THE COMPANY OWNS IT. You can't do squat other than write it and debug it. You have NO RIGHTS to decide how it's licensed. You may make suggestions to your boss, who can talk to his boss who can ... you get the idea.

Understand that the decision to release anything under GPL is a COMMERCIAL decision. We (coders, geeks, slashdotters, whatever) tend to view it as a philosophical decision, but it's not.

Karmawhoring links:

Consider yourself ejucaited.

losing millions? by peter303 · 2003-06-04 07:55 · Score: 4, Informative

The purchase of a company usually has a retention clause saying you dont get all your money until you have worked X years. X ranges from one to five years. The purpose is (1) the company's assets are often its creative people and (2) to train successors. It is unclear if he is losing some of the purchase money due to his independent streak.
The pruchase was in stock currency, so its value declined with AOL Time Warner stock price. Could have been worse considering other dot.coms.

I MADE THIS HAPPEN!!! by Superfreaker · 2003-06-04 07:57 · Score: 1

After I read on /. about the WASTE project being shut down, I sent him an email stating "you should quit". An he did! Just because I said so!

I must have some sort of superpower. I Command you all to quit your jobs now!!

Re:I MADE THIS HAPPEN!!! by kription · 2003-06-04 08:41 · Score: 1

don't worry, I just e-mailed you to drop dead...

let me know how it works out...

(not looking for flame torching, good old fashion fun)
Re:I MADE THIS HAPPEN!!! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2003-06-04 09:17 · Score: 1

Well, considering that a lot of us here are probably reading and posting to /. all day from work, we may already be well on our way to "quiting" our jobs.
Re:I MADE THIS HAPPEN!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 09:59 · Score: 0

OK... I quit.

I'll be by your house at around 6pm for dinner.

OT (your sig) by Jaysyn · 2003-06-04 07:59 · Score: 1

I fucking love that song....

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.

Correct, in my experience by The+Tyro · 2003-06-04 07:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Non-compete clauses used to be common in medical contracts, and most physicians will attempt to get them removed from the contract during negotiations.

It's usually not a serious bone of contention, because the unspoken reality is this: non-competes, particularly geographic ones (ie. you cannot practice within a 60-mile radius) are generally viewed negatively by the courts, and do not hold up.

As for programmers... that might be a different story.

--
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.

Re:Correct, in my experience by afidel · 2003-06-04 09:14 · Score: 1

Obviously not from Ohio. Ohio courts suck horribly if you are the worker, we are all about big business when it comes to contract disputes, medical malpractice, and bankruptcy law. Almost anything less than 5 years can be enforced in a noncompete here. Justin is in California which means any non-compete is probably null and void from the courts perspective. California law is so extreme in that regard that G.E.'s standard noncompete clause has some small script that essentially says ignore all this if you live in California.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

It's just DOT COM-ism by sleeper0 · 2003-06-04 08:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Everyone all upset about aol (aka the man) keeping justin down should consider this:

june 1, 1999: aol buys nullsoft for $86m

june 2, 2003: justin announces resignation due to creative differences

For those who can't connect the dots, he had a 4 year stock vesting schedule. Justin didn't have enough trouble with his free expression while his stock was still vesting, but now that it's done he suddenly feels the pangs of regret for working for the corporate machine.

There's nothing wrong with leaving after your contracts are up, but why not be a man about it? Releasing a ton of code you don't own under the GPL (and indeed, has code in it that can't be released this way due to RSA copyright) and yamering on in public about your former employer is at best pretty immature.

Justin obviously made out quite well selling a media player for nearly $100m. Anyone that's followed the ups and extreme downs of the industry knows that its unlikely nullsoft was ever worth that big of a price tag. Why not exit out of the situation gracefully and be thankful for the luck he had in getting the deal instead of granstanding for your hacker friends.

Re:It's just DOT COM-ism by Archfeld · 2003-06-04 08:57 · Score: 1

few other items...winamp 3 - BIG BUSINESS, MASSIVE AOL integration and DRM control coming...

WINAMP 2.9x was a jewel, winamp 3 has a ton of useless stuff added and it stinks, I tried 3.x and then removed it and went back to 2.92
much better, plus it supports my nomad jukebox in a much better fashion.

This follows the pattern of another well to do company that made a great product...IQC, up until AOL decided it needed to be a suite of crap instead of a small IM client...ICQ 2000 blows chunks now as well...

AOL can rott out anything it touches, even a giant like timewarner :)

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Re:It's just DOT COM-ism by An+Onerous+Coward · 2003-06-04 11:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, according to this cyberlaw.com article, the RSA patent [not copyright] expired back in 2000. So the only issue regarding the GPL'ing of WASTE is whether Justin or AOL owns the code.

Judging from what happened, and from Justin's blog, it sounds like he thought he owned the code, but AOL asserted its rights. Perhaps he used WASTE as a test case, to see if the corporate AOL culture was compatable with his attitude.

That's just a theory, of course.

--
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Re:It's just DOT COM-ism by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 11:12 · Score: 0

If you look at a five-year tracking of AOL's stock, and find "June, 1999" on there, you'll notice the precipitous drop... if you're talking stock options, anyone who got options around June 1999 got a pretty high option price, even if a company discounted them some percentage off the closing price that day.

Stock Options are not outright stock. You sell the stock at your option price and get cash difference.

Thus, even if his options were like $30 (doubtful), he'd still be -$15 in the hole, for each share he could sell.

To make a long story short -- I don't think "vesting" had a lot to do with his resignation.
Re:It's just DOT COM-ism by sleeper0 · 2003-06-04 11:28 · Score: 2, Informative

when you buy a company with stock, part of what you buy is a term of service with key contributors. This is so important folks like CEO's don't bail the day after the deal leaving you holding the bag with a company you cant run or a product that still needs work.

thats what applies in this situation. I'm not talking about options that employees are awarded at market value as part of a typical compensation package (though i'm sure he had these too).

We're talking about a financial transaction to buy a company. You cant buy a company with 1 million of your own options priced at your current market value... That would be close to trying to buy a company with no money at all. Instead they use real stock, one that has an actual cash value (something that an option at current market price doesnt have). But that doesnt mean they can't put provisions on its release, which is where the vesting comes in.
Re:It's just DOT COM-ism by Sunnan · 2003-06-04 12:58 · Score: 1

There's no RSA-copyrighted code in Waste. Please learn to differ between copyrights and patents.
Re:It's just DOT COM-ism by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-05 04:47 · Score: 0

ahh piss off, the options are worthless and the contract was for 3 years, not four. :)

What a WASTE! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:26 · Score: 0

Sorry. The pun had to be said.

Millionaire? by rlg1000 · 2003-06-04 08:26 · Score: 1

Isn't Justin a multi-millionaire? Why would he even want to work for AOL after they bought Nullsoft??!?!

--
"Since I gave up hope I feel a lot better" - Steve Taylor

who else will leave? by Suppafly · 2003-06-04 08:29 · Score: 1

I wonder who else will leave with him. I imagine most of the employees of nullsoft are his friends that he hired, so its pretty conceivable that most of them will leave and for some splitter cell company.

Re:Free speech? Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:31 · Score: 0

>You don't want to have someone telling you what to do? Freelance.

Which is why he's leaving.

duh!

An innovative mind is a wonderful thing....... by Ride-My-Rocket · 2003-06-04 08:45 · Score: 1

Frankel has changed the way I work / play. Just look at his resume:

Winamp, a quality spyware-free application that has allowed me to dump Windows Player for a far more robust, cross-platform alternative.

Gnutella, which I don't currently use but is a phenominal piece of software that has picked up where Napster left off, and has helped to keep the debate on the music industry's relevance in the public's mind.

WASTE, which I didn't get a chance to inspect for myself before it was pulled, but sounded like a wonderful way to securely communicate / interact with small groups of trusted users.

This guy is a true innovator, and if he does AOL, they're all the worse off because of it. This guy has proven he can create bleeding-edge software several times already....... now I'm wondering what his next brainchild will be, and how it will change the media landscape if he does decide to go OSS.

Re:An innovative mind is a wonderful thing....... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 09:33 · Score: 1, Funny

Hmm, you don't use two of the three items you mention and they've changed the way you "work/play"? Hmm... yes, very interesting.

Keep your friends close... by Jasin+Natael · 2003-06-04 08:49 · Score: 1

... and your enemies closer.

I guess this is evidence that you can't keep it up forever.

--Jasin Natael

--
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.

Set up the Justin Frankel fund?? by GuNgA-DiN · 2003-06-04 08:51 · Score: 1

Maybe Slashdot should set up a fund. We'll all chip in $20 and hire Justin for a year or two? Let him work on cool new P2P apps without the spectre of AOHell.

Re:Set up the Justin Frankel fund?? by goreking · 2003-06-04 09:23 · Score: 0

how 'bout settin' up a fund for me...aol bought his company for $89Mil. let's not cry too much.

--
No...it's okay...I wasn't using my Civil Liberties anyway
Re:Set up the Justin Frankel fund?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 09:25 · Score: 0

Sure, and then we can all watch Farscape together. Maybe we can get a bundled discount!

Here is proof why this isn't a surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:54 · Score: 0

Here is a quote from a CNET article from 2000:

But some people close to him suggest his recent projects are a sign of his unhappiness in his role at AOL. One source close to Nullsoft (the name is a dig at Microsoft) said Frankel is counting down the days before his stock options fully vest next May. In fact, this source said, the release of AIMazing was a jab that Frankel intended to push the buttons of executives in Dulles, Va.

Boo hoo hoo. Poor little rich boy.

Damn, must suck to have a non-compete with AOL by codemachine · 2003-06-04 08:58 · Score: 1

Is there any part of the software industry that AOL doesn't have its hands in? How in the hell is Justin going to not compete with AOL?

Other than a few very specialized industries, he's pretty SOL if they actually are able to force a non-compete.

Self expression my ass by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 08:59 · Score: 0

I'm sick of seeing these self-righteous programmers waffle about how code is a form of self expression. It's fucking not.

Code is a means to instruct a computer. You want the computer to do X, you figure out some steps that will make the computer do X, and type them out. Unless you're programming some form of digital art (see: demo coding) or you're writing your viewpoints into code comments, there is no self expression going on here.

I use it........ by Ride-My-Rocket · 2003-06-04 09:11 · Score: 1

Because in addition to being a great, skin-friendly audio player, Winamp now supports video too. It's allowed me the uninstall Windows Media Player (WIMP), which has pissed me off to no end with their EULA crap, and instead use Kazaa Lite codec packs. And now that they've retrofitted Winamp 2 to support video with the release of v2.91, I've rolled back to using that, since there are a lot of cool plugins for that, and I'd rather have the lower CPU requirements. I still know a lot of people who use WiMP, but most of my friends who know about Microsoft's EULA fiasco have opted to use some version of Winamp instead for their video needs.

Question the policies by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 09:12 · Score: 0

At the company I work for, they have pretty much the same policy that everyone has to sign as condition of employment.

Except... I didn't like those terms at all. So, I formed a set of questions and concerns about the reach of the policy, and told HR I had some questions and would like to run them by the legal dept beforie I signed.

"Sure", they said, and so I sent the questions off to HR...

And so it happends about once a year, that HR realizes I've not signed anything, asks me to sign, I ask if I can submit a few modifications to the policy so my own works are not covered, that gets sent to legal and then I wait for another year to pass.

So far, I have yet to hear back from legal.

Basically, whenever you have a document you don't like - list the concerns you have and changes you'd like to make, or just sit there and strike out whole sections (put a big X through each paragraph) if they demand you sign something right then. I don't mind agreeing not to divulge company secrets or work on my own stuff using company property, but when I go home my time is my own. As it is I do some work at home for the company so they are getting a good deal!

Hit the nail dead on by moodboom · 2003-06-04 09:19 · Score: 1

I totally agree... when I am interviewing people for developer postions, just about the most important question to me is "what are your side projects - what do you do in your spare time?" This separates the Type A's from X's like oil from water...

Wanna play WASTE? by Newer+Guy · 2003-06-04 09:24 · Score: 1

Here: http://www.softlab.ece.ntua.gr/~sivann/pub/Uploade d/waste-setup.exe

Re:Long Decline Anyway - Actually we are gaining by realdpk · 2003-06-04 09:25 · Score: 1

Not to mention has tons of money, resigning almost exactly 4 years after his company was purchased (and thus, probably all of his stock is vested).

Dont you love copyrights? by HanzoSan · 2003-06-04 09:29 · Score: 1

Alot of you slashdotters like to defend copyright in one sentence then say statements like these.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:Dont you love copyrights? by Rary · 2003-06-05 06:36 · Score: 1

You won't hear any such defense of copyright from me. I agree with copyright protection as it was originally set out, but the very idea that AOL-TW can sit back and collect something like $2 million every year on royalties from "Happy Birthday", well over 100 years after the melody was originally penned, and long after the death of its creators, is just frikkin' stupid. Anyone who can honestly defend such a system is either equally stupid, or an AOL-TW executive. But I repeat myself. :)

--
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-06-04 09:41 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

that's not a weblog, that's a .plan by autopr0n · 2003-06-04 09:53 · Score: 1

First everything on the internet became something on the 'web'. Now everything on the web is a blog. Wonderful.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Sucks for him... by autopr0n · 2003-06-04 10:03 · Score: 2, Funny

given AOL's nearly 80% drop in price. He sold the company for $86 mil, and got to take home $20, divided among the original stockholders.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Actually... by The+Tyro · 2003-06-04 10:30 · Score: 1

I've practiced in Ohio, and medical non-competes don't tend to hold up there either.

I can't speak to the rest of your tirade on the Ohio legal system, with the exception of the malpractice situation. I happen to think that tort reform is a good thing... of course, you may disagree.

--
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.

In Frankel's Defense by qortra · 2003-06-04 10:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't know very much about the business end of corporate buyouts or corporate software licensing, but I'll assume that you are accurate with your facts and your speculation. Furthermore, I do totally respect your opinion about Frankel, under certain circumstances, I would probably agree with you; I just want him to get a fair defense.

You say that, of him, that "yamering on in public about [his] former employer is at best pretty immature." While this is true, he isn't guilty of this particular thing (at least in the links that slashdot provided; i would welcome others if you have them). In fact, he says (of AOLTW), "I have nothing but respect for the company". All he claims is that the company owns his code, and it seem to me that you agree with that statement.

If there was financial timing involved, its possible that he came to his conclusion about leaving a while ago (perhaps after gnutella got ganked), and just postponed his departure until after he was financially secure. This too, to me, is totally valid; its a lot easier to practice your art (whatever that may be) if you don't have to worry about money. Four years of compromise might mean, for Frankel, a lifetime of doing just what he's wanted.

Which brings us to WASTE. First of all, I need to plead ignorance here; perhaps you can explain to me why Mozilla folk can release GPL code while still working for AOLTW, and Frankel can't. Is it a difference in their contracts? If so, do you have access to their contracts to show me the differences? But alas, I promised to assume that your factual information is accurate. So, he did something wrong and illegal by claiming to release GPLed code under Nullsoft. However, I'd like to think that this is another part of self-expression, perhaps similar to graffiti (which, although it is wrong, and ought to be wrong, is still sometimes beautiful/powerful art, and a real form of self expression). Sometimes, the method of communicating your art (in his case, as his last act of working for Nullsoft) is as important as the art itself. It sounds illogical, and grounded more in romantic ideals than in fact, but I can imagine that being important to Frankel.

Thanks for your comment, and please respond or email me if I've misrepresented your opinion in any way.

Re:In Frankel's Defense by An+Onerous+Coward · 2003-06-04 11:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

[I could be wrong, but I do believe]

The big difference between the GPL and the Mozilla Public License: Any patches, features, and whatnot that the Mozilla project accepts have their copyright transferred to the Mozilla project. This leaves them the option of closing future releases (though they cannot take back rights granted to the code already out there.

With the regular ol' GPL, once you've incorporated someone else's code into your project, you have to get their permission to license it under other terms. With a huge project with thousands of contributors, this is no small feat.

That is how AOL is able to release Netscape without releasing the applicable source code. I wonder what would have happened if WASTE had been MPL'ed instead.

--
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Re:In Frankel's Defense by Hobbex · 2003-06-04 11:47 · Score: 1

Last time I checked mozilla was dual licensed, meaning you can get the code under the GPL if you want. The fact that mozilla contributors sign over the code has nothing to do with what license is used: all the GNU projects ask the developers to sign over the copyrights, they are obviously still GPLed.
Re:In Frankel's Defense by alienw · 2003-06-04 14:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

The difference is simple. With Mozilla, AOL managers, lawyers, and executives were all notified about the decision and probably all had to approve it. In other words, it was official. With WASTE, apparently Justin simply stuck some AOL-owned code on a public website without anyone's permission or knowledge. This was certainly not offical, and AOL understandably decided to correct the problem.
Re:In Frankel's Defense by Plix · 2003-06-04 17:04 · Score: 1

Not exactly. Netscape released the source code to its browser *before* the AOL buyout. The big question was if AOL would continue to support the browser (Netscape had a very large number of developers working on the open source version full-time). Luckily, after the buyout, AOL affirmed that it would continue to fund development of Mozilla and would continue to employ full-time Mozilla hackers. The difference there is that AOL had no real choice in the matter. With WASTE the situation was different. Frankel worked for AOL during the time that the code was developed and presumably worked on it during company time (it would seem so from the way he discussed what he was working on in his .plan - it certainly didn't seem like he was working on winamp). Thus the work was probably the property of AOLTW because of standard contract clauses (as has been theorized in countless previous posts in this thread) and, furthermore, Frankel had no right to release the code himself without the authorization of AOL higher-ups - something he obviously didn't have.
Re:In Frankel's Defense by dveditz · 2003-06-05 11:08 · Score: 1

I suppose there's not much point in replying a day late, but you're absolutely wrong about the MPL. No one assigns copyright to the Mozilla project and no one has the option of closing a future release any more than the FSF could close GNU.

AOL can release Netscape without releasing full source because the MPL, like the BSD license, is compatible with proprietary code. AOL does have to release source to the bulk of Netscape that is derived from MPL'd code.

No by autopr0n · 2003-06-04 10:39 · Score: 1

You were saying that a single employee can do whatever they want with the company IP, which is simply assinie. The thread had no point to begin with, other then to explain how you were wrong.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:No by jgerman · 2003-06-05 00:53 · Score: 1

Actually no I wasn't. Didn't score too well on reading comprehension did you? A single employee, given the authority to work with company ip can make a mistake with his responsibilities, or can intentionally sabotage the company. At wchich point the company has fucked up in giving that individual that power.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.

WASTE on freenet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 10:43 · Score: 0

and btw do you remember the days of MacAMP? I do. Winamp still kicks ass, and it always will.

BTW if you are reading this justing: I salute you for making the choice to do what you think is right.

That's it, no more BS from me ;)

*IS* nullsoft a company? by autopr0n · 2003-06-04 10:45 · Score: 1

Nullsoft exists as a *brand* but that doesn't mean it still exists as an independent company. When Microsoft bought hotmail it ceased to exists as an independent company and the old CEO simply became an employee of Microsoft with an extra heapin' helping of stock. At first hotmail stayed pretty much the same, but eventually it shifted over and became more MSN-ee. But the outer appearance of had more to do with practicality then ownership.

It may be that null soft no longer exists as anything other then a trademark in AOLs portfolio. Since we aren't privy to the contracts signed, I wouldn't put too much faith in WASTE.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:*IS* nullsoft a company? by gmhowell · 2003-06-04 11:09 · Score: 1

I don't have any more info than you about that. I was just going based on something some other slashbot said.

Even if Justin was merely a VP of some division within the company, I imagine the argument could be made that he still did have apparant authority to release the software under the aegis of Nullsoft. It's a bit weaker than if Null were a wholly owned subsidiary. After all, someone could make the argument that a janitor had apparant authority. Whether or not that is reasonable is up to a judge/jury to decide.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

How would any of us consumers know? by HanzoSan · 2003-06-04 11:05 · Score: 1

You're completely missing the issue. The issue is whether whomever is responsible for it's release (presumably Justin Frankel) held the copyright, and thus had the right to do so. This comes down to contractual agreements between Justin and AOL.

So its not like AOL can do anything about it now, the millions who downloaded it from NullSofts website have no way of knowing this, the only one who knows this are AOL, and Justin.

The GPL License says Nullsoft, not Justin Frankel, the same thing is on all of Nullsofts other products, like Winamp, so why pick this product to say "well we dont know if Justin was authorized to release this"

Justin also released Winamp 3, Shoutcast, and all this other stuff. What stops AOL from saying "You all must destroy your copies of WinAmp 3, Shoutcast,Aimazing," etc?

If Justin cannot release any software, all software released by Nullsoft since their purchase from AOL can be recalled.

Why? Because we have no way of knowing if AOL authorized those releases either. SO I guess AOL can change the license at any time and say "Hey we changed our license, you all have to pay for this software"

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:How would any of us consumers know? by dr.badass · 2003-06-04 12:12 · Score: 1

Are you a troll, or just ignorant?

So its not like AOL can do anything about it now, the millions who downloaded it from NullSofts website have no way of knowing this, the only one who knows this are AOL, and Justin.

Irrelevant if the code was not legaly licensed to them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken, though I doubt very many of the "millions" that downloaded WASTE have managed not to hear about the scandal. If they use the code in a GPL project, they can expect to be sued. I wouldn't expect AOL to go after anyone, but the fact that they could means it's best to stay away from WASTE's source.

The GPL License says Nullsoft, not Justin Frankel, the same thing is on all of Nullsofts other products, like Winamp, so why pick this product to say "well we dont know if Justin was authorized to release this"

What's your point here? I wouldn't assume that Justin wrote it all by himself. I really don't get what you're driving at here.

Justin also released Winamp 3, Shoutcast, and all this other stuff.

No, Justin did not. Nullsoft/AOL did. They pay him to code Winamp. That's work-for-hire. He does not own Winamp. He could not GPL the code for Winamp. Not even what he wrote. That's a basic part of copyright law, your ignorance of which is astounding. As I mentioned in my prior post, there is the distinct possibility that WASTE, too, is work-for-hire, and as such, not his to give away.

What stops AOL from saying "You all must destroy your copies of WinAmp 3, Shoutcast,Aimazing," etc?

The fact that they licensed it to you the moment you hit "I agree." You agreed to those terms, and only those terms.

SO I guess AOL can change the license at any time and say "Hey we changed our license, you all have to pay for this software"

This is completely different from WASTE. They are not changing the terms of the license. They are saying that it was never legally licensed to you to begin with.

--
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Re:How would any of us consumers know? by HanzoSan · 2003-06-05 07:52 · Score: 1

"Irrelevant if the code was not legaly licensed to them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken, though I doubt very many of the "millions" that downloaded WASTE have managed not to hear about the scandal. If they use the code in a GPL project, they can expect to be sued. I wouldn't expect AOL to go after anyone, but the fact that they could means it's best to stay away from WASTE's source."

How do you know? this? Sure some have downloaded and heard about the scandal, AFTER they have used it, edited the code and released new versions of waste. So now the hear they may get sued? Too late, they already broke the law right? so why stop now?

What's your point here? I wouldn't assume that Justin wrote it all by himself. I really don't get what you're driving at here.

What makes you think Justin wrote waste all by himself? Why the double standard

No, Justin did not. Nullsoft/AOL did. They pay him to code Winamp. That's work-for-hire. He does not own Winamp. He could not GPL the code for Winamp. Not even what he wrote. That's a basic part of copyright law, your ignorance of which is astounding. As I mentioned in my prior post, there is the distinct possibility that WASTE, too, is work-for-hire, and as such, not his to give away.

Yes and according to Nullsofts site when they released Waste, AOL paid them to write it, AOL even used it internally.

The fact that they licensed it to you the moment you hit "I agree." You agreed to those terms, and only those terms.

How can you prove the Waste license is invalid? Just because AOL says so? Thats not enough evidence to prove anything in court, because AOL also said it was valid a day before when everyone downloaded it, and installed it.

This is completely different from WASTE. They are not changing the terms of the license. They are saying that it was never legally licensed to you to begin with.

But I have the license right here in a text file included with Waste. How can you prove that Justin released Waste without AOL's permission? How can you prove Justin released Winamp with AOLs permission? You have to prove with facts everything you are saying, opinion does not work in court.

All we have is AOLs word vs Justins word, and Justin is an employee for AOL meaning Justin represents AOL. So Justin is speaking for AOL, saying one thing, while other AOL employees say another thing, but to the outside world, anything any AOL employee says is official.

IF Justin released this software its officially released, if he released it under the GPL, its officially GPLed, it doesnt matter if he had the right to do it or not, he already did it, and the people dont know or care who Justin is, or where he stands in the company, the average person does not care about the scandal, just like they didnt care about the Gnutella scandal, they just care about the results.

Look, the code is out there, the average person thinks AOL released it, they dont care about internal politics, what you are saying is this.

Lets assume one of our soilders somehow got control of our nukes and nuked the soviet union, do you think the soviets would care if we authorized the soilder to nuke them or not? No, because they were just nuked. They dont care who pulled the switch, or how, they just know they were just nuked.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Re:How would any of us consumers know? by dr.badass · 2003-06-05 16:30 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but you are either completely ignorant or utterly deluded. Either way, you're not a very good troll.

Yes and according to Nullsofts site when they released Waste, AOL paid them to write it, AOL even used it internally.

I did not see the original page for WASTE, but if this is true, then it would prove my point : WASTE was work-for-hire, and thus AOL held the copyright, giving Justin absolutely no right to release it. I don't know why you're demanding that I should be able to prove this in court, but if indeed WASTE ever becomes a legal matter, AOL/Nullsoft would easily be able to prove such. This is not my opinion, it is part of copyright law.

--
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.

Re:Why is this bad? by John+Hurliman · 2003-06-04 11:08 · Score: 1

This is where IP law gets confusing to me. After his resignation from Nullsoft, could he make a few small changes to the code and rerelease under the GPL, copyrighted under his name? AOL might own WASTE 1.0 (or whatever it is) which was developed under Nullsoft/AOL contract, but now that he is free could he just rerelease the code?

Re:Why is this bad? by GrenDel+Fuego · 2003-06-04 11:34 · Score: 1

No, he can't.

First there is the question about if Waste is GPL'ed or not. If it turns out he didn't own the code, then he didn't have the right to GPL the code in the first place. If it is decided that Waste IS GPLed, then he can happily continue work on it and release his own version, but it cannot be copyrighted under his name since the original code is owned by AOL.

At least that's my non-lawyer understanding.

Maybe he was giving them the benefit of the doubt by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 11:58 · Score: 0

A hypothetical exchange

Justin: I've done my time for you. Now we're on even terms. Will you let me work on whatever I want?
AOLTW: Uh... maybe... what do you want?
Justin: WASTE
AOLTW: HAHAHAHAHA...
Justin: Good bye.

Re:GOD Hates Fags and Muslims!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 12:12 · Score: 0

Idiots with their white-sheet covered heads up their asses should be -1 troll, not +2 like it is as of this posting. :P

It's not white sheets. That's what the uneducated rednecks like yourself wear, to make you feel like you're somebody. It's called common sense. It's called intelligence. And it's called the Bible. Try these three things some time and you'll become a better person.

For crying out loud he hasn't resigned yet! by marcushnk · 2003-06-04 12:53 · Score: 1

All his .plan says is that he feels he must leave.
(actually its "leav" but eh..)
So good on ya /. for preempting his choices for him.

how about the editors read the links before posting?? /. DOES have SOME responsability to acurate journalism...

--
"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

pro-slint anti-zwan by robdeadtech · 2003-06-04 12:54 · Score: 1

I'm just glad to see Frankel is encouraging readers to listen to more Slint and less Zwan.

--
Heil Sig! -Rob

Somebody fell off the turnip truck by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-04 13:31 · Score: 0

"On the contrary, you should be acutely aware of legal agreements that you make."

We were when we downloaded it. It said "GPL".

I did my diligence. The code is GPL'd and I'm allowed to use it. Too late and too bad for AOL, idiots.

nitpick about profits by Trepidity · 2003-06-04 14:49 · Score: 1

While he probably is not close to poor, Justin probably doesn't have $100m either. Nullsoft was purchased for $86m in AOL stock, which at the time was worth around $60/share. Currently it's worth slightly over $15/share, which makes the stock AOL used to buy Nullsoft total a more modest $22m or so (assuming he didn't sell it at its peak, which he probably wasn't allowed to do, though you'd have to check the exact terms of the sale to know for sure).

I also don't know if he was the sole owner of Nullsoft prior to the sale. If not, obviously he wouldn't have gotten all the money.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

It's all about the money stupid! by dalan · 2003-06-04 14:54 · Score: 1

It really is.

--
Cheers! -- Richard

WELL..... by asuwish4 · 2003-06-04 15:50 · Score: 1

that's one way of looking at it.

Although I think he's far from crying. A lot of growing takes place between 19 and 24. What he wanted then, he probably doesn't want now.

Either way, I don't think anyone here at age 19 would turn down getting bought out for millions.

Even if it was in stock options that vested in 4 years. You would think to yourself: I only have to put up with this shit for 4 years. 4 years is a LONG time to get your ideas squashed and have 'big brother' looking over your shoulder.

The kicker is: He's has the talent and the imagination to create more things that companies will want to buy. This time he has the experience... not to mention the money to hire good consul for the contract writing.

Plain wrong by RosCabezas · 2003-06-04 22:01 · Score: 1

That's not right. With the same sentence you're saying that's right to have kids working on sweatshops provided that they (or their parents) have signed an agreement.
There are contracts that conflict with laws and law is always right in that matter, making contracts void.

Re:Plain wrong by Artifex · 2003-06-05 03:33 · Score: 1

That's not right. With the same sentence you're saying that's right to have kids working on sweatshops provided that they (or their parents) have signed an agreement.
There are contracts that conflict with laws and law is always right in that matter, making contracts void.

How can you leap from a legal contract that owns IP developed while employed to sweatshops (which presumably violated OSHA and minimum wage laws)?

A contract clause regarding developed IP like this is legal. Many companies use them.

--
Get off my launchpad!

A lesson for others... by Eminence · 2003-06-04 22:25 · Score: 1

Justin's case should be a lesson for others who create something either themselves or as a small company: think twice before selling out to a corporation. Most developers or small entrepreneurs who didn't work for a corporation themselves just look at the money they would get and if company's formal existence is sustained they think they would continue to have a decisive voice. However, corporate culture doesn't allow any independence and sooner or later quenches it.

It is not to say that selling your business to a corporation is always a bad thing, however people like Justin should take into account that eventually they won't be allowed to do what they want - unless it is specifically put in the agreement. It is then the question of whether freedom is worth the money one can get from the buyout.

I don't know if Justin had any prior experience with the corporate culture, but he is wiser now - and others can learn from his example.

And - BTW - there was other possibility I think. Had he not sold out to AOL would Nullsoft go bankrupt? With such a product as Winamp it is not likely, they could probably even live if they have made it a shareware.

huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-05 00:13 · Score: 0

leave him alone yo. he's sucking justin's dick. suck it good now, ya hear?

well, it's a theme by SolemnDragon · 2003-06-05 00:34 · Score: 1

I Am Not A Millionaire...

I Am Not A Lawyer...

I Am Not Justin Quitting His Job...

I felt it was a part of the peculiar /. ambience (yes, it's also spelt ambiance, and yes, spelt is in fact an appropriate spelling of the particular conjugation of "spell") that i wanted to carry on. Frankly, i think it's sort of a pleasant habit, and i've seen a lot of past threads where an acronym gets used in responses. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that mine is anything but a silly little use of the slashdot habit, but because of that, i didn't think anybody would make it such a big deal.

IAAMIT= (I am a minister in training) and i think the man in question did the right thing... (oh, i think i just opened this up for minister of information jokes) /me ducks and runs for the bunker...

--
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.

...not quite. by SolemnDragon · 2003-06-05 06:42 · Score: 1

Executive Security. it's a bizarre but good gig. And no, i don't want to talk about it, but i will say we use windows and I've only crashed- oh wait, we're still having system bugs since installation. Never mind... seriously for the most part it works out alright but we HAVE been having troubles since the start.

--
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.

We both know this is impossible. by HanzoSan · 2003-06-05 08:00 · Score: 1

Which means any other company can use the same "We didnt authorize this" excuse.

How the hell are we supposed to sign a contract through the internet anyway?

Be realistic, I'm sure a judge would be realistic enough to know that AOL deliberately tricked millions of people, perhaps we should sue AOL for causing all of us to believe we had a valid license.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:We both know this is impossible. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-05 14:56 · Score: 0

Perhaps I should sue you for being a fuckin idiot.
Re:We both know this is impossible. by GenSolo · 2003-06-05 16:13 · Score: 1

Maybe you should take a look at what the 106th Congress had to say? They seem to think it's possible anyway.

Pulling the plug on Waste? Seen AIM 5.2 Beta yet? by sholodak · 2003-06-18 06:04 · Score: 1

Strange. AIM 5.2's big new feature is encrypted instant messaging. I wonder how long it will be before someone writes a program to UUEncode/Decode files for xfer with encrypted IM...

Slashdot Mirror

Justin Frankel Resigns From Nullsoft

608 comments