Slashdot Mirror
VIA Pulls PadLockSL
yipyow writes "A few weeks ago VIA Technologies posted software based on Nullsoft's WASTE, as reported here a few days ago. VIA PadLockSL included both a Windows and Linux client and some special extensions to work with security hardware built into certain VIA products. It was released under the GPL so I managed to snag a copy of the source code right before VIA suddenly removed their page (Google cache). I have posted Linux compilation instructions and mirrored the source here. If VIA has decided not to pursue the project further, I think the F/OSS community should turn this project into something, it has potential to be a great tool."
It might be a good idea to find out why it was removed. Perhaps they discovered a license violation and took it down to prevent a lawsuit. While noble, the automatic assumption that they simply don't want to pursue the project could be placing yipyow in an actionable position.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Here's an extra mirror: http://evilpen.net/PadLockSL.src.zip.
[Mirror posted in article seems to be slowing down, it's getting around 20k/sec at the moment.]
Gee, this seems somewhat familiar... Do you suppose that VIA also 'revoked' the license? Heh.
I wonder sometimes how many projects start up, fail for some reason, and then the code is lost. Not lost because it's proprietary but lost because it just goes the way of crumbs under the table? How much good work is going down the drain.
I'm glad you managed to save the code, GPLd as it is it has the right to live or die according to popularity. Hope it works.
shak's nude anime gallery
just a WASTE of time :)
sig(h)
Perhaps this has something to do with it?
I ganked the windows binary before it was pulled if anyone cares get it here PadLock
Wang33
PAGERANK++ Robsell.com
Although without the support of VIA how would one keep developing this since it uses their security hardware. As chip design changes, you would need to know how to make calls to the chip or the program becomes useless... Does VIA offer documentation on their chipsets?
Don't you find it somewhat ironic that the idea of "free" and "open" software gets hurt like this, due to legal issues?
It's just like M$ getting into legal trouble over their practices.
We need to stop with all of this licensing silliness if you really want to see OSS take off!
That CSS file that blocks ads
Oh, and please, seriously consider including the entire package, as it was released by Via. TYIA
Forbidden Code... *drool*
The Uber
http://www.tulg.org/
http://devurandom.livejournal.com/
So this is what I suggest: Distribute this source code as widely as possible. Like the way DeCSS was widely distributed. But instead of using it to build the product, use it to plan a completely new design, and build that as a separate project altogether, using none of the original source code. Call it a different name, make it do slightly different things... when they come to bitch and moan, the damn thing won't share any lines of code. Shit, if there's int i in that source, our version should define int to INT and write INT i, just to throw off code comparison.
Oh yeah, and for our protection, I think laws should passed worldwide that anything posted on the Internet and subsequently removed cannot be recalled once downloaded by at least one person, so that if a company releases something as GPL and then pulls it, even if that is due to copyright violations on their part in including the thing in a GPL download, that company is subject to damages but not the downloaders, since they downloaded something as licensed under the GPL.
It's magically GPL, yet it has been in the shitter for the last decade.
People might want to consider that the release of WASTE was indeed unlawful under current law, AOL/Nullsoft was within their rights to withdraw the code and the GPL was applied to the code under wrong circumstances. A lot of people have mentioned in previous WASTE related stories something to the tune of "It was GPLed, I dont care who GPLed it, Im not discontinuing my use or distribution of it" while not actually considering that just because it had the GPL applied to it, the GPL was lawfully applied.
Since this product was based on WASTE, this is possibly why it was taken down, and if so, then the fact that a major company thinks the GPL wasnt applied lawfully to it, then Im inclined to think that all the other archives of it around are infringing as well.
Just my 2 cents on the matter. In the origional WASTE story, i offered to mirror the source code. I did this until i actually sat back and thought about it, then I removed the code because I didnt think its release was lawful.
this is the reason it was pulled:6 8414
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=3
Apparently, there were some GPL violations in the code but it doesn't sound like a permanent problem
VIA's random number generator greatly increases the speed to generate the keys (ie faster than p4 2.6 ghz on VIA's 1Ghz proc).
However there is a full software mode so it still works.
I think VIA knew that waste's code was dodgy in the first place. They published it so it would make some noise and draw some attention to their hardware specs.
Or one of the US 3 letter agencies might have requested not to publish secure tools?
Anybody here thinks that securei easy IM might not facilitate terrorist message interception?
I mean if one uses secure IM, than they immediately draw attention of the security agencies. Now if everyone uses secure IM who can they focus on?
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
If the Nullsoft release was unauthorized (what constitutes unauthorized is not as clear-cut as AOL would have us believe) then the fact that the code was GPL'd is irrelevant. Go roll your own people. Don't even look at the WASTE source. You'll be tainted.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Too late. I have already seen it out there under "VIA PadLockSL Security Suite and Docs".
They gave Nulloft/Justin no credit for their work, even though the headers clearly had WASTE code in it, their work reports included with the source code mention finding/researching a certain "open source project", and even Justin's documentation was nearly copied and pasted for their User Guide.
So what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did VIA not make substantial additions to the functionality of the code, GPL'd their source and released it back to the community? That is the extend of their obligations according to the license that the WASTE author elected to use when he released his source, is it not?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Merely the fact that the software had a GPL copyright on it and happened to be available somehow doesn't mean that you can redistribute it. Until a piece of software has been intentionally released by its owner under the GPL, it is not covered by the GPL.
Furthermore, one of the most likely reason VIA pulled this is that they don't have the right to distribute it (patents, other people's copyrights, etc.). Then, even if you acquired a copy under the GPL, you couldn't use it because the GPL would be invalid.
Also, the person posting it may not have been authorized to do so by the copyright holder (the company itself). That would also mean that you don't, in fact, have the right to use it under the GPL because the GPL is an agreement between you and the copyright holder (VIA), and VIA has not entered into that agreement with you.
Even if you could get away with it legally for some reason, I really think it's a bad idea to behave that way. Good relations between VIA and OSS developers are essential in order to have Linux run well on their hardware. There is no hard-and-fast line, but in a situation like this (it seems it has had no widespread announcement, no user community, no external contributions), the creators of such a software package should be allowed to change their mind at the last minute.
Licenses are *necessary*. They are, in essence, a contract
Hogwash. Bullshit. Nonsense. They are nothing of the sort. Go read groklaw. Find a law dictionary.
Why do idiots like you think licenses are contracts? What woodwork do you come from? If it were a goddam contract, it would be the GPC.
Infuriate left and right
What a WASTE!!
-silence
Dyslectics of the world, untie!
good question
whats the situation when someone adds a lot to some code?
is it okay to remove the copyright info or change it. is it okay even if you did not touch that file.
Can one really "revoke" a gpl computer license? If someone from Nullsoft posted the software to the website, they are acting as Nullsoft, even if they do so amidst objections of their co-workers. Can Nullsoft, or anyone else for that matter, suddenly turn around and say "Sorry, ours. You can't use it anymore. We changed our minds."
Do copyright abilities trump contract law when companies get buyer's remorse?
The ______ Agenda
I, AC, have decided to release the leaked Windows Source code under the GPL. The release of this code under the GPL will help create better programs such as paint and notepad. It's a great day for open source!!!
% cp /usr/src/linux/COPYING /downloads/KaZaa/WindowsSource/
Hey presto everyone, GPL'd Windows Source code!!!
They didn't remove the copyright info, they copied it verbatim as the GPL licensing files. This is all they are required to do. The GPL does not have an advertising clause and in fact is incompatible with the "old" BSD license with the advertising clause.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Copyright information and redistribution license is not the same.
And the BSD advertising clause requires to put additional informations in advertising material.
Please mod parent up.
If we as a community believe in the values of the GPL, and believe also that those who wish to develop proprietary software should be free to do so, then it is encumbent upon us to help keep GPL stuff separate from proprietary and keep proprietary code separate from GPL'ed stuff.
If we want respect for the GPL then we should offer respect for other legitimate development models.
You have a license to use and distribute the software.
If VIA comes after you, you can simply show that you have a license, and you received it from them.
If a VIA employee posted it on an official website I would think that you can have a good expectation that this was properly authorized. It would be pretty hard for them to argue you knew this wasn't valid.
Yes the creators should be allowed to change their mind at the last minute, but not after it has already passed.
Actually, the url is6 8414
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=3
There was an unintentional "space". Weird. Even my post is getting the space added in the visibly displayed text (though the link appears to be ok). That must be some sort of slashcode bug. The space appears in the previewed post, but not it is not in the textarea that I edited the post in.
A license is just a grant of permission to do something that may otherwise not be permitted.
A contract is an agreement.
You can not enter my house without permission (law)
I grant you a license to enter with the condition that you do not smash my windows. (permission)
If you enter and do not smash the window everything is okay.
If you enter and smash the window, you are now trespassing, because you do not have permission.
Moderators: This person is not offtopic, they are WRONG. This is NOT "just a fancier GUI on WASTE". It is an entirely new GUI, and a different encryption algorithm. The RSA code was (C) RSA and including it in a GPL program is a GPL violation. The AES code used in Padlock SL is dual-licensable; The default license in the program is essentially BSD, but it says you can instead license it as GPL so long as you retain the original copyright notice. Sounds good to me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Imagine the indignity of having your own company turned against you by AOL.
Has the author spoken as to whether the license is legitimate or not? If he had the power to post and license products, then I assume the GPL stands.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
If Nullsoft claims that the WASTE release is illegal, why haven't they bothered to take the waste project of SourceForge? Isn't this based on the same code?
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
it probably isn't a bug, but an intentional feature to protect against trolls
i would guess it breaks up long text strings so they can't be used to screw up the width of the page and make you scroll sideways.
Dual license means that people get to choose which license they get (all of) the code under, license A or license B. (This is what Trolltech have done with QT, you can choose between the GPL or a commercial license).
Wrt. the Win2K source code: If the Win2K source code were dual-licensed with one license being GPL, then, sure, you could take that code and start a new GPL project from it. However, it isn't/wasn't, therefore you would be infringing on Microsofts copyright to that code by distributing it (or derivative works!).
It should also be noted that only the copyright holders of the code can release it under any given license; it doesn't count if someone takes the stolen Win2K code and just slaps the GPL in at the top of each file.
HAND.
This program is just too cool! There are some things it could obviously use, such as an easier way for users to share their public keys(ala PGP key servers. The use of actual PGP/GPG keys would be really cool too!) and a few dedicated hosts to start a network(because direct peer to peer isn't always desireable or feasible, but the security through a dedicated host is good enough for most circumstances...) I guess what I'd really like to see is AIM support public key encryption, something that has always been lacking in the instant messenger app of choice for most people. Perhaps the open source community can make this a reality. And gaim encryption just doesn't work for enough people and isn't as strong as this...
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't use the dumb geek acronyms to shorten that phrase down, but:
The WASTE software and source code was posted on the Nullsoft website by a Nullsoft employee who's always posting software to the site, who happens to also be the author of WASTE.
Let me repeat: an officer of the company and the author of the software made this software available under the GPL on the company website.
This seems open and shut to me: it's still GPL'd software. Sure the employee may have acted against the wishes of his gods, but its too late, it was released by the author, on the company website.
This would set a dangerous precedence if this were successfully challenged in court. Any company could virtually release a product under the GPL and later revoke it at their whim, claiming its unauthorized and that everyone must destroy their copies.
http://www.mousearmy.net/tech/
In the top section I've posted the original waste source, current waste source, PadLockSL source and some of the windows binaries mirrored in this thread.
This should consolodate the mirrored files in one place.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Why would VIA pull every referance to the PADLOCK software off thier website if thier wasnt a problem inluding thier forums ? They didnt include any copyrights for NULLSOFT in the GUI also the GUI has many simmilar elements like the NETWORK buttons and the X with the circle just like WASTE . If they where willing to give back the the open source community they would have relesed the code to the GUI also and maybe they are coorecting this as we speak becuse the LINKS say currently unavalible. We will wait and see.
That's what kills me, people GPL code and release it, and then get their panties in a bunch when someone "steals" their code, makes a new project out of it, and re-releases it under a different name. That's allowed under the GPL folks, and definitely does not explain why Via pulled the project.
Via can't give away something it doesn't have rights to any more than Justin could.
-EB
Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?
How is using waste any more naughty than gnutella? After all, nullsoft released that and AOL pulled it too.
And also, the code is in dispute maybe, but what about reverse engineering the protocol? Without protocol docs, you'd have to download and run this in a testing environment if you wanted to reverse engineer the protocol to roll your own code.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
if anyone cares, with a little tweaking it compiles on OSX.
If all this effort that people are spending to keep putting this thing up when people take it down were instead spent actually working on the code, perhaps the non-GPL'ed parts could be rewritten, and then it wouldn't keep disappearing.
Has anyone else noticed that some of the arguments advanced by SCO relating to the alleged iuclusion of proprietary code in the linux kernel are very similar to the WASTE situation? I mean, clearly they aren't directly analogous, and SCO are litigous bastards etc., but think about it: Justin Frankel, while working under a contract that makes all of his software belong to AOL/TW, releases a piece of software under the GPL without authorization. Some people argue that the initial release makes it GPL forever and ever amen, but as many smart comments have pointed out on this thread, that's just false. That's *sorta* similar to SCO's continued distribution of the linux kernel post-IBM lawsuit, isn't it?
Either way, seems to me that between the WASTE situation and the SCO lawsuit, that open-source insurance is a good idea.
I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
Update: the link to source above points to /.
corrected link PadLock Source
PAGERANK++ Robsell.com
Think again. Unlawful sales are null & void, and you are liable to the copyright owner for any licensing.
You have the option to sue the person who stole you the software, but in the eyes of the law you are responsible for your actions.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
and they took the junk down hoping no one would try and develop anything with it. Be careful what you pull out of the garbage... reminds me of some tomatoes once that... nevermind
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
It is possible that Justin had authority to release binaries such as Winamp but no authority to release source. It is also possible that he was told specifically that he can't release something as GPL.
Lasers Controlled Games!
The original WASTE was released under the GPL without permission by someone without the authority to license it
No. The original WASTE was released under the GPL by someone whose permission to license it is in dispute. I have yet to see any even remotely conclusive argument about this either way, and it looks like the kind of question that really only a court has the authority to answer.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Was Winamp released under the GPL? If the answer is no then your post is meaningless.
How do you figure that?
Either he had the authority to act on behalf of Nullsoft or he did not. If he chose to use this authority to release winamp one way waste another, that would be at his discretion.
It is possible that Justin had authority to release binaries such as Winamp but no authority to release source.
People keep saying "well what if some internal document said XXX?"
What everyone seems to neglect is that people act as agents of the companies they work for.
If a manager at Walmart sells me a laptop for $10, he has that authority. Normally laptops sell for more than this, but this guy's a manager an I have a reasonable expectation that he can do this.
If it turns out the next day that his boss doesn't like it, they don't get the laptop back.
If we had to worry about internal agreements invalidating any contract made by employees who seemingly have the authority to do so, you'd never be able to trust a company to stick to an agreement. It would be too easy to weasel out.
I my Walmart example, maybe there's a document specfically saying he can't sell a laptop for less than $50. Why the hell should I know or care about it? The manager should know about it if he wants to keep his job, but in the end I still get my laptop for whatever he sells it to me for.
If Walmart doesn't like it they can fire the employee, or even go after him legally, but I'm in the clear. I bought my laptop at the price given to me by a Walmart representitive.
Life is too short to proofread.
> Not if some of the source is based on a license that doesn't permit use of the GPL. If they accidentally included some proprietary or closed source to which they didn't have full rights, then their release of the software under GPL would be illegal.
IANAL, but is that actually true?
If so, that sounds like a *very* easy way to "revoke" something that in hindsight you wish you hadn't released under the GPL...
"Whoops, our initial GPL release of XYZ V1.0 had someone elses protected code in it, so we didn't have the rights to release it under the GPL. That means that the community-developed version of XYZ V5.5 is illegal. Oh by the way you can buy our commercial version of XYZ right here:"
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
At *any* time, any releaser of GPLed code can go back and say that the GPL'ed release was "unauthorized", and as such nobody had/has any rights to do *anything* with that code...?
Sounds like you've got *no* rights to me...
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
WHY have VIA technologies pulled everybit of information about PADLOCK from thier website when they where adamant the code and the app complied with the GPL GNU and was legal? They didnt relese the GUI code which had the same elements as the WASTE GUI in a tabbed form also they didnt respect NULLSOFT's or the SOURCEFORGE projects copyrights in the GUI another GPL violation and in Justin Frankels BLOG he wrote this_ sl.jsp :P
April 12, 2004
Wow, I could swear I've written something like this before:
http://www.via.com.tw/en/padlock/padlock
Wonder what will happen with that...
And Justin would still have plenty of friends at Nullsoft that would want to make sure the unathorised program called WASTE was not being developed by another company
it seems my post was cencored out!? so i am posting it again. WASTE is real strong in being the first in several areas: purep2p, anarchistic (WASTE is the most anarchist p2p because it implements security culture, free association and mutual aid. This is thanks to it's Decentralization, Encryption and preferences/features) , passive to passive transfers (via [sic] unique routing), & in being 'illegal' open source , I think more Open Source projects should reclaim proprietary ideas that were developed/discovered in places like public schools and return the knowledge to the public so we can be more self-sustainable and sharing. shutting down lifeless entities control over our intellect. Padlock is not compatible I've tried. it's also got allot of disabled features. it's like a whitewash. my hope is that the sourceforge open source WASTE team http://sf.net/projects/waste/ kicks into action to make a mockery of this via project much like has been done to neomodus dc over dc++ , but this is a reverse hijacked fork protocall type thing. not that i think it even matters much. i value having a network name/ID and full control of options that are in WASTE and not in Padlock. there interface is kinda weak ,with huge buttons and striping? i guess just watch and see if they add the rest of wastes advanced features or make a more restricted program from the most anarchistic p2p i love and call WASTE.
oh ya and did you all notice that Padlock is removed from the VIA site now?
IANAL.
Unless they can justifiably say "The release is not believable" then they can't.
Basically - if your foot released some source code as GPL, your brain could revoke it, but not if your brain released the code.
Similarly, if the janitor GPLs some code, it can be revoked, but if your chief programmer GPLs code he worked on, its much more difficult to revoke. Its based on the external perception of the release; the world as a whole is not required to know your internal issues. If its reasonable to assume that the action was taken with knowledge, then even if it was taken without central knowledge, the action can be enforced as legal.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Finkel wrote the code while working for AOL, so depending on the terms of a contract we can't see, the code may be AOLs. But, there is some evidence that Finkel was able to release code in his capacity as an agent of AOL. (This may also be contingent on a contract we don't have.) So it's likely that the code is actually under the GPL.
But I said likely, not certain. AOL disagrees. So, some VIA developers convince their legal department, possibly without telling the whole story, that WASTE is GPL'd, and legal gives them the thumbs up. They write Padlock, put it on the web, and it gets Slashdotted. But now AOL finds out, and they send a threatening letter to VIA's legal department. What does VIA do?
Obviously, they withdraw it. Yes, it's GPL (though nobody is trying to convince them of that), but AOL can still sue them. Since Padlock is of no real importance to VIA, it's financially smarter for them to just drop it.
I think it's safer for someone to just re-implement it, possibly in a better way. I doubt AOL has patents on it, because why would they have gone to the trouble to obtain patents if they weren't going to release the software, and probably didn't know it was being written?
an advertising clause is incompatible, but the original author retains the ownership rights of a copyright owner, and they must be announced (c) because that's the only way for the original author to enforce those rights.
Download PADLOCK-WASTE the p2p way:
H XF 2TI5O7.XGGLWGAAMO3T2Z7DWZI5XLO7RLBO246FRLMHLJA&dn= sqrville_org%20projects%20-%20VIA%20PadLockSL%20Li nux%20HOWTO.htm
2 0P adLockSL%20Linux%20HOWTO.htm|26105|b4e2ade39634b47 d7c34524fcf33d726|/
3 3AYLFI NJ3N5Z.DOXF3JQGJMAWYO2FZ5C2HKDSG2H5AP2CAA7FRUI&dn= PadLockSL.src.zip
c b7 465cde4250fbd1c28635a|/
4 ZZ JBQ557.2Y3QPT57UJ6GXMBECQLFJZEO27SAL4VGUBOKQSA&dn= PadLockSL.win.01.09.040315.zip
6 48 2|cb434021755eaa34d7399d396165a804|/
B 2M YIETZQ.4V2IXDUUCYHN4WETATZKGLZL5EVVDEE6IIXCW7I&dn= PadLockSL-UG-001_20040311.zip
7 3| 7c446c26d07cc97fd0239bff38aec5cc|/
THE WEBSITE
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:472PCY5U2WAUBIMOI6WCFZF
ed2k://|file|sqrville_org%20projects%20-%20VIA%
THE SOURCE CODE
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:T4EDIJIPGMQR65W3V3E
ed2k://|file|PadLockSL.src.zip|1375870|3422c73c
THE WINDOWS INSTALLER
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:XEQMCYDA4J5TR53IIWI7ADP
ed2k://|file|PadLockSL.win.01.09.040315.zip|401
REST
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:3LUXE2FP67SF6FHKJJEY6UY
ed2k://|file|PadLockSL-UG-001_20040311.zip|9984