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."
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.]
Perhaps this has something to do with it?
then it's GPL forever baby
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.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
I ganked the windows binary before it was pulled if anyone cares get it here PadLock
Wang33
PAGERANK++ Robsell.com
Perhaps they discovered a license violation and took it down to prevent a lawsuit.
It seems you are exactly right. More details here
shak's nude anime gallery
All of that was reported on here.
The only reference to WASTE that you could mentioned on their page was buried in a forum discussion.
No, it doesn't. I've used on non-via hardware. Where did you get the idea that it requires their hardware?
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
Well then thats what makes it duel licensed. With a duel licensed project you have the same code licensed one way to people as GPL and as proprietary to other people. That's all legal according to the GPL and i think what should apply here
Note I am not a lawyer but one would agree with me
Gaim-e and gaim-encryption aren't exactly user friendly. They are not easy to configure and install. Especially on windows machines. Moreover Gaim-e is Open source. So the agencies couldn't really call up a CEO or something and have them removed could they?
The only thing that is a little mainstream (because it's easy to use and install) is Trillan. However it is closed source (possible back door) and the key generation isn't fully documented. Cerulean studios could have been obliged to give up their keys..
Padlock had it all: Open source, Secure and could potentially become maintream as it is easy to install (in windows) and cross platform
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
It seems you are exactly right.
I don't think so.
Let's see. Nullsoft's employee posted it who has had the authority to post in the past. It appeared for how long (?) on their site listed as GPL. Their statement mentions nothing about infringement on others copyrights or patents.
IANAL. To me, it seems me, however, that Nullsoft did in fact make this GPL software. If I were to use it, say, for remote encryption key generation linked to openSSL or openSSH or whatever, I'd consult my lawyer first but it looks like they've got no recourse. The post by AC I'm responding to claims that Nullsoft discovered a license violation which it doesn't, other than to now claim that it's copyrighted software. I think they might be able to claim that if you got it after that date, they've changed the license but if someone got it prior to that and reshared it with ANY mods, the GPL stands.
This strikes me as akin to a company doing unauthorized work, billing for it and then hoping that you'll pay just because they sent you an invoice. Or better yet, you recieve an unsolicited radio in the mail in the mail from me. You turn it on and I attempt to bill you. In the US, it's a gift. No contract existed, I didn't ask for it and you sent me something with no legal strings attached. It's not a misshipped package. It doesn't matter if it's a $5 radio and you billed me $5 or a $5 radio and you tried billing me $5000.
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
If it's dual licensed then only one part of the code is GPL. It's not that certain people get the code under GPL and some other people don't. And if there was a legality issue with say 50% of the code, you'd have to strip all of that out before it was legal for you to redistribute it.
Otherwise, you could take that Win2K source that was lost/stolen/whatever, make some GPL project out of it, and suddenly it would be completely legal. It doesn't work that way.
Seriously. This is the kind of attitude that Steve Ballmer and folks can point to and say "See how viral the GPL is? Some guy under contract to AOL simply put the word GPL in the source - they didn't even have to make sure the release complied with the terms of the GPL, and now AOL's valuable IP is gone." And then millions of PHBs will ban the use of the word GPL in their offices, because Ballmer provided 'proof' that it was bad.
The GPL does not let you take any source code anywhere and release it under the GPL. If it did, we'd have seen GPL'd Windows 2000 from the leaked MS source, and a GPL'd version of every piece of source that was ever leaked onto the net. Heck, we could solve Xfree86 problem in a second - someone just grab the latest source with the annoying license, untar it, stick in a GPL LICENSE and COPYING files, tar it back up, and distribute it. Bingo - problem solved. Yet for some strange reason, no one has done that yet. Because it's not allowed. I bet even RMS would agree with that.
The GPL provides an awful lot of protection, but that all goes out the window if the inital release under the GPL was unlawful. And one such case would be if you signed an employment contract stating that any code you wrote was property of the company. If you plan to work on GPL stuff, either get a waiver beforehand, or find another job. But you don't get to decide that part of your contact doesn't apply because you don't like it or feel it's "wrong". If so, I could decide that I don't feel like repaying my car payment, or that I want to knock down a few walls in my apartment, regardless of what my lease says. The courts get to strike down parts of a contract after it's signed - the average person doesn't.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
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.
No. But note that a piece of software is not necessarily licensed under the GPL just because it is accompanied by a text which claims so. Otherwise, I could legally redistribute (e.g.) Microsoft Windows by claiming it is under the GPL.
Most likely, the copyright of the software is and always was held by Nullsoft, not the author. Therefore, the author didn't have the right to license the software under the GPL (or any other license) in the first place. Same thing as the Microsoft analogy.
This is also the reason why the Free Software Foundation requires copyright disclaimers from the employers of software authors. They don't want to suddenly find out that they never had any rights to a software which they allegedly distributed under the GPL.
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.
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.
Go roll your own people.
I'm working on it.
Here you go, Mr. Lawyer: