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.]
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
This makes the assumption that the GPL license originally given for the original code is actually valid. The common point that people make is that Justin Frankel wrote the code while working for AOL, and depending on his contract with AOL, code he writes while working for them (or while in the office?) may be owned by AOL, meaning the license he put on the code may not be valid. Like someone pointed out earlier, if I stuck a GPL COPYING file in with the Windows 2000 source code, it wouldn't suddenly become legit. So if AOL didn't "authorize" the release of the program, the source code for waste is just as 'leaked' as the win2k source code.
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
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.
In other words, you want the international community to pass a law that makes it so that if someone steals my code and posts it online and then has a friend download it, I lose all rights to that code.
That's a very bad idea.
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
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.