Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent Closes Source Code
An anonymous reader writes ""There are two issues people need to come to grips with," BitTorrent CEO Ashwin Narvin told Slyck.com. "Developers who produce open source products will often have their product repackaged and redistributed by businesses with malicious intent. They repackage the software with spyware or charge for the product. We often receive phone calls from people who complain they have paid for the BitTorrent client."
As for the protocol itself, that too is closed, but is available by obtaining an SDK license."
"There are two issues people need to come to grips with," BitTorrent CEO Ashwin Narvin told Slyck.com. "The genie is back in the bottle, and the cat is back in the bag."
Sorry, I just thought that was funny. If you RTFA, though, it sounds like the sky isn't falling just yet. The client, which was closed source before, is still free (as in free beer), and the protocol is available to anyone who asks for it.
So basically BitTorrent bought uTorrent and is staying closed source (as uTorrent is now). Q: How will this impact the BitTorrent open source development community as a whole? A: There will be no impact to the BitTorrent open source development community. We are committed to maintaining the preeminent reference implementation of BitTorrent under an open source license. Although the latest documentations won't be published for the world to see, an aspiring BitTorrent developer or a hardened coder can still obtain the specifications on the latest protocol extensions by obtaining a SDK license.
Video Production Support
.. the moment Bit Torrent was commercialised and started playing with the big TV guys this was bound to happen. I'm just surprised it took so long.
Malicious software re-packaging is a lame excuse too.
What's the name going to be for the upcoming auto-encrypted open-sourced fork of Bittorrent?
Ryan Fenton
Wouldn't it be great if someone could create some kind of license that allowed free access to the source code, but provided grounds to sue malicious companies that attempted to take that code and include it in closed source proprietary products without giving anything back to the community!
Oh, wait...
Affect them? Hardly at all. Let's face it, other teams have grabbed the ball and are running with it. The official Bit Torrent folks are going to have to work to stay at all relevant, "premier reference implementations" aside.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So I wonder how long it will be before the source is out on the Pirate Bay...
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I'm a bit confused by this. Isn't this what licenses are for? Why not just sue the people selling and profiting from your open source product for breaking the license? It just seems to me that the reasoning doesn't make much sense. There are plenty of examples of people selling closed source software that's "free" to people who don't know any better(like Kazaa) and are less tight-fisted with their money than I am. It seems to me that decisions like this don't scare off someone someone who wants to resell your program to make a buck, doesn't help someone so incurious as to not wonder if there is a free version of the software they are being asked to buy, but does hurt the person who just wants the source for their own reasons. Am I wrong?
The company that owns the BitTorrent trademark is not the arbiter of the protocol or anything else. Do they even own that trademark?
Note that they opposed the addition of encryption, and they were completely ignored. BitTorrent, the company, is entirely irrelevant.
http://www.bittornado.com/
There, that should tide us over for a while.
Does anyone "know" how it will impact other clients? No, we don't "know" that, however, a reasonable estimate would be "not much, if at all."
utorrent may be the single most popular BT client as TFA claims (OTOH, most of the peers I see are Azureus and Ktorrent. I don't know if that's just because I'm in the odd niche of only doing legal stuff over BT (no, it exists, really Linux and *BSD ISOs), or if most people are using those, I don't know.
Either way, what I expect will happen if they go totally closed will be much like what happened with SSH. After the official SSH became closed and proprietary, the OpenSSH project picked up where they had left off, and while SSH is still in business and has a product line, OpenSSH took over the market and is now far more popular, on both the client side and the server. If BT totally closes everything off and makes the protocol incompatible with open versions, I think we can reasonably expect to see the open source version fork and take over the BT market.
"Welcome to obscurity, gentlemen. We hope you enjoy your stay. To ease your transition, we've assigned a personal guide for the both of you. Heidi, please call Mr. Fanning and let him know his group is here."
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Hm, it seems to be referring to UPnP (which I have vehemently disabled on my router).. but I wonder if they have any idea what they're talking about. If you can't accept incoming connections that just means that your client initiates all transfers of data, not that you're completely incapable of uploading. Good clients like utorrent (and apparently not Bittorrent 6.0) will give/trade data without being asked if there's available upload bandwidth. Not the best for efficiency (though I should think it'd at least volunteer less-available data first) but it gets you a high ratio nonetheless.
A: There will be no impact to the BitTorrent open source development community. We are committed to maintaining the preeminent reference implementation of BitTorrent under an open source license." Slashdot editors, you are fucking retarded.
"Developers who produce open source products will often have their product repackaged and redistributed by businesses with malicious intent. They repackage the software with spyware or charge for the product. ... As for the protocol itself, that too is closed, but is available by obtaining an SDK license."
The risks are great and I don't see a pay off.
As one person has already pointed out, too much of the wrong thing will isolate and destroy them
.Going non free will also make their problems worse. The malice described is a problem that free software creates. The only reason crackers and MAFIAA can get away with charging people for spyware derivatives is because Windoze and the clients are not free to begin with. Real free software can be packaged by distributions like Debian, which assure the user the software has been checked for malware by an impartial third party. The further away from that model they get, the more problems they will have. The dirtbags will go right along with what they are doing and their life will be easier.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The "new and improved" RIAA approved BitTorrent protocol. This is the official one that won't be throttled by your ISP. Full of DRM goodies for Hollywood to control.
What?
There is a difference, here. uTorrent has always been closed, so it's not the client that's being closed. What people are or should be worried about are changes to the protocol. Hopefully, we won't see BitTorrent 6.0+ clients being blocked from trackers other than BitTorrent.com's tracker because of a silly change in the protocol that disrupts clients using v5 and earlier. Unfortunately, this means that if Bram, Ludde, and company engineer some wicked addition to the protocol that drastically improves it, the open source community will either 1) not have access to it or 2) have to reverse engineer it.
Additionally, only the main BitTorrent.com tracker would have access to tracker-side protocol updates. So, this then means that the only benefit of using the mainline client is when downloading from the BitTorrent.com tracker!
Is BitTorrent pigeonholing itself; is it forming its own niche within its once-large niche?
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
get rtorrent
http://libtorrent.rakshasa.no/
with adsl2+ i could get >1meg/s with hundreds of connections, totally stable and only used around ~1%cpu time on a p3 933.
use gentoo and -O3 it too.
The problem being that when one company has near monopoly, and in the eye of the public is indistinguishable from the product, they can close source, then change the specs (even if the spec is published), and the open source alternatives won't be able to compete.
This is partially because they'll always play catch-up, and partially because they won't be able to improve the specs themselves -- if they do, they'll become incompatible, and crushed by the product everyone uses.
Example of just this effect: RTF, which Microsoft bought back in 1990. Open source RTF readers are usually several versions behind, and anyone expecting to read RTF documents no matter what version have to use the latest Microsoft products to do so. This is not what the situation was like back when RTF was still open (despite being proprietary), and DEC let anyone see the coming changes.
And that's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is if they close the specs too. That, of course, will kill them in the end, but in the mean time it's going to cause lots of grief.
This is very off-topic, but, about your sig: The last time I clicked on a .cx link on Slashdot was a long time ago, and it's going to be a long time until I do it again...
The GPL cannot keep the original author from changing the license and closing the source nor can it prevent the protocol from being closed either.
The only thing it can do is keep that source (the version that was under the GPL) available to the open-source community. Which, btw, can be accomplished by any other open-source license. Btw, they have already done this.
Basically, we're in the exact same situation now that we would have been if it was GPL'd.
That my fellow community developers will take this opportunity to drop the BitTorrent protocol. Time to develop something better.
It's time we address it's critical failure... that you can see which IP's are trafficking in which files. There has to be an obscure way in which people can just exchange data blobs. Where the blobs are interleaved or multiplexed with data of other files and you don't know and can't know with all practicality what a particular blob contains until you finally collect enough blobs to reconstruct your data file. There are more blobs to be collected for a particular file for data redundancy but you only need to collect so many of them to recreate the data set. Meanwhile sure you downloaded more data then you needed to for that particular file but all the blobs you downloaded are still in demand from other people because of their relevance to other data sets. And you can safely continute to server those files because you don't necessarily know what multiplexed data they contain. Blobs also mutate and remix over time as to which combined data they contain.
From the article itself, it appears that, since acquiring uTorrent, a closed-source C++ BitTorrent client for Windows, Bittorrent, inc. has decided to keep it closed source, and also to make it the new "mainline" BitTorrent. The old "mainline" client, which is open-source, written in Python (with wx for the graphics) and is generally cross-platform, last I checked, will continue to be maintained as a "reference implementation", but might not always track the latest protocol updates to uTorrent. Full documentation on the protocol will apparently come with an "SDK license", which they claim is "easy to get".
Well, first of all they ARE doing a few things that contradict the spirit of free software. Their main client app will be closed source, and although the reference implementation will apparently continue to be free, protocol docs require you to acquire a special license. A few years ago, these moves would have tightened Bittorrent inc's grip on the world of bt clients in general.
Now, however, the landscape is different. I can't produce statistics for all torrent users in general, but when I take a look at my peers in my preferred client, KTorrent, there seems to be a near dead-heat for most popular client between uTorrent and Azureus (also open source), with certain alternative clients like Transmission, Bitrocket, and KTorrent making frequent appearances, as well (and all 3 of those examples? also open source). Although uTorrent certainly remains a big player, it doesn't confer upon BitTorrent, inc. the ability to dictate major compatibility-breaking protocol changes by fiat. The fact that the main implementation of BT was open source to start basically stops things from being ruined by more restrictive licensing now.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
Out of curiosity, what exactly is "wrong" about them closing the source in Bittorrent's case? I mean, if it was an OS or something where security was critical I could see a problem. But really the only "benefit" I saw from the source being available was a bunch of clients that just leeched without sharing their bandwidth.
I know it's not the Slashdot party line, but not everything benefits from open source. Perhaps more importantly, this sets a bad precedent for companies that want to release code. If they ever have to pull back they have a PR mess on their end. Most PR flacks will just say not to release code to begin with.
One of the things Stallman and company have not managed to fully explain is how exactly I'm supposed to hunt down the "dirtbags" that take my GPL'ed code and repackage it like... well, BitTorrent. Or Audacity. Never mind adding spyware or whatever. If there's enough of them I'll spend more time in court than at the keyboard writing code contributing to his dream. Why not just use a BSD-style license if what I'm trying to do to begin with is help fellow developers, and just spare myself the post-release gastric discomfort?
I'm not sure why you would mind if someone repackaged your software as long as they did nothing wrong with it.
The Free Software Foundation recommends that you give your copyright to them to make sure that no one uses your software to harm others. They have been very successful at getting companies to live up to the terms of the GPL. There is nothing much you can do about spyware additions other than force GPL release of code, so that those additions can be seen and removed.
Releasing under a BSD license gives your fellow developers freedom, but also allows them to add malware that can't be seen and removed. M$ loves your code. If that does not cause you discomfort, you have not thought through what they are doing to you or what they think of you.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
There's a trap waiting to happen.
If they merge uTorrent (non-free, closed) with the older "BitTorrent 5.0" (open source, free), hell's going to break lose if there's any GPLed patches in the open source that Bram didn't make.
GPL applies to even "lowly" patchers and debuggers code, as it does to the 10klines per day guys.. (joke)
Im ready for a torrent of gpl-violations
While we're at it, let's point out how wonderful some of those tags are.
This story is tagged "lame" and "bastards" among other things. So yeah, if I'm interested in looking up info on OSS software being closed, I'll be sure to look for articles tagged "lame". That imediately makes so much sense to me, and you guys clearly know what good tagging's all about. Tagging's a great way of expressing opinions on entire stories without having to own up to them. You don't even have to have to LEAVE A FUCKING COMMENT WITH A USER NAME.
C'mon, at least post AC, dickheads.
I don't therefore I'm not.
It wasn't about clients that leech bandwidth, it was about clients with great interfaces, and additional management methods, such as uTorrent or Azureus' web management. In my opinion, the mainline client was so lacking in features that I considered it to be unusable. Bittorrent owes some of it's success to the fact that there are so many great clients for people to choose. If you're looking for simple, try uTorrent or Transmission. If you need advanced features, try Azureus. People like this kind of choice. It saddens me to see this, as it means that clients might eventually become less compatible with closed-source revisions of the protocol, and we'll lose some great file-sharing software.
Unlike porn, which yada yada rimshot hey-ooh!
probably. bitcomet is the same client without the ad-crap.
It's a pity they're going closed source, but it wouldn't be unfair for Blizzard to toss a few gold pieces back their way given all the money Blizzard is making.
Talk about closing the gate after the source has bolted!
Sorry about that. Truly, deeply sorry.
This guy probably thinks that computers are just for porn and that college is just for drinking.
They aren't??? It's not???
/. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
Where can I find the .ryanfenton for the latest Heroes episode!!?!?111@!!
> Q: How will this impact the BitTorrent open source development community as a whole?
A: Once word gets out about our RIAA backdoor, Azureus is going to kick our ass. Ummm... you better not print that.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
KTorrent is my favorite pure torrent app on any platform, with utorrent running a close second. Both are very fast, light-weight clients.
I've also dabbled with mldonkey and shareaza as more multi-purpose p2p apps that also support torrents.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
People use Bittorrent -- or more specifically, many people use uTorrent -- to connect to public BT trackers and to other people running similar client programs. Bittorrent (the company) doesn't control either. In fact, I don't think that Bittorrent-the-company's "reference implementation" is particularly popular for trackers, and they're really where the marketshare matters.
I don't think that the majority of bittorent (the protocol) users are just going to bend over and throw away the software that they've liked, just because Bittorrent (the company) decides it would be cool to produce a new, ad-laden, DRM-using, Hollywood-mogul-approved version of their software, that breaks compatibility with older versions. In fact, I strongly suspect that the trackers which drive the more popular torrent aggregation sites would refuse to recognize such a "broken" implementation, and would instead favor free implementations (old versions of uTorrent, Azureus, etc.).
What's happening here is that Bittorrent (the company) has become fully decoupled from bittorrent (the protocol). They have very little leverage over the latter; about all they have is the rights to the name "Bittorrent," and the 'reference implementation,' which won't be worth its weight in electrons once they start messing with it.
The comparisons to Microsoft and RTF aren't really apt, because Microsoft had a way they could easily control the format -- they just made future versions of Word produce output that was incompatible with other vendors' software. But Bittorrent can't really do that, because a bittorrent client is only useful insofar as it can communicate with the swarm. As long as the trackers that drive the most popular torrents (which, let's face it, are the illegal ones; warez and movies) don't start using the new/broken protocols, it seems unlikely that a broken protocol would gain traction.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Arghhh! You're missing a closing bracket!
)
Aaaahhh. That's better. *breathe again*
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
And that's only skimming your description.
Besides, not being able to preview files will pretty much make it useless for anything mainstream. Like pirating crap. So, if this protocol is never used for piracy, it will never need such insane protection from the MAFIAA because it will never blip on their radar. Oh, it can be used for other things, like downloading Linux ISOs? BT already does that. Secure file transfer? LOL Traffic analysis foiling? Tor. What else?
You are coming to a sad realization: Cancel or Allow?
Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by incompetence.
Did they just say that the issue with open source was people taking the source code and doing there own thing with it? I thought that was the whole point of it.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
It'll be just like when SSH Inc. closed SSH. Guess what - SSH Inc's ssh implementation is no longer the reference implementation - instead, OpenSSH has become the reference implementation. BitTorrent Inc. can say they are the reference implementation as often as they like but it won't make it true - instead, an open BitTorrent implementation will probably become the reference, and just like SSH Inc. BitTorrent Inc. will fade towards irrelevance (although they may continue to exist).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
On an aging Athlon XP2100 using Azureus 2.5.0.4, top is reporting 0.6% CPU and 60MB RAM used. Currently it's downloading at the highest speed I can get on my ISP. I'm only seeding 2 torrents and downloading 1 (with 67 total connections) so maybe it's not a fair stress test, but it feels pretty quick and capable to me.
Seems like this'll only split the bittorrent protocol, there's a fairly wide variety of clients out there and the only thing that held them together was the official protocol. Azureus has been making small breaks even with the official protocol around, so now it'll probably split. The question is which client will the other ones follow, now that BitTorrent have given up their niche in true XFree86 style.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
I gotta say, as clunky as Azureus has been, they've obviously been working hard on the thing, because it works so much more smoothly now. Even with a few torrents running, I don't get huge CPU grabs like I used to, and the overall feel of speed is definitely improved.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
What a clever move. If I had a successful software protocol up my sleeve, with strong replication authority (ie: what we do, everyone else does), that relies on other clients to maintain the network: i would seriously rethinking pushing them out.
How about DumpTruck?
You must be new here
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
Actually, it does. E9M is a tiny company - I know specialist companies which deal with only one industry who make ten times that revenue.
In any case, you completely missed the context. Does SSH Inc. continue to set the standard? No. They are reduced to following the lead of OpenSSH, which is now the de-facto reference implementation after SSH Inc. went closed source. It doesn't make any difference whether they make E9M or E900M, they are still irrelevant in the context of being the reference implementation.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
uTorrent is so lightweight that I've left it running in the background and downloaded After Effects and Premiere without noticing.
Bit torrent have made a closed source client their mainline client, and have decided to fortify their rights to the protocol too (its closed, but an SDK can be requested).
Correction -- their SDK can be *paid for*.
I beginning to think that the whole point of acquiring the most popular closed source client was to allow them to close and charge for the SDK. The counterpoint to this argument is that if any one open source P2P grits it teeth and pays whatever fee they're going to charge open source clients, then their implementation becomes the new reference.
A lot of people here are talking about how the Mainline client has once again aggressively pursued irrelevance, but uTorrent's marketshare is going to be nigh impossible to unseat unless they do something self-destructive like removing a popular feature they don't like (like encrpytion). They have a really good chance of dictating the development of the future of the protocol with that client in hand.
I think that this finally explains the reason for the buy-out and the lack of open source. I had previously thought it was due to uTorrent's original developer's dislike of open source, but it may have more to do with control and with monetizing the SDK.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
If you want to see where this may be headed, take a look at the DirectConnect situation, or many other popular P2P protocols.
DC is also a popular P2P protocol and it started as a closed application whose protocol was reverse engineered. Later attempts to retake control were futile and nowadays there's no such thing as an "official" DC protocol, only several different client software making it on sheer popularity. Just like BT, some of them add new features and sometimes they're borrowed by the others and so on.
Think of IRC too. It also doesn't have an "official" specification, there are all these servers and clients and so on. At least there were some RFC's at some point, which is more than can be said of other P2P protocols.
So it seems to be a "normal" situation with P2P to not have a standard protocol and for it to evolve on server/client software popularity alone.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer