VLC 1.1 Forced To Drop Shoutcast Due To AOL Anti-OSS Provision

The folks over at VideoLAN are in the process of releasing version 1.1.0 of VLC, and one of the major changes is the removal of SHOUTcast, a media-streaming module from AOL-owned Nullsoft. "During the last year, the VLC developers have received several injunctions by e-mail from employees at AOL, asking us to either comply to a license not compatible with free software or remove the SHOUTcast capability in VLC." Within the license is a clause prohibiting the distribution of SHOUTcast with any product whose own license requires that it be "disclosed or distributed in source code form," "licensed for the purpose of making derivative works," or "redistributable at no charge." The license would also force VideoLAN to bundle Nullsoft adware with VLC. Update: 06/22 00:52 GMT by H : The 1.1 release is ready from their site; you can also read up on the release information.

Comments

Not the first and not the last

[jlechem]

to say fuck you AOL. Seriously quit being a dick.

Re:Not the first and not the last

[nametaken]

It's way too late for AOL. They could hand out free puppy dogs and ice cream for the next year and nobody would ever love them again.

All 3 remaining shareholders need to get someone to fire everyone in the top 30% of pay recipients there, break the company into smaller ones with independent leadership and f'ing BURY they name AOL forever. RIP.

Re:Not the first and not the last

[Lumpy]

And the way to do it? remove shoutcast, make it a module, put the module outside the usa, and make it auto install. call it "aol can go to hell-shuotcast plugin OSS version"

then say, "we cant control plugin makers, sorry, but our product does not have shoutcast compatability in it."

Do a video press release flipping the bird the entire time. ALA vietnam and korea war POW film reels.

Re:Not the first and not the last

[buchner.johannes]

Why is this even an issue? Isn't VLC based in France?

Were they using the source code from Nullsoft? Couldn't they rewrite the code themselves?

TFA says:

We want to emphasise the fact that features like SHOUTcast or icecast browsing are now doable using our new extension framework and you will find user-contributed extensions on http://addons.videolan.org/

Re:Not the first and not the last

[WED Fan]

The problem is, they'd package the free puppy dogs inside the celophane magazine wrappers and people would be tossing DEAD puppies out in droves. Then you'd have the smart alek posting a website about the 101 things you could do with a dead AOL puppy.

Re:Not the first and not the last

[operagost]

Apparently, three of the 101 uses are NOT "coming when you call", "chasing squirrels at all", or "being much fun".

Re:Not the first and not the last

[rsteele19]

I hate to interrupt a good old-fashioned witch-hunt, but AOL was instrumental in the creation of a little group called the Mozilla Foundation, transferring hardware and intellectual property to them and donating $2 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#History

So maybe they're not all bad.

Re:Not the first and not the last

[Tassach]

AOL only bought Netscape for the traffic going to the portal site. Management viewed Netscape's software portfolio as unwanted baggage, so they jettisoned that as early as they could, getting as much goodwill and publicity out of it as possible. $2M is chump change for a company bringing in over a billion in cash every year. The irony is that immediately after taking over, traffic on the Netscape.com portal site dropped by 90-95%. AOL has an amazing talent for buying high-traffic web properties and turning them into low-traffic ones. Having witnessed it first-hand, the disconnect between AOL's management and reality is utterly mind-boggling. /ex-AOL employee

Re:Not the first and not the last

[Arthur Grumbine]

What's wrong with AOL and ME?! I'm runnin' AOL 9.0 right now on my Windows ME eMachines desktop with Norton, McAfee, and XP Antivirus Pro 2010. I got my Yahoo!, Ask.com, Windows Live, Altavista, and Mapquest toolbars for browsing with IE 6.0. I download all the latest movies before they come out, using Limewire, and all the latest cracked video games as well. Whenever my computer slows down I just call my geek friend to fix it.

Re:Not the first and not the last

[kriston]

I agree, yet by the time they bought them, Netscape was a sad shell of company that didn't know it was dead yet. Nobody was going to Netscape.com by that time, and AOL tried to integrate as much of the My Netscape product into the failed My AOL product and actually brought My AOL back from the dead on iPlanet server. Traffic kept dropping over at Netscape.com and they finally put it out of its misery and redirected people to a somewhat revitalized My AOL product with the "Netscape" brand "chrome" on it. After all this, My AOL features were blended with AOL.COM and it survived to some success over the years. Today you go to my.netscape.com and it is my.aol.com with a Netscape "skin" running on a combination of Apache and AOLserver servers, the latter being an open-source project since 1999. -another ex-AOL employee.

Re:Not the first and not the last

[segin]

Except that they aren't using so much as one line of Nullsoft code. The license agreement in question is a service license, not a software license. It just says that any software that uses the SHOUTcast service cannot be published as source code, or require that it's source code be published, or even allow for people to make copies for gratis.

In other words, it's saying that GPL'd software can't send commands to their server and get back data. No matter who wrote the damn code.

After all, the name of the specific license that AOL is pushing is "SHOUTcast Radio Directory License Agreement and Terms of Service".

For more clarification as to why this service license can dictate what license the client software utilizes (or at least, why AOL thinks they can dictate the license of client software that connects to their directory), let's take a little look at their "license".

First, it refers to the client software as an "Integrated Product". This term is defined, by the license, as "a version of Your Product into which the API is integrated, whether in "works like," "works like-looks like," prototype, intermediate form, final form, or other form."

"API", is then defined by the license as "the specifications, code samples, header files, libraries, and applications provided to You by Nullsoft, and any changes, alterations, corrections, or enhancements made thereto at any time by Nullsoft."

Note the text I put in bold, "the specifications". Basically, if I write brand new code from scratch, and it can connect to the SHOUTcast Directory, then it somehow must conform to these specifications (even if I did not use Nullsoft/AOL's published documents providing these specifications - which are basically the underlying protocol for client/server interaction). As such, even though this is 100% free of Nullsoft code, it conforms to Nullsoft's specifications (as if it didn't, it would be unable to interact with the SHOUTcast Directory server), and is thus supposedly covered under the SHOUTcast Directory Service License, as the software uses the service.

Note: I don't support Nullsoft/Aee-Oh-Hell (AOL)/Whoever-the-fuck-makes-this-shit, even if I sound like I do. I am simply explaining how this license supposedly works, or at least what seems to be Aee-Oh-Hell's interpretation of it.

As with that, I think I might fork VLC and keep the SHOUTcast Directory browser code in the main codebase. Let Aee-Oh-Hell come after me, I'll tell them to go fuck themselves.

Re:Not the first and not the last

[Hatta]

The license agreement in question is a service license, not a software license.

As long as the VLC developers don't use the service, thy cannot be held to any service license.

As such, even though this is 100% free of Nullsoft code, it conforms to Nullsoft's specifications (as if it didn't, it would be unable to interact with the SHOUTcast Directory server), and is thus supposedly covered under the SHOUTcast Directory Service License, as the software uses the service.

This of course is a complete and utter overreach on the part of AOL. If such an interpretation of the law had a chance in hell of prevailing in court, Microsoft would have put an end to WINE years ago.

Just another case of a large corporation abusing copyright law to bully small developers.

AO-who?

[AdmiralXyz]

You'd think those guys would seize any opportunity to stay relevant. It's one thing to shoot yourself in the foot, another to do it when you're inches from death.

Re:AO-who?

[Sir_Lewk]

Maybe their just trying to take themselves out of their own misery.

Re:AO-who?

[mikkelm]

You have to admire their consistency. I don't recall hearing of them ever doing anything to benefit the users.

Sayonara SHOUTcast!

[WrongSizeGlass]

AOL wants to flex what little muscle it has left and try to have an impact on something? KMA AOL, VLC is going to cast your SHOUTcast aside. No one will miss it, and more importantly, no one will miss AOL when it fades off into the sunset.

Re:Sayonara SHOUTcast!

[spinkham]

However, we are providing a way to integrate the "icecast directory" that provides an open source equivalent to SHOUTcast. If you know and like a radio station currently listed on the SHOUTcast directory, please make sure this radio is also available on the icecast directory and let the radio owner know about how AOL treats their content.

There's a replacement, it's free and user editable. Sounds like the death of SHOUTcast to me.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't VLC already come with DeCSS inside to decode DVD video? Isn't DeCSS "illegal software" ? ... so why does that make this module any different? Can't they just ignore the injunction and keep going?

Promise I'm not trolling, just confused, or perhaps not understanding the situation.

Re:Wait...

[localman57]

Because that would be wrong. Open source software needs to set an example by respecting the licenses under which code is provided. Otherwise, we have no moral authority to go after companies that violate the GPL and demand that they post their code. DVD decoding is a bit different story, because of the fuzzyness of various laws that protect content, and your ability to use it in ways to make it compatible with your system.

Re:Wait...

[slackergod]

Indeed! Just to clarify things for the AC above...

This is an issue of the authors of some code demanding "adhere to our license or get rid of our code". Which I think everyone can understand the need to honor, if just as a matter of "do unto others, or else".

DeCSS is a completely different case. The code was written by a Norwegian named Jon Johansen, who not only did the cryptographic research to invent the algorithm in the first place, but wrote the code and then released it to the world. Copyright-wise, the code is legally open-source. And for all countries except the US, the code is legal for use. So for anyone outside the US, there aren't any legal problems with the code. And VLC isn't a US-developed piece of software (though to help Americans, DeCSS is distributed as a separate library under many linux distributions).

The only thing which taints the algorithm in the US is the "DCMA" law, which outlawed the use of any algorithms which circumvent a "copy protection scheme". The law is so broad that almost *anything* which alters the encoding of data (ROT13, etc) is a copy protection scheme; despite the fact that encrypting a DVD in no way prevents you from making copies of it (copies of encrypted bits play just like the original). So the DVD "CSS" encryption scheme doesn't even stop copying, yet it's able to wrap itself in the legal mantle the DCMA provides. What CSS *does* do is prevent you from playing a DVD unless the software author has paid a license fee to the people who created CSS (NOTE: not the people who creating the video codec it uses, that's just MPEG2). So all it does is stop you from making use of your fair use rights under US copyright law. It's your DVD, you have a right to play it, sell it, etc.

Now, you might argue that the DCMA, while unjust, is still the law, and Americans should abide by it. And that's a whole can of worms to which Slashdot has devoted many pages of discussion over the last decade. But initially, the effects of the DMCA were broader: worldwide, there were *no* open source DVD players. Period. Because the CSS algorithm wasn't even available in source form anywhere. DVD player authors worldwide had to pay a license just to link in a binary-only library. That is, until Jon Johansen (and cohorts) successfully reverse engineered the algorithm in a completely-legal-for-Norway manner (he was tried in court and found innocent of any wrongdoing). Thus allowing the rest of the world to watch dvds without having to pay money under a racket created by a US-only law.

And *thats* where DeCSS came from, and why it's nothing like this situation, which (while foot-and-bullet stupid) is perfectly within all internationally recognized rights of the authors.

Re:Seriously, how is AOL even marginally relevant?

[Monkeedude1212]

Sure. Just type in the AOL Keyword, "AOL".

AOL makes software?

[zill]

Wow, I didn't know AOL developed software. I thought they were just a Frisbee manufacturer.


Speaking of which I really miss getting the free sample Frisbees from them every month. Did they go bankrupt or something?

Re:AOL makes software?

[rufus t firefly]

And I'm sure that their overpriced drugs and the people who are being gouged for them are paying for all of that crapola. I'd rather they turn around and subsidize the cost for some of their lower income customers, but we all know *that* isn't about to happen.

I grew up with industry schwag as well, but that industry was far better off when it couldn't direct market to patients. Turns doctors into mere "prescribers".

Pharma is out of control in the US -- and they're more bloated and less "innovative" than ever.

Magnusson-Moss

[wiredlogic]

Reverse engineering and design for interoperability is legal in the US. Unless there is an active patent or AOL's code is incorporated into VLC they don't have a leg to stand on and are just engaging in bully tactics. Considering that this is AOL I'm not surprised that they're likely to shift to the SCO business model and squeeze all they can from the fumes of their diminished empire.

OSS not the real reason

[bzzfzz]

From TFA:

"When sold or distributed to End Users, the Integrated Product shall not [...] (c) incorporate any Publically Available Software, in whole or in part, in a manner that may subject SHOUTcast Radio or the SHOUTcast Radio Materials, in whole or in part, to all or part of the license obligations of any Publically Available Software. As used herein, the term "Publicly Available Software" means any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software or similar licensing or distribution models; and that requires as a condition of use, modification or distribution that such software or other software incorporated into, derived from or distributed with such software: (1) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (2) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (3) be redistributable at no charge." (Emphasis mine)

This is a standard provision that is part of any license agreement for commercial software, and all it says is that you can't distribute the software in a way that makes it subject to the GFDL or some other Free license.

I'm not sure what the real reason is, but the OSS provision isn't it.

XBMC?

[CoffeeDog]

DISCLAIMER: If you are an employee of AOL you are not authorized to read the following comment.

How does XBMC get away with SHOUTcast support then? Or should I be asking this question?

That

[jamesyouwish]

really whips the llama's ass

So what? Stay using Icecast

[SgtChaireBourne]

SHOUTcast is just a bad copy of icecast. Keep using icecast for your audio and video streaming and do not accept lesser, closed source imitations.

I do hope that the specific VLC developers involved with the shoutcast fiasco get the drubbing they deserve, if for no other reason than as an example for others and as payment for the trouble they've caused the rest of the project. It's 2010, closed source does not belong on the net and FOSS developers have no business undercutting FOSS projects.

Re: iPhone

[fistfullast33l]

As an iPhone developer, I can tell you the majority of streaming radio apps on mobile phones are listening to Shoutcast servers. That's where most of the money lies for AOL/Nullsoft in Shoutcast. The protocol is very simple and similar to HTTP so the iPhone OS supports it (sort of) out of the box, and some of the more advanced features (like in-stream song names) can be taken advantage of by manipulating the HTTP headers.

Re:So what? Stay using Icecast

[mmkkbb]

Shoutcast predates icecast. And, in any case, this appears to have been a Shoutcast directory client, not a media server.

Burn in hell

[soundguy]

I've operated a media distribution system (mostly video ppv) for about a decade. About 7 years ago, I ended up blocking the AOL browser completely. It was a worthless piece of shit that caused 50% of our customer service issues. Coupled with their idiotic "no refresh for 30 days" DNS servers (which means any time you moved a website to a new IP, it "vanished" for a month for all AOLosers) and their proxy servers that made tracking large-scale credit card fraud extremely difficult, it literally cost us money to even have AOLosers in the customer base. I was in the process of compiling a list of AOL IP ranges and had plans to block them completely when they finally rolled over and died in the dial-up market. Almost overnight, they became 99% irrelevant and my life got so much easier, I was able to start taking regular vacations.

In summation, GO TO HELL, AOL! You're nothing but a festering boil on the ass of the internet and your rotting corpse needs to be dumped into an active volcano.

Amarok

[c_g_hills]

Amarok dropped Shoutcast support in version 2.2 (October 2009) because of this.

AOL Doing Its Best to Become Irrelevant

[DrEnter]

Seriously AOL, are you that determined to drive every last customer away?

Hello from SHOUTcast

[friskygeek]

Hi all. We were disappointed to see VLC's announcement today that they were removing access to the SHOUTcast service in VLC. While the SHOUTcast service is proprietary, SHOUTcast has always supported open source development since its birth in 1999 and we will continue to do so in the future. The SHOUTcast API terms of service allow the SHOUTcast API to be incorporated into open source software applications via SHOUTcast API partner program so long as the terms of such open source software do not subject SHOUTcast Radio or the SHOUTcast service to the open source terms. VLC's comment that the SHOUTcast Toolbar is spyware is not accurate. The SHOUTcast Toolbar is not spyware. The SHOUTcast toolbar may only be downloaded by a user upon their prior consent. We will be reaching out directly to VLC to clear up any confusion that exists about this situation.

Re:Hello from SHOUTcast

[shutdown -p now]

VLC's comment that the SHOUTcast Toolbar is spyware is not accurate. The SHOUTcast Toolbar is not spyware. The SHOUTcast toolbar may only be downloaded by a user upon their prior consent.

Where consent is identified by a checkbox buried on next-to-final page in the installer of "partner software" that is ticked by default?

C'mon, this is 2010. Any bundled browser toolbar is malware (whether it's spyware is debatable) pretty much by definition.

Re:Or Make Your Own... since people think it is ea

[kriston]

Yes, the article and the C&D letters appear to be about the directory service provided by Shoutcast, called Shoutcast Radio. This is separate from Shoutcast, the protocol. The quoted sections posted over at the VLC web site specifically say "Shoutcast Radio" so it's reasonable to think they're talking about the directory service, not the streaming protocol. The protocol itself for streaming the audio is open, and AOL even tried to promote it under the name "Ultravox" and it never seemed to get anywhere. But all I see that the VLC site is talking about is Shoutcast Radio, the directory service.

It's also important to know that the protocol behind Shoutcast serves way more than half a million people. Most iPhone Apps that receive streaming audio are receiving them via the Shoutcast streaming protocol even if they're not using the Shoutcast Radio directory. In many cases the ICEcast open-source implementation of Shoutcast is what's being used. Let's see, CBS Radio (AOL and Yahoo Radio), AMFM's iheartradio, and so many others are using something very much like the Shoutcast protocol, once and no longer known as "Ultravox," for serving iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad clients. I don't know about Android but I would suspect they're using ICEcast since it's the one supported by the Ogg Vorbis crowd, too.

Shoutcast/ICEcast ICY protocol is in so many more places than people know. It might not be purely AOL's Shoutcast by Nullsoft, but it's someting mighty close to it, serving tens of millions of people.

We don't need the Shoutcast Radio directory. That's the technology in question from what I'm reading at VLC's web site.