Slashdot Mirror
Piriform Asks BleachBit To Remove Winapp2.ini Importer
ahziem writes "As author of the BleachBit system cleaner, I received a polite but firm request from Piriform, makers of the similar application CCleaner, to remove a two-year-old feature from BleachBit that allows individual BleachBit users to import winapp2.ini data files created by the community that define which files to delete for applications. Does Piriform's request have merit? Do I need a lawyer? What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?"
Do I need a lawyer? What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?
And once again for the 1,000,000 time, yes, and this isn't the place to get legal advice...
On the other hand, a "firm request" doesn't quite sound like a legal threat. Anyone can send a "firm request".
Maybe check it with a REAL lawyer, but not worry too much until the people you've collided with send you a letter with more solid threats?
Who knows, I'm not a lawyer...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I am not a lawyer nor your lawyer, but I would just ignore the e-mail. Don't answer, just ignore it. Importing a text file has nothing to do with their ToS. This is not a legal advice.
I've been using CCleaner on the few Windows boxes I maintain for a while now. I'd never heard of BleachBit. It looks like it does a lot more than CCleaner, and especially in light of Piriform's obnoxious legal theats, I think I'll switch to BleachBit.
Thanks, Piriform!
Liberty in your lifetime
This is probably just an example of a clueless PHB who doesn't realize the souce of the winapp2.ini files.
Perhaps a polite letter asking how you are violating their TOS, pointing out the source of the winapp2.ini files? Also, you probably never accepted their TOS did you?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This will depend on the CCleaner files. If they are public visible files anyone can make for themselves, you might well have a valid case. If they are files Piriform makes, maybe not. You need an ATTORNEY to help you determine your position, and especially if they sue you. If the formatting of the CCleaner files involves a patented technology, they could have a valid basis to sue you (even though I would personally disagree with it). If the CCleaner files are encrypted, they may have a case based on cracking them. If they are in the clear, then it's no different than you having written a music player to play UNencrypted music files.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This would be like Microsoft asking OpenOffice not to import Word format. Or, for a closer analogy, for them to ask Mozilla not to have Firefox import IE bookmarks when you install it. This type of thing is done all the time. Unless they claim to have a patent on the format in the .ini file, it's totally fair game.
If they have a problem with their TOS being violated, then they should take it up with the people that are actually violating it. (Class action lawsuit anyone? Piriform vs All PC users: importing ini files stored in the clear. Yeah that will work.) It looks like this has nothing to do with you.
This feature annoyed them and they figured, what the heck, if you were weak kneed about it then sending you a pansy email would be the easiest solution.
And once again for the 1,000,000 time, yes, and this isn't the place to get legal advice...
Lemme quote that guy had stated:
Does Piriform's request have merit?
Do I need a lawyer?
What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?
Of the three quoted questions above, "Do I need a lawyer?" comes closest in resembling a "legal advice", but it ain't.
The gist of what poster "ahziem" was looking for is "What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?" - that is, how should one go about under that situation.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
It sometimes baffles me how clueless some people are working in IT as "manager". Since when aren't you allowed to write an importer for an ini file that is publicly availabe. That ini file wasn't even written by piriform.
I think this is a case of a manger that wants to get good points from the upperhand, not knowing how ridiculous her/his requests are.
It seems that piriform is all worked up about an article that implies that BleachBit is importing CCleaner's data, this article in fact. However, the article does not say anywhere that the data is coming from CCleaner, it says the data is coming from Winapp2. Note that Winapp2 specifically states that they are not affiliated with Piriform!
In other words, it looks like Piriform is saying "You can read the same file format that we can read and we demand that you stop reading it", despite the fact that Piriform has no claim to the files in question.
Basically their message is as follows:
"You're pissing us off by having a feature that competes with us, and we have an army of lawyers to throw at you if you don't back down."
This is blatant intimidation.
Why should you be frightened of a violation of their TOS? Have you or your software agreed to be bound by those terms at any point? No? Well then, why the fuck are they threatening you? Answer: because it's easier than threatening their own customers who might actually be violating those TOS, since threatening them will create a Streisand Effect and have them leaving in droves for good.
You might have another TheOatmeal-versus-FunnyJunk moment here.
Sounds like winapp2 is an independently-developed "application" that Piriform does not own. If you wrote your own libraries to parse the file, then they'll have trouble successfully suing you. But that doesn't mean they won't sue. If you're using their libraries, then best ditch it and rewrite that piece yourself.
In either case, you need a lawyer. Let the lawyer respond.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
...or ingenious 13th degree black belt master of the Streisand Effect.
It's not a legal request and the company has simply asked him to remove the feature. He simply declines, he is under no such obligation.
Here, I'll even craft the letter for him:
Dear Louise,
We are under no legal obligation to remove that feature and we therefore decline. If you believe there is a legal basis then please get your lawyer to outline your claim in more concrete terms.
Yours,...
Don't waste your money. There's nothing here.
Thank you for the gratuitous insult.
Yes, it was harsh of him to insult scum by comparing them to lawyers.
Does Piriform's request have merit? Do I need a lawyer? What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?
No, maybe, no sure-fire answer. The first option would be to plainly ignore it, which is probably what I would have picked until I got any more formal but since you've already publicly acknowledged receiving it that's out the window. I'd probably reply:
"Your terms of service is an agreement between your company and your users, as BleachBit is not a party to this agreement we see no legal basis for your request and have not evaluated your claims further."
Most likely, you'll hear nothing and it'll go away but they can always send a lawyer after you, in which case you might want one too. But I think this answer should be fairly safe since the only thing you're saying is that you never agreed to any terms of service.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ridiculous.
They're trying to intimidate without using lawyers because they don't have any legal power to stop you using winapp2 - ignore them.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
> Does Piriform's request have merit?
Did you read the article they are complaining about? It reads like a how-to to rip off Pirform's data. The subtlety of winapp vs. winapp2 may have gotten lost somewhere. But statements like "The Open Source disk cleaner Bleachbit takes advantage of this as it can import all of CCleaner’s cleaning locations." sounds like a real problem.
Is this a poorly worded article or is the author suggesting taking Pirform’s proprietary data? Does your organization support/encourage people to take Pirform’s proprietary data for use in BleachBit?
The winapp2.com site seems to list a data file from Pirform, not the community. This may not be your responsibility, but it certainly puts the whole community into question. How closely aligned are you with that community?
> What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?"
I would expect you to be an expert in these tools, this market, and the winapp2 community. The fact that you are asking us these questions suggests you are not. Do you support the article? Do you support the use of anything proprietary to be used by BleachBit? Does the winapp2 community support anything inappropriate with Pirform's data? You should take a position on all of these items. Even if what you are doing is technically legal, how you present yourself can attract unnecessary trouble.
> Do I need a lawyer?
Who knows. So the only safe answer is "Yes". But, this is as much of an image issue as it is a legal issue. You might need a marketing person to explain this as much as a lawyer.
winapp2.ini is not property of Piriform. It is a separate project by other people and even notes the compatibility with BleachBit as a feature. Piriform is just being a bunch of assholes. Fuck them.
The header for winapp.ini contains this...
----
Application Cleaning file
WARNING - DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE
If you would like to create custom entries then create a new file
called winapp2.ini which follows the same format as this one.
CCleaner will automatically pick up the new file.
Copyright 2004-2008 Piriform Ltd, All Rights Reserved.
This file and it's contents may not be copied or distributed
without the express permission of the author.
----
The copyright section does indeed say that you aren't allowed to use winapp.ini
Since BleachBit and other 3rd party software are using winapp2.ini (which the copyright doesn't cover), Piriform can not insist that BleachBit stop using it.
I drink therefore I am!
I am not a lawyer nor your lawyer, but I would just ignore the e-mail. Don't answer, just ignore it.
IAAL (not practising) and a developer and this comes closest to what I know I ought to do in this situation. Don't communicate until such time as a formal legal request is made and then communicate only as per legal advice.
Personally I would be fighting with myself really hard to stop replying (aka giving them evidence)... however I wouldn't dream of representing myself (not even if I were practising).
At this stage I would save myself the $$$ and just wait to see if they escalate the matter. I'm in no position to assess the legal liabilities in your particular situation. Nor should you accept the analysis or assurances of anyone commenting here. It may be they have no case, in which case their lawyer should tell them to wear it. At least in my jurisdiction a lawyer can face disciplinary proceedings for initiating action without "reasonable chance of success," and threatening legal action where no legal basis exists is a huge no-no (for lawyers that is). That may be different where you or Piriform are.
If a formal legal letter threatening action (a lawyer is of course free to ask you to stop doing something on behalf of a client ... "pretty please ...") were received I would take legal advice in quick order.
This is not a legal advice.
Nor, it should go without saying, is this. It's just what I would do. If it makes you sleep better at night and you have cash to splash about you may want to get your legal team to take these jokers apart starting tomorrow.
This has been established over and over and over again in case law. Phone books, statistics and lists are not eligible for the type of legal protection being sought.
Information is being made available by the public to the public. Part of that public includes a commercial entity. There is no case here as far as I can see.
Andrew,
First off, thank you for your efforts on this project. While I buy a healthy amount of commercial software (OS, video editor and games for the most part) I prefer to only run software from a trusted source. Yes this includes Microsoft and Steam, and while we all have colorful things we might say about them the fact is I pay them, they are huge and issues I do face with them are known to me. Everything else I simply prefer source access. Your project includes source so it is much easier to trust your software then an alternative that, judging by the look of the website, is likely to want to opt me in to Chrome or something else I would have installed already if interested. What really makes them seem a bit dodgy is that you know it is commercial yet the site offers no blockers to downloading. These guys wanna get their meat hooks into my workstation!
Well enough of the "your app is awesome and they blow" speech. One issue I see is that you automatically download it, from their forum, given their complaint. I suggest that you instead utilize the following link below as the winapp2.com domain does not appear to be theirs. I would first contact either Robert Ward or Shane Gowland to be polite. Perhaps even sharing a percentage of your donations with them to help pay hosting costs, Being community oriented they might just tell you to keep it and use their INI all the same. Abuse of community projects by for profit companies never sits well with those of a community mindset, but I think this was not Piriform's true intent. Typically a corporate bully sends the thugs (lawyers) in the opening round with a cease and desist letter, but their request could have been a bit more clear about their intentions.
You should contact them and make the required arrangements. Alter your code to use their site or if you are refused by them rewrite for manual download and import. Once you have released, if you had been using the piriform.com forum, write them a thank you for informing you of their desire to not use their server resources and let them know that your current release has halted such behavior from your application.
http://www.winapp2.com/Winapp2.ini
winapp2.ini is not property of Piriform. It is a separate project by other people and even notes the compatibility with BleachBit as a feature. Piriform is just being a bunch of assholes. Fuck them.
If the OP is advocating that the user download some other company's cleaner program so that your cleaner program can read its definitions to more effectively clean things up, that seems like a bit of a jerk move, even if it is 100% legal (compare to taking a GPL project and simply rebranding it with your own logos and rereleasing it).
However, Winapp2.ini seems to be completely separate from Piriform and CCleaner, as pointed out. Simply remove all references to Piriform and CCleaner from your site (Are you SEO-mooching off their name?) and point out that BleachBit can use Winapp2.ini, just like the Winapp2.ini site states. As far as I can tell, there's no need to mention the other company or product on your site at all, so just remove them. Piriform will have much less to stand on if both products simply have the ability to read in some third party definition file, and your product has nothing at all to do with CCleaner.
It is complicated. He might have begun as a user of CCleaner, then decided to write his own software because he recognized deficiencies in CCleaner. It's not in the lawyer's interest to know about his history of using CCleaner.
IANAL, but I might start by arguing that writing the winapp2.ini importer does not technically require breaking CCleaner's TOS, so Louise's claim that "having written an importer implies that TOS is broken" does not hold. This is preferable because the argument does not depend on how BleachBit is actually implemented, nor how the guy has interacted with CCleaner in the past. Failing that, I'd ask Louise to clarify (1) what are the legal justifications that the TOS should apply to BleachBit, and (2) exactly which terms of TOS that BleachBit allegedly violates (otherwise I'm not obligated to read their full TOS). And then counter-argue these two points.
I once had a signature.