RSSAOL Execs Flush Nullsoft's WASTE
By Nate Mook | Published May 30, 2003, 8:16 PM
UPDATED Less than 24 hours after its public debut, WASTE was pulled offline by Nullsoft parent company AOL. In a notice posted to the former WASTE Web site, AOL said the release was "unauthorized" and revoked all rights to the software, demanding WASTE be deleted from users' computers.
"If you downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy of the Software, you acquired no lawful rights to the Software and must destroy any and all copies of the Software, including by deleting it from your computer," the notice reads. "Any license that you may believe you acquired with the Software is void, revoked and terminated. Any reproduction, distribution, display or other use of the Software by you is unauthorized and an infringement of Nullsoft's copyright in the Software as well as a potential violation of other laws. "
WASTE is a communication program designed for small groups with support for instant messaging, chat and file sharing. All WASTE traffic is encrypted, making the technology ideal for corporate environments where security is essential.
The move mirrors actions taken by AOL after the unsanctioned release of Gnutella by Nullsoft three years ago. A public file sharing application akin to Napster, Gnutella was yanked from Nullsoft's Web site after a flurry of media attention. However, the removal only sparked more interest in the program and offshoots soon appeared.
Although Gnutella has a decentralized architecture much like WASTE, the similarities between the two applications are few. WASTE was built for trusted groups of 10 to 50 friends and colleagues, not millions of users. Gnutella also has no native security, allowing an outsider to see exactly what each identifiable user is doing.
AOL's issue with WASTE seems to lie more in copyrights than file sharing concerns. Like many side projects from Nullsoft, WASTE was released under the GNU General Public License, allowing anyone to inspect, modify and freely use WASTE source code. But AOL is fiercely protective of technologies like WASTE that may be of use to the company or its competitors.
By asserting that WASTE was released by an unauthorized party, AOL is attempting to nullify rights granted to end users by the GPL, which states, "parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
Unfortunately, it may be too late for AOL now that the cat is out of the bag. The WASTE application and source code have been mirrored across hundreds of servers on the Internet, while sharing of WASTE public encryption keys is quickly becoming a new trend among friends.
AOL did not return requests for comment by press time.
Copywrite and license issues? Perhaps but the parent company of Nullsoft AOL/TW is in a helluva financial situation as well as a rather unusual identity issue with it's honeymoon with Time Warner over and talk of a divorece.(Even if it's just talk rumors of this type does not help a company deep in debt or it's stock value) If that were not enough they have another stepchild called ICQ though successful is still having problems fitting in with AOL's company profile. The company is also holding the losing end of the browser wars and has yet to come to a final decision the fate of Netscape. Though "WASTE" is not a threat to AOL or it's AIM IM they are flexing their corp muscle to show that they are in control of thier kids. Nullsoft, in a humorous way is the teenage rebel who in the past has done a similar thing with the same terse and rapid response as seen in this situation. In the public relations forum it may make AOL look like a bully and frankly the company must feel it's ability to keep all it's ducks in a row is more of a priorty then whatever image problem that may occur. This may be the only the tip of the iceberg for the group as I see more headaches ahead. I predict that AOL will begin to examine which of their holdings fit the company's long term portfolio and sell off those that do not. Netscape will be history, ICQ and Timew Warner may be shown the door and in the bloods*** eyes of the parent corperation, Nullsoft was not going to add to an already complicated and rocky road that is becoming filled with potholes.
Score: 0
|Specifically note the first line of the GPL:
"This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. "
...placed BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER....
If the realease under GPL was done by anyone other than the copyright holder then it is not covered by the GPL.
Score: 0
|Wrong.
Your statement depends on the owners of the colde (AOL) having actually released the code under GPL in the first place.
AOL has stated that they never authorized the release of the code......so basically the release under GPL was done by a thief who stole the code.
The fact that the thief told you he was giving you a license for the code when he delivered the stolen goods to you doesn't make your use of it legal.
In short, the only ones who can release code under GPL are the actual owners of that code....that's not what happened in this case....so the GPL doesn't apply.
Score: 0
|Has setup information, forums, and linux instructions
http://www.northarc.com/waste_web
Score: 0
|On the former WASTE page, it reads, in part:
"The posting of the Software on this website was not authorized by Nullsoft."
So.... Anyone else assuming that by "Nullsoft" they mean "AOL"? :-) Unless someone hacked into the site and posted it for them, that is.
I saw a related article on CNET, too, at:
http://news.com.com/2100...1012833.html?tag=fd_top
which says that Justin Frankel, the Nullsoft founder, has had enough with AOL. It mentions also his comments on his personal website (which seems bloglike to me), http://www.1014.org.
I don't know if he is the only Nullsoft developer or not, but if he wants to break off and can, I say go for it. I wonder why AOL even bought them, anyway, considering they haven't done much with them (except claim to have used it partially in the making of the internal AOL media player in 6.0+) and that they seem to have gDifferent gInterests, if you gKnow what I gMean.
Score: 0
|You were asking if he were the only Nullsoft developer?
Check out the team here: http://www.winamp.com/team/
Score: 0
|Is anybody fresh up on copyright law? The actual application is Copyright 2003 Nullsoft, Inc. Anyone care to speculate on the legality of the GPL if an employee released this prematurely without authorisation?
What's to stop one of the Microsoft programmers getting fed up and releasing the Windows sourcecode for download with a GPL attached?
As for the actual application.. It does what it's meant to, but perhaps this kind of technology would be better suited to integration with an IM of some sort. Trillian could use this idea to its advantage.
Score: 0
|>
No server is big enough to hold it, especially with the added text of the GPL. :-)
(Kidding of course, but...)
Score: 0
|Only the original copyright holder can release the code under GPL. An angry employee would not likely be the original copyright holder. It is basically like saying if I took a book and crossed out the authors name and wrote mine.
Score: 0
|>An angry employee would not likely be the original copyright holder.
If, based on past releases, I felt that I was the copyright owner, and the people that give me a paycheck each month decided to revoke that right. Then I might become an angry employee too.
AFAIK, in the past two years, Justin has released several other programs under GPL without so much as raising an eyebrow with AOL-TW executives. They were all copyright Nullsoft. If it had been released under something other than GPL, then I think AOL could have the right to retract the license and pull all copies. In this case, they are trying to revoke something that my license says I have every right to have and use.
The question that remains to be seen is if Justin has full authorization to release software created by Nullsoft. Based on past releases, I believe he does; at which point this becomes a legal challenge to see how the GPL stands up in court.
Score: 0
|"The question that remains to be seen is if Justin has full authorization to release software created by Nullsoft. Based on past releases, I believe he does;..."
and how do you reconcile that belief with the fact that AOL BOUGHT AND PAID FOR Nullsoft?
When AOL purchased the company, that includes all assets of the company...including patents and copyrights.
"If, based on past releases, I felt that I was the copyright owner..."
What would make him think he was the copyright owner? He works for a company (a subsidiary of AOL), the software was created on compnay time, using company resources....by law the copyright belongs to the company...not to him.
Score: 0
|It really depends on how the deal was brokered. I remember when AOL bought Nullsoft, that he was concerned with his ability to create and distribute his own programs. As I recall from articles published at the time, that Justin and AOL had reached some sort of agreement that still gave him ownership of those programs. AOL paid them lots of money, and in return, they could leverage Nullsoft IP into AOL products.
Ultimately meaning that this is a legally released program under GPL.
I tried, unsucessfuly, to locate one of these resources, but did find the original press release.
Nullsoft Founder and President Justin Frankel said: ``Working with America Online will let us globally extend the use of our technologies through its Internet brands. In addition, having access to America Online's tremendous resources and infrastructure will let focus our efforts on what's really important: Making cool software.''
I thought there was an interview or two that expressed Justin's concern of AOL outright owning all of Nullsoft's products. Maybe this statement is what I was really thinking of.
Score: 0
|If he held the ownership and distribution rights under a previous deal, then the copyright would list him as the copyright holder.
Unfortunately, for him at least, it does not. It lists the company "Nullsoft" as the owner. Since the company "Nullsoft" is a private company owned outright by AOL, that means that the copyright, ownership, and distribution are (by law) under AOL's control.
Score: 0
|Consider the following...
If Microsoft would suddenly post on their website "Anyone who acquired Windows with any license is void and the following license will be instated... You must buy all Microsoft products and all certified products to use this products in order to use Windows"
Of course Microsoft can't do this (and I bet they wish). When users downloaded WASTE, they agreed to the license it provided, there by making it legal. AOL can't go about changing licenses.
Score: 0
|"Of course Microsoft can't do this (and I bet they wish). When users downloaded WASTE, they agreed to the license it provided, there by making it legal. AOL can't go about changing licenses."
A great argument...expect for the trivial fact that AOL never authorized any license in the first place.
Just because some pissed off developer posted stolen code under a license he made up....doesn't make it legal.
The only ones who can release code legally under GPL are the actual owners (and copyright holders) of that code.
The people who released this code had no legal right to do so......so whatever license they claimed to give you is invalid as well.
Score: 0
|Score: 0
|Hey Guys!
For me that all is a propaganda for AOL. They -as a network and bandwidth- provider they earn money when using this program. But they are to shy distributing it freely. So many freely distributes P2P-cliens are condemned now and AOL now makes the best of it. They publicise this nice prog but after the cat is out they decline any responsibility, looking whistling into the sky.
Its all a political maneuver, eh ;-)
Dr. Andy
Score: 0
|I like this idea. But what will really show us if it is just political maneuver is if AOL goes after IP rights and get it un-GPL.
Score: 0
|AOL doesn't have to get WASTE "un-GPL'd" as you put it because it was never legally GPL'd in the first place.
As per the GPL itself, only the copyright holder can release code under it. In this case the person who "released" the code was not the legal copyright holder.
Score: 0
|Now I could understand if a lowly coder at AOL got a bug in his butt one day and released AOL as GPL - that would be pretty easy to refute. Given that the "infringer" was an agent authorized to act in the interests of the company and that he's not just some flunky - that makes things a little less clear. I mean there's alot of talk about who owns the product and what not but the reality isn't who owns the product it's who was authorized or not authorized to release software to the public. If Justin was a person authorized to release software to the public under whatever license then the license stands. If however policy was already in place that stated any and all software releases had to be approved by legal then there may be grounds for the license revocation. Either way the genie's out of the bottle and AOL will have a hell of a time attempting to shove it back in.
Realistically just like with GNUtella "authorized" or "not authorized" will matter little, people will still use it.
Score: 0
|"Given that the "infringer" was an agent authorized to act in the interests of the company and that he's not just some flunky..."
On what do you base the idea that he was "authorized to act in the interests of the company"? AOL says quite clearly that he was not authorized to release and license the software...and the GPL itself states that he can only do so if the is the owner of the copyright. (he is not)
"...but the reality isn't who owns the product it's who was authorized or not authorized to release software to the public."
According to the GPL, it does matter who owns the product. The GPL states that only the copyright holder has the authority to release software under the GPL. So by their own license, he was not authorized to GPL the software. (The copyrights are held by the corporation, not by him as an individual)
"If Justin was a person authorized to release software to the public under whatever license then the license stands. If however policy was already in place that stated any and all software releases had to be approved by legal then there may be grounds for the license revocation."
Much simpler. Since the GPL states that only the copyright owner can release software under the GPL, all AOL has to show is that he was not the owner of the copyright. (FYI, the copyright was held by the corporation, not by him)
Score: 0
|You're missing the point. AOL/TW/Nullsoft is not an entity, a being, a person. At some point someone has to be authorized to act as an agent of the corporation in order to facilitate anything being done. This includes facilitating software releases and dealing with copyright.
Justin as the "dictator" over the Nullsoft division would have been the person charged with and given the power to facilitate Nullsoft software distribution in it's many forms. As such he released, as an agent of the Nullsoft entity, many "free" programs, some even under the GPL. He did this both before and after the AOL acquisition of the Nullsoft company. AOL has selectively decided to allow/revoke his agent status not based on his ability but what he releases after it's release. They need to decide whether or not he is allowed to act as an agent of the Nullsoft corporation or not act as an agent.
At the time that he released the software from the Nullsoft website, and acting as an agent of the Nullsoft corporation (the owner of the copyright), he placed it under the GPL. He did this assuming he had full right to do so given other similar transactions he had performed and that AOL had (through silence on the matter) approved. He made no mention that HE owned the code. He did not release the code from his personal site. He acted as an agent of the Nullsoft corporate entity.
AOL acted after the fact recinding the license on the grounds that it was not released by an authorized agent. So the real question again is NOT who owns the copyright but whether or not the agent releasing the software into the GPL was an agent authorized to release software on behalf of Nullsoft at the time that WASTE was released.
It would set a very VERY nasty precident if companies were suddenly able to back out of agreements by simply revoking an authorized agents status. I.E. "Well no, WE didn't opensource OpenOffice, Bill did. Bill's no longer authorized to do such things and we own the copyright so you'll have to delete the software. Sorry." See most companies give authorized agents the ability to enter into contracts on the companies behalf. The GPL is simply a kind of contract, facilitated by an agent of the company. If Justin had the power at the time AND acted in good faith, then the contract is still valid. However if he didn't have the power (as spelled out in a contract) then legally they could revoke at least 5 or 6 other similarly GPL'd products (including one's with comments like "thanks to AOL")
The problem is that AOL has to bare some of the blame for this. If it did not in someway facilitate the current situation then Justin would have been immediately terminated. Either they've left a big question about who's in charge and what liberties are available or Justin has taken great liberties that he knew he didn't have. If it's the latter and he were the employee of 99% of the other companies in the world, he'd be out. No discussion of leaving, no planning to leave on his own, TERMINATED. AOL hasn't done that though and it's not because "Oh AOL is a great place to work" or "Oh AOL is so nice". I'd almost bet it's because they know they don't have any grounds for dismissing him and they'd open themselves up to a huge lawsuit if they did.
Score: 0
|"You're missing the point. AOL/TW/Nullsoft is not an entity, a being, a person. At some point someone has to be authorized to act as an agent of the corporation in order to facilitate anything being done. This includes facilitating software releases and dealing with copyright."
And those legally fall tot he Board of Directors, the CEO, and the President of the company.
Justin is *NONE* of those.
By both US copyright law and by the GPL itself the licenses he tried to grant are completely void until he can show legal documentation that he was the copyright owner, or was legally authorized by the copyright owner, to license that software to third parties.
"At the time that he released the software from the Nullsoft website, and acting as an agent of the Nullsoft corporation (the owner of the copyright), he placed it under the GPL."
According to AOL (who legally owns the copyrights, he was *NOT* an authorized agent. Since they own the copyrights, any actions of his are illegal and void *unless* he can provide legal documentation showing that he was authorized (he has sone nothing of the sort so far)
"The problem is that AOL has to bare some of the blame for this. If it did not in someway facilitate the current situation then Justin would have been immediately terminated."
Not necessarily at all. It would be a VERY smart idea on AOL's part to not terminate him for it. You see, right now he's under contract to them and is of value to them. If he decides to break his contract and leave, AOL can legally reclaim from him any and all lost profits resulting from his illegal theft and distribution of their property. Pretty much AOL has the best of both worlds and he has screwed himself beyond salvation.
"Either they've left a big question about who's in charge and what liberties are available or Justin has taken great liberties that he knew he didn't have. If it's the latter and he were the employee of 99% of the other companies in the world, he'd be out."
Not really, se above for reasons why AOL has him over a barrel now.
Score: 0
|Ha ha, if dolphins are so smart, why do they still live in igloos?
Score: 0
|As dumb as AOL may seem over this fiasco, it's important to remember that had AOL not bought Nullsoft a few years ago, then Nullsoft, as a company would probably not exist today. The money they received from AOL's purchase was the only way to get Nullsoft out of the massive legal trouble they were in at the time.
Score: 0
|AOL gave in to Microsoft and is now trying to control something else. I think there is plenty of sites to offer WASTE so Nullsoft dosn't need to host the software anyway. AOL thinks that WASTE will try to take over AIM. LOL.
Score: 0
|dude ,, MS paid AOL $750 million and gave licensing to AOL to use MSIE and WMP .. as well it frees up AOL's legal team to take care of other issues. I dunno if MS forced AOL into anything but they probably got something out of it too .
Score: 0
|http://aol.is.dreaming.org
Score: 0
|well something obviously went wrong there.....
here is a forum for waste
http://waste.kicks-ass.net/forums/index.php
Score: 0
|how do you know you have a genuine copy of waste?
Score: 0
|Score: 0
|I think AOL lets Nullsoft put it's stuff out. I mean, seriously the same thing happened with Gnutella, and NO ONE from Nullsoft got fired or anything. Now WASTE, and yet again nothing happens. AOL is sneaky like that me thinks heh.
Score: 0
|I've installed WASTE, and ran it, but in the Network Status window it says 'network down'...anyone know why?!?!
Score: 0
|firewalls aside...
before you can use it you must swap public keys so that you have their public key and whoever you connect to has yours
once that is done go into prefrences > network and on the right hand side tick all 3 check boxes (this allows it to act as a server) other people can then connect to you if public keys have been swapped
for Network Name/ID this must be identical throughout the network
Score: 0
|Here is my public key everyone...!:
WASTE_PUBLIC_KEY 20 1536 CyberShade
966491F68B7C440F5425EA59B928A608D60D8CA9389BC39759F23B9888C6
C58702800933BC0FE17F1050E40DB63C17ADE7F2C68F4DE29DB9B2486F06
450DA40AA1E618B6E816E67B60155D723B098AF32FF3059D70D911E172E8
EDE644E9B7CD7D5DCCA0AE404E6C8F771D66C08E373A634984CD1F39649B
66FF851F57FE09ED5F46A60B0A03E12706956F2A696E5590ED50314A4A53
6188EB6E7662684DD9154E2FCD60AB9939DD6EE5E8C1609D5BDD58639A2E
DAE7C9AD671FA3845ACC93EB0003010001
WASTE_PUBLIC_KEY_END
Score: 0
|Now you will also have to share your IP in order to make a connection. Although WASTE itself creates a secure channel, you still need to do some insecure communication to set it up... I guess PGP in an email would suffice.
Score: 0
|Again they do it.
AOL revokes a program which could be useful if used properly ;)
They are so scared of innovation, that they'll do anything to stop it...
btw, _can_ you revoke a GPL licence? I believe that is just impossible.
Score: 0
|AOL has been using a very short stick to poke a very large bear. By clamping down like this they do nothing but make the software more popular. Hundreds if not thousands of mirrors for the software have already popped up, spurred on by AOL's own actions. The more AOL clamps down the more popular they will make it.
Score: 0
|one funny thing btw...
i found one AOL homepage user mirroring the win executable also ;) hehe if i were AOLs boss i would hide myself into a large artctic hidden cave and stay there for a while :D
Score: 0
|The app and source code are available here:
http://www.deviantart.com/news/10165/
enjoy ;-)
Ditto
Score: 0
|http://waste.kicks-ass.net
yet another mirror
both windows and linux source code apparently
Score: 0
|MSN Messenger marcomcse@hotmail.com
:-)
Score: 0
|I love that nullsoft is still a thorn in the side of AOL. They have always been a problem for AOL. AOL has never been able to control nullsoft. To my knowlage the only way they controled them in the past was to fire people.
Score: 0
|http://waste.2mbit.com
I'm also maintaining a list of the known mirrors, so e-mail me if you set one up so I can add it to the index page.
Brian
bruns@2mbit.com
Score: 0
|would be nice if someone would make a compressed version of the website for easy download
Score: 0
|http://waste.2mbit.com/waste.zip
Thats the complete website with all graphics, downloads, etc
Enjoy
Score: 0
|Didn't this same thing happen with the original Guntella (or was it Gnotella?) client a few years back.
Like you said, the cat is already out of the bag. This should be interesting :)
Score: 0
|Yeah, almost exactly the same as Gnutella.
Score: 0
|Oh yeah, except I think gnutella didn't come with source code, it was reverse engineered. So we're even better off!
Score: 0
|WHY? AOL knew what they were getting when they bought Nullsoft, Right? they shouldn't be surprised now what they are getting what they paid for! I say AOL shouls shut up, and let the community have it's fun, stop bothering us with your petty problems I hate corporations!
Score: 0
|Hey, I got my copy of waste from nullsoft.com, where they granted me a GPL license, and I intend to use it. If AOL can't keep it's different divisions in touch with each other, it's not my problem. Can't just take back a license.
Score: 0
|things like this that tick me off!, back in the 70's and 80's it's was hackers who called the shots, they were easy going, and as cool as computer geek came, and they always found interesting things to do with computers!, but now were stuck with faceless corporations that tell us what we can and can't do with OUR computers, and software that we buy/ legally download. we seriously need to bring coputers back to thier roots, Hackers aren't to be afraid of they don't violate computer systems like the media wants you to think Hackers are just people who find ways around thing, Microcmoputers were made by Hackers because they thought they could get rid oh those tube and junk, and they made the computers more efficent, and smaller, bring on the open source world and kill corporations! I say we should make a new internet that's built like Gnutella, where there is no ISP, but we can have our own Website/FTP site and (per computer connection) and do most/all of the stuff we do now, no more spam, and free internet access I'd love that!
Score: 0
|I agree fully..
Opensource will kill the corporations, that's why they fear it so.
I also see your vision being fulfilled in the next few years- Wireless networks..
Score: 0
|Open Source puts creativity back into programming. Something the corporate world took out because of course every manager knows what's really best to improve the software. The programmer is just their to type code.
Score: 0
|right and the bandwidth would come from where exactly? someone has to pay to run the backbones. I'm glad I have an ISP that gives me a 2.5 mbit DSL line for $50 cdn a month
:rolleyes:
Score: 0
|Hi, theD2JBug:
Just wondering what ISP you are using? Is it available in Toronto?
Thanks.
Score: 0
|Well opensource can kill corporations that don't adjust. IBM is a good example of a company that's thrived in an opensource market. It's both getting and giving. Companies like AOL refuse to adjust, they're short sited. Look at the opportunities they've been given and failed to capitalize on any of them. It's really sad.
Score: 0
|I'm in New Brunswick .. I gots a special situation with my ISP .. they used to have this service when I signed up. New users now get the same 1 mbit as Sympatico :) but they haven't converted me. if they do , hello cable :)
Score: 0
|right now I'm on a trip in New brunswick, but I say that Corporations don't know thier place in society, so they abuse us in any way they think they can make money! I don't mind them making money, but they abuse us with these opop up, spam, telling us what we can and can't do with the software we paid for, it has to stop.
Score: 0
|"Can't just take back a license."
That would be true is the license was legally granted in the first place.
Unfortunately it was not.... a license you obtained from a thief isn't worth anything......so there's nothing to take back. You were never legally licensed to use it in the first place.
Only the copyright holder can license the software.....and the copyright holder did not in this case. Individuals working for that company, who have no legal authority to do so, tried to.
Score: 0
|2 problems with this argument.
1. Pop up ads and spam are primarily the domain of the junk mail mass marketer crowd the people who's sole purpose is to deliver spam.
2. What if the software is free ot a Beta agreement. If you choose to use software legally you have to follow the rules for whatever software you use. That's why there's usually a nice long license agreement which few people read.
Score: 0
|http://www.dhorrocks2003...der.co.uk/download.html
And tonight I shall throw another stack of AOL disks on the fire and enjoy my night.
Score: 0
|props to you for helping making the app available :)
Score: 0
|To know that those Hitlerian pricks at AOL won the battle but LOST the WAR!!!!
Score: 0
|