[Christianb]

Hi Gang,
It would seem AOL used their big corporate hand of stupidity squish another one of their excellent products:
http://rss.com.com/2100-1032_3-1011585.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news
Did anyone download it before it was pulled? Can they post a link to download it or e-mail it to me Christian_BlackburnREMOVE@THISHotmail.com?
Thanks,
Christian Blackburn

[Avalanche]

Since both the binary and the source were released under GPL, I'm not sure what grounds AOL would have in revoking the license. I can see that if Nullsoft had decided to release the binarie as freeware, but didn't GPL the source code, it would be more cut and dried.

As it is, it might not be the best idea to get too involved with Waste. It sounds like intriguing software, but until the legal issues of AOL pulling the reins back on Nullsoft have sorted themselves out it may be best to leave it alone.

As they say on Slashdot, just my $0.02

On the other hand, I think sombody has already created a section on Source Forge for it, where you can download the binary and the source, so you could go there and search for it.

[adamvjackson]

Well, here's an interesting comment, take it however you wish... On the site now, http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/, you'll see that the exact filenames are given. With that information, you could do one of two things:

1. Google
2. Search at FileMirrors

Again, I am not a lawyer, use that information as you see fit.

[thatsteveguy]

well here is some more info (and a bit more)

http://hacktivismo.com/
S

[Christianb]

Thank you very much Adam and Steve for all the help,
If anyone else would like a copy you can find one right here:
http://gominosensei.org/waste/download.html
Cheers,
Christian

[nebulus]

AOL had no rights to revoke the license as long as source was posted under the GPL. It's rediculous! You make a software product, post it under GPL and then change the license terms.. I don't think so, GPL simply doesn't work like that.. The only thing that I can think of, which may justify AOL's license "revocation", is that software had never been applied the GPL terms.. and this might mean suing Nullsoft, what makes it more ridiculous than it already is.

[ViolentGreen]

AOL owns Nullsoft right? If this is the case they woudn't need any other reason besides not wanting it released.

[nebulus]

Well... the problem is that it WAS released.. and it was released under GPL!!

[adamvjackson]

I suppose the question is, nebulus, was the software legitimately released under the GPL?

If a Microsoft programmer were to post some Windows code on the internet, saying it was GPL, would it be so?

Don't get me wrong, I happen to agree with you, but I question how legitimate the release of the code and binaries was.

[Avalanche]

I'm no lawyer that's for sure, but doesn't it matter that the GPL license was written directly into the source code? I mean it would be one thing to release the binaries and call it GPL, but since the code was written from the roots up to be GPL, doesn't that mean the license is valid, no matter what AOL says?

I think that may depend on what sort of legal arrangement Nullsoft has with AOL in regard to software development, seeing as the only real reason AOL bought them was to aquire the rights to Winamp.

[adamvjackson]

Quote:

I think that may depend on what sort of legal arrangement Nullsoft has with AOL in regard to software development, seeing as the only real reason AOL bought them was to aquire the rights to Winamp.

Also, depends if Waste was developed while Brian Frankel (?) was on the clock.

[clutch]

Well, if they own the software, I imagine they can change the license to anything they want. It's just that simple. The owner typically reserves the right to do what he/she wants, and this is a major reason why licensing is so weak. If a person makes a video card and sells it, then the purchaser owns it outright (like owning an XBox and modding it is OK, but making the mod chips and selling them isn't since MS says so). However, if someone writes code and licenses it, then that person can revoke the license if he/she feels that it was used improperly, reverse engineered, or pretty much any reason that he/she wants to. I agree with people getting paid for thier work, but I do not agree with the license concept and the amount of restrictions that can be placed on it.

[nebulus]

Quote:

Well, if they own the software, I imagine they can change the license to anything they want. It's just that simple. The owner typically reserves the right to do what he/she wants, and this is a major reason why licensing is so weak. (...)

It's not that simple with GPL..

The main question right now, as I and 'adamvjackson' discussed it earlier, is legitimacy of the release. But still, AOL has to prove that GPL had never been applied.. You can't revoke the license just because you don't like it; it's not that simple.

[insaNity]

some more mirrors.
info: http://slackerbitch.free.fr/waste/
downloads: http://orgx.com/waste/

[ViolentGreen]

Quote:

Quote:

Well, if they own the software, I imagine they can change the license to anything they want. It's just that simple. The owner typically reserves the right to do what he/she wants, and this is a major reason why licensing is so weak. (...)

It's not that simple with GPL..

The main question right now, as I and 'adamvjackson' discussed it earlier, is legitimacy of the release. But still, AOL has to prove that GPL had never been applied.. You can't revoke the license just because you don't like it; it's not that simple.

Did they revoke the license or just kill the link?

[insaNity]

I think they just pulled the link and claimed (with no authority) that noone could use it.

It's true about 'not that simple' with GPL. This license works both ways.
eg linus has no authority to decide he wants to make linux his own commercial product after all.

Surely the nullsoft guys knew this was going to happen (after the whole gnutella thing), and everything is actually going to plan (?).

They could have released it privately (which they can't now because anything they code during company time becomes property of aol) but instead chose to release it under the name of nullsoft, just to get attention maybe?

[nebulus]

Quote:

(...)
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. 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.
(...)

I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like they have "terminated" the license.

By the way, heard a rumour that Justin is leaving Nullsoft. Is it just a rumour or is there any truth in it?

[ViolentGreen]

Quote:

Quote:

(...)
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. 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.
(...)

I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like they have "terminated" the license.

By the way, heard a rumour that Justin is leaving Nullsoft. Is it just a rumour or is there any truth in it?

http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1012833.html?tag=fd_top