W.A.S.T.E. - NullSoft and AOL vs the GPL
by Jarrod Roberson · in General Discussion · 06/02/2003 (8:17 pm) · 50 replies
If you have not heard, Nullsoft has done it again and "released" an executable and source Encrypted chat/p2p client/server called W.A.S.T.E.
Now AOL immediately had it pulled and is now claiming that the GPL license in the source code is null and void.
Landmark case if this goes to court. Ramifications of allowing the revoking something like the GPL would completely destroy the Open Source way of life it seems.
This is the copyright notice at the top of all the source files
Seems that Nullsoft is the copyright holder but this
sings a different tune . . . but as you can imagine the cat is out of the bag so to say . . .
Of course there is a tremedous amount of gnashing of keys by all the anonymous_legal_experts over at slashdot about this.
Now AOL immediately had it pulled and is now claiming that the GPL license in the source code is null and void.
Landmark case if this goes to court. Ramifications of allowing the revoking something like the GPL would completely destroy the Open Source way of life it seems.
This is the copyright notice at the top of all the source files
/*
WASTE - asyncdns.cpp (asynchronous DNS class)
Copyright (C) 2003 Nullsoft, Inc.
WASTE is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
WASTE is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with WASTE; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
*/Seems that Nullsoft is the copyright holder but this
sings a different tune . . . but as you can imagine the cat is out of the bag so to say . . .
Of course there is a tremedous amount of gnashing of keys by all the anonymous_legal_experts over at slashdot about this.
About the author
#2
Nullsoft is not trying to say that the next version is not GPL'ed they are trying to say that the version that was posted is NOT GPL'ed.
They are trying to REVOKE a past license after the fact, which is completely different case than changing the license in the next version, which would leave the previous version in place.
06/03/2003 (5:58 am)
Quote:Plenty of software changes license from version to version
Nullsoft is not trying to say that the next version is not GPL'ed they are trying to say that the version that was posted is NOT GPL'ed.
They are trying to REVOKE a past license after the fact, which is completely different case than changing the license in the next version, which would leave the previous version in place.
#3
As an example, if a disgruntled (for wheterv reason) Microsoft employee decides to release (or leak) the windows source under the GPL license, it doesn't mean that the license is valid.
Obviously the situation with Nullsoft is different. It seems like their parent company (AOL) decided to shut waste down. But if it wasn't the copyright holder who released the program under the GPL, then, technically, it's not under the GPL...It's just an illegal copy.
Again, Nullsoft has a history of doing this (with gnutella and such), so imo, it was their intention to get the source out and let it evolve on its own...
06/03/2003 (6:09 am)
Jarrod, it really depends on whether this was intentional, or it was done without manager's consent.As an example, if a disgruntled (for wheterv reason) Microsoft employee decides to release (or leak) the windows source under the GPL license, it doesn't mean that the license is valid.
Obviously the situation with Nullsoft is different. It seems like their parent company (AOL) decided to shut waste down. But if it wasn't the copyright holder who released the program under the GPL, then, technically, it's not under the GPL...It's just an illegal copy.
Again, Nullsoft has a history of doing this (with gnutella and such), so imo, it was their intention to get the source out and let it evolve on its own...
#4
06/03/2003 (6:14 am)
indeed, no better way than to ensure it spreads far and wide i guess. 
#5
06/03/2003 (7:02 am)
Nullsoft fully intended to release this with the GPL. There was a messageboard up on their official site, the documentation with the source is very thorugh, the website documentation was there. They had images for the web page. This was not an "oops" this revocation of the GPL by trying to claim it was a leak is pure bullshit. Moreover, it's pretty clear that the webpage that exists now was not written by Nullsoft, unless they are also lawyers as well as code monkeys. God I hate AOL and the whole idea of companies 'owning' ideas.
#6
Absolutely. Though they are claiming the code was released without authorisation. To analyse this specific case you probably need to be privvy to contract agreements between AOL and Nullsoft and to the exact events and circumstances surrounding the release and removal of the code. Although it's probably best left to slashdot and those people who are willing to take a header on face value :o)
My points were directed at the generalisation I quoted, from this specific AOL/Nullsoft/Waste distribution non-issue to a doom and gloom prediction wrt other unrelated open source code, a link that imo simply doesn't exist.
Here, personally I would just respect their wishes and give them the benefit of the doubt wrt their announcement in this case.
I see no point in keeping the code against their wishes. From what I've read, it's not a particularly complex application and has a questionable crypto implementation. If the GPL world needs another p2p system like WASTE, it's not as if it's not capable of creating a GPL version that has the (c) holders blessing.
06/03/2003 (7:26 am)
Quote:Nullsoft is not trying to say that the next version is not GPL'ed they are trying to say that the version that was posted is NOT GPL'ed.
Absolutely. Though they are claiming the code was released without authorisation. To analyse this specific case you probably need to be privvy to contract agreements between AOL and Nullsoft and to the exact events and circumstances surrounding the release and removal of the code. Although it's probably best left to slashdot and those people who are willing to take a header on face value :o)
My points were directed at the generalisation I quoted, from this specific AOL/Nullsoft/Waste distribution non-issue to a doom and gloom prediction wrt other unrelated open source code, a link that imo simply doesn't exist.
Here, personally I would just respect their wishes and give them the benefit of the doubt wrt their announcement in this case.
I see no point in keeping the code against their wishes. From what I've read, it's not a particularly complex application and has a questionable crypto implementation. If the GPL world needs another p2p system like WASTE, it's not as if it's not capable of creating a GPL version that has the (c) holders blessing.
#7
Not to sound like one of those Open Source the Code wants to be free zealots, it is not about "yet another p2p app", it is about trying to revoke the GPL copyright after the fact.
Imagine if some of the most popular source code bases could be "legally closed retro-actively".
The problem is if AOL/Nullsoft does legally persue anyone that uses the code, or they thought used the code, it will set a LEGAL PRECIDENT for good or bad, if AOL won, it would mean that every single GPL piece of code could be revoked after the fact, if they lost it would still be bad, because it would just keep getting challenged.
How many people put GPL copyrights on their code and publish that code intentionally that they never inteded to release to the public?
Now if all the source had very strict "this is ours and not yours" copyright statements and not the "do what you wish" GPL statements, I would tend to think that the code release was either accidental or not authorized, that combined with a entire page page and documentation was intentional, but unless a judge looks at this case and says, well this is a legal issue between AOL and Nullsoft NOT a legal issue between AOL/Nullsoft and anyone that downloaded the code, GPL code is in trouble.
And we all know sorry the judicial system treats IT cases like this in the past.
06/03/2003 (9:48 am)
@Micheal - YOU MISS THE ENTIRE POINT!Not to sound like one of those Open Source the Code wants to be free zealots, it is not about "yet another p2p app", it is about trying to revoke the GPL copyright after the fact.
Imagine if some of the most popular source code bases could be "legally closed retro-actively".
The problem is if AOL/Nullsoft does legally persue anyone that uses the code, or they thought used the code, it will set a LEGAL PRECIDENT for good or bad, if AOL won, it would mean that every single GPL piece of code could be revoked after the fact, if they lost it would still be bad, because it would just keep getting challenged.
How many people put GPL copyrights on their code and publish that code intentionally that they never inteded to release to the public?
Now if all the source had very strict "this is ours and not yours" copyright statements and not the "do what you wish" GPL statements, I would tend to think that the code release was either accidental or not authorized, that combined with a entire page page and documentation was intentional, but unless a judge looks at this case and says, well this is a legal issue between AOL and Nullsoft NOT a legal issue between AOL/Nullsoft and anyone that downloaded the code, GPL code is in trouble.
And we all know sorry the judicial system treats IT cases like this in the past.
#8
This may not be a case about 'pulling back' the GPL, it could be a case about trying to GPL code you don't actually own.
If that's the case, anyone who's got this code does indeed have a legal problem with Nullsoft/AOL.
06/03/2003 (10:03 am)
When AOL bought Nullsoft, they probably gained control of all of Nullsoft's IP. Those copyright notices are probably bogus, and Nullsoft probably didn't have the authority to put the code under GPL in the first place.This may not be a case about 'pulling back' the GPL, it could be a case about trying to GPL code you don't actually own.
If that's the case, anyone who's got this code does indeed have a legal problem with Nullsoft/AOL.
#9
06/03/2003 (10:46 am)
@Mark - that is my point, no one actually knows what the actual real legal ramifications of this will be until it goes to court
#10
06/03/2003 (10:57 am)
I kinda doubt this will ever actually go to court unless someone like the FSF decides to force the issue, and I'd bet that this is muddy enough that no one would want to use it as GPL's first real test case.
#11
Facts thus far :-
(a) Code was on website, code has GPL license in headers.
(b) Nullsoft pull the code and claim that code was released without their authorisation.
Do you have evidence that Nullsoft's statement (b) wrt to the code is incorrect? Y'know evidence is that thing you don't need on slashdot to invent some story about the end of GPL, but you will need to go to court for this landmark case to destroy open source :o)
Now, (b) suggests that any case would centre around Nullsoft's current claim. If you missed the relevence, they are saying there never was a license in the first place, let alone a GPL one they are trying to revoke.
Relevance to other open source codebases, nil, especially not to the myriad open source projects released by their (c) holders for years if not decades.
Lastly, I'm not aware of prior cases involving sorry judicial systems, nullsoft, aol or the GPL. Cite references if you wish.
06/03/2003 (10:59 am)
@Jared, I understand what you're saying, but no I don't share the fantasy of imagining things about codebases completely unrelated to the facts as I see them here.Facts thus far :-
(a) Code was on website, code has GPL license in headers.
(b) Nullsoft pull the code and claim that code was released without their authorisation.
Do you have evidence that Nullsoft's statement (b) wrt to the code is incorrect? Y'know evidence is that thing you don't need on slashdot to invent some story about the end of GPL, but you will need to go to court for this landmark case to destroy open source :o)
Now, (b) suggests that any case would centre around Nullsoft's current claim. If you missed the relevence, they are saying there never was a license in the first place, let alone a GPL one they are trying to revoke.
Relevance to other open source codebases, nil, especially not to the myriad open source projects released by their (c) holders for years if not decades.
Lastly, I'm not aware of prior cases involving sorry judicial systems, nullsoft, aol or the GPL. Cite references if you wish.
#12
Given that AOL owns Nullsoft and thus has legal ownership of everything Nullsoft works on, this is like a situation where someone from Microsoft released a copy of the Windows XP source and stuck a GPL license on it. When this situation is later resolved and the code taken offline, it doesn't constitute a revocation of the license, because the guy was never legally authorized to release that code as GPL in the first place.
Even if they developed the code, Nullsoft was not legally authorized to release it either, since they are owned by AOL. And you won't see me crying for them over this... they are the ones who sold their company to AOL. If they don't like AOL's management, they should leave and form a new company...
What they did with WASTE seems more like a "look how cool and rebellious we are" publicity stunt more than anything else.
06/03/2003 (11:00 am)
I don't think Micheal is missing the point, I think you are reading too much into this.Given that AOL owns Nullsoft and thus has legal ownership of everything Nullsoft works on, this is like a situation where someone from Microsoft released a copy of the Windows XP source and stuck a GPL license on it. When this situation is later resolved and the code taken offline, it doesn't constitute a revocation of the license, because the guy was never legally authorized to release that code as GPL in the first place.
Even if they developed the code, Nullsoft was not legally authorized to release it either, since they are owned by AOL. And you won't see me crying for them over this... they are the ones who sold their company to AOL. If they don't like AOL's management, they should leave and form a new company...
What they did with WASTE seems more like a "look how cool and rebellious we are" publicity stunt more than anything else.
#13
The issue isn't that someone is trying to revoke the GPL after they released the code to the public. The issue is that someone who DOES NOT have the ultimate Copyright released the code as GPL and the REAL Copyright holder exercised their RIGHTS to have that material removed.
06/03/2003 (11:06 am)
Just because Nullsoft released the code and put it under GPL doesn't mean they had the RIGHTS to do so. Evidently they didn't and were well aware of that fact due to previous example of Gnutella. AOL is the ultimate Copyright holder and can decide the disposition of the code.The issue isn't that someone is trying to revoke the GPL after they released the code to the public. The issue is that someone who DOES NOT have the ultimate Copyright released the code as GPL and the REAL Copyright holder exercised their RIGHTS to have that material removed.
#15
06/03/2003 (12:09 pm)
Also, remember -- AOLTW has nothing to gain from destroying the GPL license. Mozilla, an AOLTW project, is Open Source and GPL.
#16
I don't see how anyone can say with absolute certainty who the "REAL" copyright holder is at this moment...nullsoft didn't get hacked, and this wasn't a "sole coder's" doing (just look at the design doc.doc properties).
This is like newsweek magazine publishing a controversial issue that clears normal channels (editors, etc), and the next day the bigwigs (who have zero input on day to day operations) say "we don't want this out there, shut down the printing press and make anyone who purchased it burn their copy"
Best post I've seen on Slashdot:
"The code is (c) Nullsoft, and even AOL is not disputing this. The code is not (c) AOL Time Warner, which is an important distinction (Nullsoft is a subsidiary, and so a separate legal entity). Justin Frankel essentially is Nullsoft; he's a co-founder and principal developer. The code was released on the official Nullsoft website by him, the same way most other Nullsoft software is released. In short, the release followed the standard practice used by most other Nullsoft releases (most of which, like NetMon [nullsoft.com], are uncontroversial). This is Nullsoft release policy, and Justin is basically their release manager (for at least some of their stuff -- Winamp is handled separately). Simply because AOL disliked this particular release doesn't give them a legal leg to stand on in pulling it."
06/03/2003 (12:39 pm)
"The issue is that someone who DOES NOT have the ultimate Copyright released the code as GPL and the REAL Copyright holder exercised their RIGHTS to have that material removed."I don't see how anyone can say with absolute certainty who the "REAL" copyright holder is at this moment...nullsoft didn't get hacked, and this wasn't a "sole coder's" doing (just look at the design doc.doc properties).
This is like newsweek magazine publishing a controversial issue that clears normal channels (editors, etc), and the next day the bigwigs (who have zero input on day to day operations) say "we don't want this out there, shut down the printing press and make anyone who purchased it burn their copy"
Best post I've seen on Slashdot:
"The code is (c) Nullsoft, and even AOL is not disputing this. The code is not (c) AOL Time Warner, which is an important distinction (Nullsoft is a subsidiary, and so a separate legal entity). Justin Frankel essentially is Nullsoft; he's a co-founder and principal developer. The code was released on the official Nullsoft website by him, the same way most other Nullsoft software is released. In short, the release followed the standard practice used by most other Nullsoft releases (most of which, like NetMon [nullsoft.com], are uncontroversial). This is Nullsoft release policy, and Justin is basically their release manager (for at least some of their stuff -- Winamp is handled separately). Simply because AOL disliked this particular release doesn't give them a legal leg to stand on in pulling it."
#17
Except the person in your /. quote, and the message on nullsoft's site ;o)
Only one of which mentions AOL's legs.
06/03/2003 (1:00 pm)
Quote:I don't see how anyone can say with absolute certainty who the "REAL" copyright holder is at this moment
Except the person in your /. quote, and the message on nullsoft's site ;o)
Only one of which mentions AOL's legs.
#18
This is basically an attempt at a GPL mulligan . . .
My point is this is only going to end up getting solved in the courts, and that is a bad thing.
06/03/2003 (1:10 pm)
John Connell sees the bigger picture ...This is basically an attempt at a GPL mulligan . . .
My point is this is only going to end up getting solved in the courts, and that is a bad thing.
#19
And people wonder why IP companies despise OS so much.
06/03/2003 (1:11 pm)
You know it's stuff like this that gives the open source movement a bad name. People act like a bunch of children just because AOL was involved and people with ZERO clue about how the IP ownership is structured within AOL are spouting off acting like experts.And people wonder why IP companies despise OS so much.
#20
The system is fuct, so fix the system.
06/03/2003 (1:35 pm)
They didn't write it. They didn't ask for it. They didn't conceptualize it. Why is it their IP again?The system is fuct, so fix the system.
Michael
I wouldn't go that far.
Plenty of software changes license from version to version. Witness Microsoft's ever changing EULA and the different licenses between versions of Trolltech's qt.
If the linux kernel (c) owners chose to make version 3 non-GPL there's nothing stopping them - but that won't make earlier versions non-GPL.
As for the headers - if they are the (c) holder's it'll be a sticky wicket to post and then retract (one of the things in the SCO - IBM case will be whether SCO have protected their IP, clearly nullsoft didn't if they posted it to a public website) On the other hand, if part of the release contained code that wasn't theirs, adding a GPL header didn't change that.