Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

WASTE and the GPL, plus a patch for the code



If it turns out that Nullsoft didn't have the authority to release the
code to the public, then it's not the end of the world.  Even if the
code itself cannot be used, the understanding of how the code works is
now out there.  Reimplementing the functionality should be doable.

When Nullsoft released the original gnutella code, AOL pulled that as
well.  There are plenty of gnutella clients out there on the market. 
I'm sure that a lot of them don't share a bit of code with the original.

On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 08:40, Warren E. Agin wrote:
> In the meantime, I have my copy and am carrying it in my pocket. Literally.
> 
> Keep in  mind that a license contract is an agreement between two parties.
> As the lawyer in the group, I doubt AOL can revoke an accepted GPL license.
> However, if a person accepting the license at the click-through stage has
> knowledge that Nullsoft lacked actual authority to enter into a GPL license,
> then that person may have a problem relying on the GPL license to justify
> his use of the product. He would be liable for copyright infringement.
> 
> If AOL is claiming the GPL license is unauthorized, people running mirror
> downloads will likely come under attack.
> 
> Meanwhile, I have my copy in my pocket.
> 
> -Warren Agin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Horne" <bill at billhorne.homelinux.org>
> To: <discuss at blu.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 10:53 PM
> Subject: WASTE and the GPL, plus a patch for the code
> 
> 
> > There's a patch on Slashdot for the WASTE source code:
> >
> >
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=65797&threshold=2&commentsort=3&tid=93&m
> ode
> > =nested&cid=6066100
> >
> > In other news, a debate over whether AOL has/had the right to pull WASTE,
> also
> > on Slashdot. AOL claims the software was released without authority and
> that
> > it's not under the GPL: the announcement is at
> http://www.nullsoft.com/free/was
> > te/ .
> >
> > This may shape up as the first serious challenge to the GPL, and its
> > implications are far-reaching. As I see it, there are four possibilities,
> with
> > the first three assuming that Nullsoft was the rightful owner of WASTE.
> >
> > 1. Nullsoft DID release the software under the GPL, and was entitled to do
> so,
> >    but AOL doesn't like it. The lawyers will have a field day, but the
> >    question is - "Is it under GPL"?
> >
> > 2. The Nullsoft employee who authorized the release wasn't legally allowed
> to
> >    do so. Case closed.
> >
> > 3. The Nullsoft employee who authorized the release wasn't CONTRACTUALLY
> >    allowed to do so. In other words, AOL may claim that whomever
> authorized
> >    putting WASTE on Nullsoft's servers didn't have AOL's permission to do
> so.
> >    In that case, it becomes a much more murky issue, since it'll raise
> > questions
> >    of ownership, control, due diligence, and whether those who downloaded
> can
> >    claim good faith. This is the thorniest branch on this decision tree.
> >
> > 4. Nullsoft didn't own the software. If it was (as some have speculated)
> > written
> >    by a Nullsoft employee on his own time, then the right to place it
> under
> > the GPL
> >    would belong to the employee.
> >
> > IANALB - this is going to have series collateral damage, for two reasons:
> >
> > 1. Since many employees of large corporations work on GPL'd code in their
> >    spare time, this raises questions about the validity of the various
> >    "Slave Collar" releases that companies expect coders to sign, and which
> >    promise that any code the employee writes is the property of their
> > employer.
> >    Such agreements have been invalidated by law in many states, but few
> >    employees have the cash to defend such rights. If a GPL'd application
> >    goes Platinum, and someone at Decca Records worked on it, can Decca
> >    say they own it?
> >
> > 2. The bigger question is whether a GPL license may be revoked. Assuming
> that
> >    Nullsoft released the code properly, and it IS under GPL, can AOL
> renege?
> >    Will (as a /.'er speculated) Megacorps start buying out companies that
> >    issued GPL'd code, and try to withdraw the license ex post facto?
> >
> > Stay tuned.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at blu.org
> > http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss





BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org