Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

VIA Pulls PadLockSL

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the up-down-up-down dept.

233

yipyow writes "A few weeks ago VIA Technologies posted software based on Nullsoft's WASTE, as reported here a few days ago. VIA PadLockSL included both a Windows and Linux client and some special extensions to work with security hardware built into certain VIA products. It was released under the GPL so I managed to snag a copy of the source code right before VIA suddenly removed their page (Google cache). I have posted Linux compilation instructions and mirrored the source here. If VIA has decided not to pursue the project further, I think the F/OSS community should turn this project into something, it has potential to be a great tool."

cancel ×

233 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Be careful (5, Interesting)

Oculus Habent (562837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879841)

It might be a good idea to find out why it was removed. Perhaps they discovered a license violation and took it down to prevent a lawsuit. While noble, the automatic assumption that they simply don't want to pursue the project could be placing yipyow in an actionable position.

Re:Be careful (-1, Offtopic)

gebner (696029) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879861)

That could turn into a C&D letter to the poster..

Re:Be careful (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8879919)

Help, I've got a VIA up my ass!

Re:Be careful (2, Interesting)

yipyow (317154) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880081)

I see this possibility, but if it does, I will just pull the code down. Part of the reason of posting it to Slashdot was to ensure that I wasn't the only one with a copy. :)

Re:Be careful (0, Troll)

buford_tannen (555867) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880095)

Wow, you're a celebrity now. Congratulations. Also on your server getting slashdotted to pieces.

buford_tannen, aka mad_hatter

Re:Be careful (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8879879)

It might be a good idea to find out why it was removed. Perhaps they discovered a license violation and took it down to prevent a lawsuit. While noble, the automatic assumption that they simply don't want to pursue the project could be placing yipyow in an actionable position.


Well the thing is they can't do anything about it now, once they released it as GPL even if they didn't mean to, then it's GPL forever baby.

No going back on your word when company politics might prevent things, or saying "oops" like that, the GPL designed to prevent this kind of bickering.

Re:Be careful (5, Informative)

Oculus Habent (562837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879891)

then it's GPL forever baby

Not if some of the source is based on a license that doesn't permit use of the GPL. If they accidentally included some proprietary or closed source to which they didn't have full rights, then their release of the software under GPL would be illegal.

Re:Be careful (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880052)

Well then thats what makes it duel licensed. With a duel licensed project you have the same code licensed one way to people as GPL and as proprietary to other people. That's all legal according to the GPL and i think what should apply here

Note I am not a lawyer but one would agree with me

Re:Be careful (1, Informative)

Hrothgar The Great (36761) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880104)

If it's dual licensed then only one part of the code is GPL. It's not that certain people get the code under GPL and some other people don't. And if there was a legality issue with say 50% of the code, you'd have to strip all of that out before it was legal for you to redistribute it.

Otherwise, you could take that Win2K source that was lost/stolen/whatever, make some GPL project out of it, and suddenly it would be completely legal. It doesn't work that way.

Re:Be careful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880139)

Otherwise, you could take that Win2K source that was lost/stolen/whatever, make some GPL project out of it, and suddenly it would be completely legal. It doesn't work that way.

Oh. Damn. Okay, time for Plan B.

Re:Be careful (4, Insightful)

sangreal66 (740295) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880135)

Again, you can only set copyright licensing terms if you own the copyright to begin with! The original WASTE was released under the GPL without permission by someone without the authority to license it (although he was the author, copyright is granted to the employer). Therefor the original GPL license is no more valid then if you were to release the leaked windows source under the GPL. That being said, unless VIA got permission from AOL to release it, they too licensed it illegaly making their GPL release invalid as well.

Re:Be careful (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8879895)

It might be a good idea to find out why you're such a fucktard Perhaps your doctoor discovered a hole in your fucking head agnd took it dow,n to avoid liability. While noble, the automatic assumption that girls ssimply won't touch you because you're gay and bhave AIDS is probably correct..

Re:Be careful (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8879909)

Perhaps they discovered a license violation and took it down to prevent a lawsuit.

It seems you are exactly right. More details here [nullsoft.com]

shak's nude anime gallery [sharkfire.net]

Informative? INFORMATIVE?!@#$?!#@$? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880021)

how the fuck is this getting modded up when it's a link referring to how WASTE got taken down almost a fucking YEAR ago, and not VIA's release?

jesus h. christ's testicles, i wish i could post bullshit and get modded up for it.

this right here is why slashdot sucks balls.

Re:Informative? INFORMATIVE?!@#$?!#@$? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880281)

And yet you post.

Re:Be careful (3, Informative)

Halvard (102061) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880085)

It seems you are exactly right.

I don't think so.

Let's see. Nullsoft's employee posted it who has had the authority to post in the past. It appeared for how long (?) on their site listed as GPL. Their statement mentions nothing about infringement on others copyrights or patents.

IANAL. To me, it seems me, however, that Nullsoft did in fact make this GPL software. If I were to use it, say, for remote encryption key generation linked to openSSL or openSSH or whatever, I'd consult my lawyer first but it looks like they've got no recourse. The post by AC I'm responding to claims that Nullsoft discovered a license violation which it doesn't, other than to now claim that it's copyrighted software. I think they might be able to claim that if you got it after that date, they've changed the license but if someone got it prior to that and reshared it with ANY mods, the GPL stands.

This strikes me as akin to a company doing unauthorized work, billing for it and then hoping that you'll pay just because they sent you an invoice. Or better yet, you recieve an unsolicited radio in the mail in the mail from me. You turn it on and I attempt to bill you. In the US, it's a gift. No contract existed, I didn't ask for it and you sent me something with no legal strings attached. It's not a misshipped package. It doesn't matter if it's a $5 radio and you billed me $5 or a $5 radio and you tried billing me $5000.

Re:Be careful (5, Informative)

lotsofno (733224) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879910)

Perhaps they discovered a license violation and took it down to prevent a lawsuit.
They gave Nulloft/Justin no credit for their work, even though the headers clearly had WASTE code in it, their work reports included with the source code mention finding/researching a certain "open source project", and even Justin's documentation was nearly copied and pasted for their User Guide.

All of that was reported on here [inthegray.com] .

The only reference to WASTE that you could mentioned on their page was buried in a forum discussion [viaarena.com] .

Re:Be careful (2, Interesting)

lotsofno (733224) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879940)

My apologies... It looks like VIA pulled that forum discussion, for obvious reasons. Google Cache doesn't seem to have it either, even though you can still see a bit of text in the Google preview [google.com] .

Re:Be careful (1)

BigASS (153722) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880017)

The headers read "VASTE" as opposed to "WASTE". Looks pretty familiar. Also, they clearly ripped off the original explanation of the implementation of RSA encryption in waste as written by Justin/Nullsoft.

Re:Gave Nulloft/Justin no credit (4, Informative)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880090)

They gave Nulloft/Justin no credit for their work, even though the headers clearly had WASTE code in it, their work reports included with the source code mention finding/researching a certain "open source project", and even Justin's documentation was nearly copied and pasted for their User Guide.

So what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did VIA not make substantial additions to the functionality of the code, GPL'd their source and released it back to the community? That is the extend of their obligations according to the license that the WASTE author elected to use when he released his source, is it not?

Re:Gave Nulloft/Justin no credit (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880183)

good question

whats the situation when someone adds a lot to some code?

is it okay to remove the copyright info or change it. is it okay even if you did not touch that file.

Re:Gave Nulloft/Justin no credit (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880294)

They didn't remove the copyright info, they copied it verbatim as the GPL licensing files. This is all they are required to do. The GPL does not have an advertising clause and in fact is incompatible [gnu.org] with the "old" BSD license with the advertising clause.

Not a troll (1, Flamebait)

LOL WTF OMG!!!!!!!!! (768357) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879920)

Don't you find it somewhat ironic that the idea of "free" and "open" software gets hurt like this, due to legal issues?

It's just like M$ getting into legal trouble over their practices.

We need to stop with all of this licensing silliness if you really want to see OSS take off!

Re:Not a troll (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879974)

Only you and Alanis have been able to torture the word 'ironic' quite that far. Freedom is only guaranteed by the creation and adherence to the laws of the land.

Re:Not a troll (4, Insightful)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880003)


What *are* you talking about.

The idea isn't being hurt, just 1 particular project.

You cannot release someone else's code under a different license without their permission. This is exactly what keeps GPL software *free* so how could it possibly be ironic?

Licenses are *necessary*. They are, in essence, a contract between supplier and recipient. They detail that which each party can expect from the arrangement.

Without the licenses that say 'do what you will with this' there would be no OSS to keep airborne.

In case you hadn't noticed, OSS took off a long time ago.

Re:Not a troll (3, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880134)

Licenses are not required. That's just a myth spread by the FSF fudmachine.

For example, you can quite easily give out public domain software. Of course you get the all-oft repeated argument "what if someone takes your code than turns it closed-source" to which I reply big fucking deal. I still can release my code openly. So if some company wants to use it on their own big deal. All the power.

Actually a public domain approach is more free/open because it allows commercial developers to create solutions faster without having to re-invent the wheel [while getting it all wrong] and not having to release stuff openly [e.g. works well for BitMover and Sony so far ;-)].

And before anyone replies with stupidity. I do appreciate GNU and GPLed software. I just don't use it for my own software. I can happily co-exist with the two licenses...

Tom

Re:Not a troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880270)

and when they get filthy rich they don't even have to spit on you as a reward.

Not a contract either (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880147)

Licenses are *necessary*. They are, in essence, a contract

Hogwash. Bullshit. Nonsense. They are nothing of the sort. Go read groklaw. Find a law dictionary.

Why do idiots like you think licenses are contracts? What woodwork do you come from? If it were a goddam contract, it would be the GPC.

Re:Be careful (4, Insightful)

SacredNaCl (545593) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879938)

Perhaps they decided that it would be counter to their interest in selling hardware encryption appliances which do the same thing. Why release software that can do the job of something you can *sell* hardware for?

Re:Be careful (2, Interesting)

yipyow (317154) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880198)

Read the link I posted in the original article under "security hardware". PadLockSL uses VIA security hardware to work faster. I had an article about this but have lost it, which compared a VIA C3 1 GHz using this software could generate a key in under 14 seconds or something, where it would take a dual Xeon 2.4 GHz around twice the time. If someone knows what article I'm talking about please post a link.

Re:Be careful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880208)

Hardware is faster, or are you saying you would rather be without your 3D-accelerated video card, your gzip on PCI, your hardware modem (well, anything that's not a WinModem that requires special software), your Gravis UltraSound, etc.

Re:Be careful (1)

yipyow (317154) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880250)

Once again, RTFA! On VIA hardware, PadLockSL uses hardware to produce random numbers and do other things. This is faster than doing it in software, like one normally would!

Re:Be careful (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880276)

Read The Fucking Parent (RTFP), I already said hardware was faster.

Re:Be careful (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880167)

The first rule of the internet is like the first rule of the Westerns: download first and ask questions later.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880219)

I, AC, have decided to release the leaked Windows Source code under the GPL. The release of this code under the GPL will help create better programs such as paint and notepad. It's a great day for open source!!!

additional mirror (5, Informative)

negacao (522115) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879844)

Here's an extra mirror: http://evilpen.net/PadLockSL.src.zip [evilpen.net] .

[Mirror posted in article seems to be slowing down, it's getting around 20k/sec at the moment.]

Re:additional mirror (1)

yipyow (317154) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879904)

Heh yeah, goodbye bandwidth. Be nice folks, it's running off DSL...

Re:additional mirror (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8879953)

You did catch the details [inthegray.com] that indicate [nullsoft.com] you're doing a bad thing, right?

Re:additional mirror (5, Interesting)

yipyow (317154) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880063)

Yes, I saw this, but I don't think I'm doing a bad thing necessarily...if this is legit code, and a legit usage of the GPL, etc., then why are Nullsoft/others making such a big deal out of it? Open source projects get forked all the time, though VIA didn't exactly give WASTE proper credit, they did release it under the GPL. Many companies would just claim it was theirs entirely, and not release the code at all. If this is a legit usage of the GPL, and VIA don't want to support the community, the community can pick up the source code and use it however they can. That is (in my mind) how the Free Software world works, that's the whole point of releasing source code in the first place. PadLockSL is, as far as I can see, a legitimate derivative work as described under the GPL. Can anyone prove me wrong?

Re:additional mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880118)

they didn't give credit.

support WASTE, not VIA's bastard stepchild version.

i mean, do what you want, it's your server, but this is what i recommend.

Re:additional mirror (1)

yipyow (317154) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880280)

In a way, I am supporting WASTE. Couldn't that project (which seems inactive) incorporate the changes VIA made, using their source code (which I'm trying to make sure is still available)?

Re:additional mirror (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8879928)

You do know you're illegally distributing software that VIA pulled down because it contained proprietary code they did not have permission to GPL, don't you?

Re:additional mirror (1)

yipyow (317154) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880138)

VIA hasn't posted their reasons for pulling the code. If that is indeed the reason, I will remove my copy. If everyone thinks that there is proprietary code/licensing problems with WASTE, why is the sourceforge page [sourceforge.net] still up? Why hasn't AOL sent them C&D letters? VIA based PadLockSL on WASTE, which as far as I can see, is a legitimate project, it's been there for months and the whole world has known about it. Granted, little work has been done on it, possibly because of licensing fears like this.

Re:additional mirror (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880019)

Is it just me, or does taking something from somebody with a site named evilpen make you edgey?

Slowly but surely it's being closed down (-1, Offtopic)

locarecords.com (601843) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879859)



LibreSociety.org Manifesto
Version 1.5.4
-- David M. Berry & Giles Moss

A constellation of interests is now seeking to increase its ownership and control of creativity. They tell us that they require new laws and rights that will allow them to control concepts and ideas and protect them from exploitation. They say that this will enrich our lives, create new products and safeguard the possibility of future prosperity. But this is a disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing, free and open conversation between ideas from the past and the present.

-- In response, we wish to defend the idea of a creative field of concepts and ideas that are free from ownership.

1. Profit has a new object of affection. Indeed, profiteers now shamelessly proclaim to be the true friend of creativity and the creative. Everywhere, they declare, "We support and protect concepts and ideas. Creativity is our business and it is safe in our hands. We are the true friends of creativity!"

2. Not content with declarations of friendship, the profiteers are eager to put into practice their fondness for creativity as well. "Actions speak louder than words" in capitalist culture. To display their affection, profiteers use legal mechanisms, namely intellectual property law, to watch over concepts and ideas and to protect them from those who seek to misuse them. While we are dead to the world at night, they are busily stockpiling intellectual property at an astonishing rate. More and more, the creative sphere is being brought under their exclusive control.

3. The fact that the profiteers are now so protective of creativity, and jealously seek to control concepts and ideas, ought to rouse suspicion. While they may claim to be the true friends of creativity, we know that friendship is not the same as dependency. It is very different to say, "I'm your true friend because I need you", than to say, "I need you because I'm your true friend". But how are we to settle this issue? How do we distinguish the true friend from the false one? In any relationship between friends we should ask, "Are both partners mutually benefiting?"

4. The profiteers' insatiable thirst for profit clearly benefits from their new friendship with the creative. Through their use of intellectual property law - in the form of copyright, patents and trademarks - concepts and ideas can be transformed into commodities that are controlled and owned. An artificial scarcity can then be established. But, unlike physical objects, concepts and ideas can be shared, copied and reused without diminishment. No matter how many people use and interpret a particular concept, the creators' use of that concept is not surrendered or reduced. But, much money is to be made when creative flows of knowledge and ideas become scarce products to be traded in the market place. Thus increasingly, intellectual property law is providing profiteers with vast accumulations of wealth. Indeed, immaterial labour (based on information, knowledge and communication) has now replaced industrial manufacture as the main producer of wealth in the age of technological capitalism. As such, the relationship codified in intellectual property law between creativity and profit can be seen as a core element of this wider structural transformation of the productive processes.

5. For many of us, the thought of intellectual property law still evokes romantic apparitions of a solitary artist or writer seeking to safeguard his or her creative work. It is therefore unsurprising that we tend to view intellectual property law as something that defends the rights and interests of the creative. Perhaps, in some removed and distant time, there was a modest respect in this specious notion. But this romantic vision of the creative is certainly ill at ease with capitalist 'reality'. Creators have become employees and each concept and idea they produce is appropriated and owned by the employer. Profiteers are using intellectual property law to amass the creative output of their employees and others. What is more, they continually lobby to extend the control of intellectual property law for greater and greater lengths of time.

6. The creative multitude is becoming legally excluded from using and reinterpreting the concepts and ideas that they produce. In addition, this legal exclusion is now being supported by technological means. Profiteers use technology to enforce copyright and patent law through the technical code that configures information, communications, networks and machines. The use of digital rights management software, for example, locks creative works, preventing any copying, modification and reuse. In the current era of technological capitalism, public pathways for the free flow of concepts and ideas and the movement of the creative are being steadily eroded -- the freedom to use and re-interpret creative work is being restricted through legally based but technologically enforced enclosures.

7. This development is an absolute disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing conversation and confrontation between concepts and ideas from the past and present. It is shameful that the creative multitude is being excluded from using concepts and ideas. Creativity is never solely the product of a single creator or individuated genius. It always owes debts to the inspiration and previous work of others, whether these are thinkers, artists, scientists, teachers, paramours or friends. Creativity, as a fusion point of these singularities, cannot subsist in a social nothingness. Concepts and ideas depend upon their social life, and it could not be otherwise.

8. An analogy can be drawn with everyday language, that is, the system of signs, symbols, gestures and meanings used in communicative understanding. Spoken language is shared. A meaningful utterance is only made possible by drawing on the words that freely circulate within a linguistic community of speakers and listeners. Language, then, is necessarily non-owned and free. But imagine a devastating situation where this were no longer the case. George Orwell's 1984 dystopia -- and the violence done to freethinking through 'newspeak' -- helps to illustrate this. In a similar way, the control and ownership of concepts and ideas is a threat to creative imagination and thought, and so also a grave danger to what we affectionately call our freedom and self-expression.

9. Previously, the creative multitude could decide either to conform or rebel. In conforming they became creatively inert, unable to create new synergies and ideas, mere consumers of the standardised commodities that increasingly saturate cultural life. In rebelling, they continued to use concepts and ideas in spite of intellectual property law. But then they are labelled "pirates", "property thieves" and even "terrorists", answerable as criminals to the courts of global state power. In other words, profiteers declare a permanent state of exception, a political emergency, which is then used to justify the coercive use of state power and repression against a newly criminalised culture of creativity. As we will soon discuss, a growing number of the creative are also moving beyond rebellion, through an active resistance to the present and the creation of an alternative creative field for flows of concepts and ideas.

10. There will be immediate objections to all we have said. The profiteers will turn proselytizers and say, "If there is no private ownership of creativity there will be no incentive to produce!" The idea that the ownership of knowledge and ideas promotes creativity is a shameful one, however plausible it may seem from the myopic perspective of the profiteers. To say that creativity can thrive whilst lacking the freedom to reuse concepts and ideas is clearly upside-down. After giggling a little at this absurdity, we should now turn this thinking the right way up.

11. According to this "incentive" claim, there cannot have been any creativity (i.e., art, music, literature, design and technology) before the profiteer's owned and controlled our concepts and ideas. This seems like pure fantasy. Historians frequently profess to us that creativity was alive and well in pre-capitalist times, before the advent of intellectual property laws. But, even so, we might concede that history is now enough of a fiction to raise some doubt about the previous incarnations of creativity and the creative. Perhaps more bizarrely, it also implies that there cannot be any creativity currently operating outside of the intellectual property regime, thus contradicting our current experiences as historical actors and witnesses. We can now be sure of something that we have always already known -- creativity is not reducible to the exploitation of intellectual property.

12. A new global movement of networked groups that operate across a variety of creative media -- e.g., music, art, design and software -- is now emerging. These groups produce a gathering (1) of concepts, ideas and art that exist outside the current intellectual property regime. Hence, the creative works of the Free/Libre and Open Source communities, for instance, can all be examined, challenged and modified. Here, knowledge and ideas are shared, contested and reinterpreted among the creative as a community of friends. Their concepts and ideas, like the symbols and signs of language, are public and non-owned. Against the machinations of profit, these groups are in the process of constituting a real alternative -- of constructing a model of creative life that reflects the force and desire of the creative multitude.

13. Through the principles of attribution and share-alike, existing works and ideas are given recognition in these communities. This means that although a work may be copied, modified and synthesised into new works, previous creative work is valued and recognised for its contribution to creativity as a whole. Attribution and share-alike are constitutive principles of the Free/Libre and Open Source movements, and chromosomes of the new mode of creative life that their social practice intimates.

14. These movements adopt an ingenious viral device, implemented through public licences, known as copyleft. This ensures that concepts and ideas are non-owned, while guaranteeing that future synergies based on these concepts and ideas are equally open for others to use. Whereas copyright acts through law to prevent the modification and re-use of concepts and ideas, copyleft ensures that they remain openly available and not capable of being commodified. In this way, copyright ('all rights reserved'), is stood back on its feet by copyleft ('all rights reversed'). It now stands the right way up for creativity and can once again look it in the eyes.

15. We believe that the creative multitude should embrace and defend the ideas and practices of these groups and the untimely model of creative life that they intimate. Indeed, we, who are already quite a crowd, must defend these ideas and practices. For it is only the creative multitude that will determine whether this possible transformation of our times is realised.

16. Just as the violence of the Profiteers' intellectual property regime is seeking to intensify, a real countervailing force is now beginning to confront it. Indeed, the vision and practice of these rhizomatic groups is defiantly growing in strength, both deepening and widening through a variety of forms of media. They offer a glimpse of a creative field in formation that supports flows of concepts and ideas that are shared freely among friends. They are acting in a way that is 'counter to our time and, let us hope, for the benefit of a possible time to come' (2) -- Creativity is creating resistance to the present.

(1) Versammlung (Heidegger 1951)
(2) Nietzsche 1983, p60

Short References

Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. (1976) The Dialectic of Enlightenment
Benjamin, W. (1935) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Deleuze, G, & Gautarri, F. (1999) What is Philosophy?
Foucault, M. (1990) The History of Sexuality, Vols 1, 2 & 3
Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2000) Empire
Feenberg, A. (1991) Critical Theory of Technology
Heidegger, M. (1993) Building Dwelling Thinking. In Basic Writings.
Martin, B. (2003) Against Intellectual Property ( http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/against_ IP.html )
Marx, K. (1974) Capital
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1974) The German Ideology
Nietzsche, F. (1983) Untimely Mediations
Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom
Schmidt, C. (1995) The Concept of the Political
Stallman, R (2002) Free Software, Free Society

(cc) 2003 The LibreSociety.org Manifesto is made available under the Attribution Share-alike Creative Commons License 1.0. www.creativecommons.org

Re:Slowly but surely it's being closed down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8879894)

Microsoft is certainly not my true friend! ;-)

Why? (0, Offtopic)

Tezkah (771144) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879865)

Its just a fancier GUI on WASTE.

De-ja Vu? (1)

Overand (590318) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879866)

Gee, this seems somewhat familiar... Do you suppose that VIA also 'revoked' the license? Heh.

Re:De-ja Vu? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8879897)

The GPL is irrevocable, so they can't revoke it. The only "official" things they can do to stop people developing it further are:

  • Claim that the employee didn't have permission to release it under the GPL, or
  • Claim that they didn't have permission from the original copyright holder (as AOL claim WASTE wasn't really released under the GPL), or
  • Stay quiet and hope AOL go after the others and not them.

Given that the second option would be an admission of copyright infringement, and the first option is on shaky ground, I can see them choosing the last option.

Thank goodness for GPL conservators (4, Insightful)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879869)

I wonder sometimes how many projects start up, fail for some reason, and then the code is lost. Not lost because it's proprietary but lost because it just goes the way of crumbs under the table? How much good work is going down the drain.

I'm glad you managed to save the code, GPLd as it is it has the right to live or die according to popularity. Hope it works.

shak's nude anime gallery [slashdot.org]

Re:Thank goodness for GPL conservators (5, Insightful)

Overand (590318) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879915)

This makes the assumption that the GPL license originally given for the original code is actually valid. The common point that people make is that Justin Frankel wrote the code while working for AOL, and depending on his contract with AOL, code he writes while working for them (or while in the office?) may be owned by AOL, meaning the license he put on the code may not be valid. Like someone pointed out earlier, if I stuck a GPL COPYING file in with the Windows 2000 source code, it wouldn't suddenly become legit. So if AOL didn't "authorize" the release of the program, the source code for waste is just as 'leaked' as the win2k source code.

Re:Thank goodness for GPL conservators (2, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880101)

This makes the assumption that the GPL license originally given for the original code is actually valid. The common point that people make is that Justin Frankel wrote the code while working for AOL, and depending on his contract with AOL, code he writes while working for them (or while in the office?) may be owned by AOL, meaning the license he put on the code may not be valid.

It can be owned by AOL and still GPL'd. The real question is whether Justin Frankel has the organizational standing to make a decision like that. There's no "AOL" to authorize the release of the program; rather, there are people within AOL who have the standing to make such decisions.

I'm assuming that Justin isn't one of them given that it was pulled from their website.

Oh please (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8879946)

How is the HURD development going?

It's magically GPL, yet it has been in the shitter for the last decade.

Re:Thank goodness for GPL conservators (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880059)

Apart from the fact it's not GPL'd, I agree.

It's probably... (2, Funny)

Ruliz Galaxor (568498) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879889)

just a WASTE of time :)

sig(h)

Unauthorized software? (5, Informative)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879890)

Perhaps this [nullsoft.com] has something to do with it?

Re:Unauthorized software? (1)

jwthompson2 (749521) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880023)

Why is it dated May 28, 2003...how long ago did this happen, and if this isn't a typo then how did this make current news?

Re:Unauthorized software? (3, Informative)

Rostin (691447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880092)

Unfortunately you have to know a little history that wasn't explained to "get" this story. After NullSoft (who produce Winamp) was bought out by AOL, a Winamp programmer wrote Waste and posted it to their site (evidentally on May 28, 2003). AOL got mad and made them take it down and posted this notice. Now, VIA (from the sounds of it) has taken what is obviously source code from Waste and turned it into a new program. The parent is speculating that the reason VIA has now taken down this new source is that the original work is not actually and legally GPL'd.

Software is void, revoked and terminated. (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880195)

Can one really "revoke" a gpl computer license? If someone from Nullsoft posted the software to the website, they are acting as Nullsoft, even if they do so amidst objections of their co-workers. Can Nullsoft, or anyone else for that matter, suddenly turn around and say "Sorry, ours. You can't use it anymore. We changed our minds."

Do copyright abilities trump contract law when companies get buyer's remorse?

Re:Unauthorized software? (1)

seasleepy (651293) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880163)

No, that went up about a day after the Waste program was initially posted to Nullsoft. If Via based something off of it, I'm pretty sure they knew about Waste's history.

Removing the program probably has a lot more to do with Via's failure to properly credit Waste's developers despite lifting files directly from them (see here [sourceforge.net] and here [1014.org] ).

Windows Binary Mirror (5, Informative)

wang33 (531044) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879898)

I ganked the windows binary before it was pulled if anyone cares get it here PadLock [robsell.com]

Wang33

Re:Windows Binary Mirror (-1, Flamebait)

AirLace (86148) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880038)

According to the license provided with that binary (the GPL) file, you should also provide sources on your site which you have failed to do.

I'm sick of people violating the GPL and I've decided to do something about it for a change, so
I've forwarded your contact details to AOL, which owns Nullsoft, and VIA, both of whose GPL-licensed code you seem to be illegally distributing.

CRS
Robert Sell (no.spam.robs@robsell.com)
+1.7016335535
Fax: +1.NoFaxNum
14853 30th St SE
Wheatland, ND 58079
US

I hope they choose to prosecute -- just because they're the large companies and you're the individual in this case doesn't make what you're doing any more acceptable.

Re:Windows Binary Mirror (1)

wang33 (531044) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880131)

Jeez man who pissed on your cheerios this morning?
I was getting the source when i posted the original comment but it was coming down at less than 2k so i submitted and as you can now see there is a link to the source.
Oh yeah thanks man for flying off the handle and publishing my personal details... I appreciate it greatly.

Re:Windows Binary Mirror (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880255)

Oh yeah thanks man for flying off the handle and publishing my personal details... I appreciate it greatly.

Yeah, that is lame, but because you registered the domain name, it is public information [whois.net] ...

Re:Windows Binary Mirror (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880142)

That's real big of you. Well done. Your good deed for the day has been done.

Why not ask Rob nicely to add a licence instead of trying to get heavy?

---

Thanks for this Rob, I was going to trawl the P2P networks tonight for it but you've saved me a job. Thanks for the bandwidth too.

Re:Windows Binary Mirror (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880295)

Just because the source isn't on the same ftp site as the binary doesn't make it a GPL violation. Did you ever try ASKING for the source code?

Know what happens when you ASSume..

Re:Windows Binary Mirror (2, Informative)

wang33 (531044) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880069)

Also source file here, should be a little faster than negacao's line down to 1.86kb/s when i got the source from him(her?), but we shall see how good DreamHost [dreamhost.com] is... Pad Lock Source [slashdot.org]

Wang33

Security chip and continued development. (4, Interesting)

Brobock (226116) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879903)

Although without the support of VIA how would one keep developing this since it uses their security hardware. As chip design changes, you would need to know how to make calls to the chip or the program becomes useless... Does VIA offer documentation on their chipsets?

Re:Security chip and continued development. (4, Informative)

Overand (590318) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879931)

No, it doesn't. I've used on non-via hardware. Where did you get the idea that it requires their hardware?

Re:Security chip and continued development. (2, Funny)

cheeser (30863) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880084)

Rectal extraction?

Re:Security chip and continued development. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880107)

It talks a lot about their hardware (it's intended to showcase it after all), but the docs clearly state that if the VIA crypto HW is not available it uses a SW implementation (they also note that this increases the CPU requirements).

Re:Security chip and continued development. (1)

Bostik (92589) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880094)

Does VIA offer documentation on their chipsets?

Yes, at least to their PadLock system. Overview [via.com.tw] , Programmer's Guide [via.com.tw] .

Basically their system allows one to use hardware accelerated AES encryption in all major modes (CTR requires using the co-processor to precompute blocks in ECB mode and then XORing them in regular software.) I'd say that is pretty damn impressive and from what I've looked, the documentation is solid and quite clear.

You can even get Brian Gladman's AES implementation [plus.com] which uses VIA's hardware acceleration if such is present.

Ok, great, so ... where's the torrent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8879925)

Oh, and please, seriously consider including the entire package, as it was released by Via. TYIA

To Quoeth The Homer... (4, Funny)

uberlinuxguy (586546) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879936)

Forbidden Code... *drool*

Re:To Quoeth The Homer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880179)

Forbidden Code... *drool*

Yeah ... I didn't care about PadLock the other day when it posted, but now I *must* have it.

I can see it already. (0, Flamebait)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879945)

You just wait. I give this thing about 30 days, and then people will start hearing from all kinds of lawyers, and we'll have another SCO on our hands, claiming we jacked source code which we did not, in fact, jack.

So this is what I suggest: Distribute this source code as widely as possible. Like the way DeCSS was widely distributed. But instead of using it to build the product, use it to plan a completely new design, and build that as a separate project altogether, using none of the original source code. Call it a different name, make it do slightly different things... when they come to bitch and moan, the damn thing won't share any lines of code. Shit, if there's int i in that source, our version should define int to INT and write INT i, just to throw off code comparison.

Oh yeah, and for our protection, I think laws should passed worldwide that anything posted on the Internet and subsequently removed cannot be recalled once downloaded by at least one person, so that if a company releases something as GPL and then pulls it, even if that is due to copyright violations on their part in including the thing in a GPL download, that company is subject to damages but not the downloaders, since they downloaded something as licensed under the GPL.

Re:I can see it already. (1, Troll)

The Old Burke (679901) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879994)

Why is it that the GNU community and the people that work with GPL software work like you describe above? Why can't you just work in the open like other developers? Acting like a pirate is not very elite in my opinion, all that underground stuff aint benificiary to the industry.
But instead of using it to build the product, use it to plan a completely new design, and build that as a separate project altogether, using none of the original source code. Call it a different name, make it do slightly different things... when they come to bitch and moan, the damn thing won't share any lines of code. Shit, if there's int i in that source, our version should define int to INT and write INT i, just to throw off code comparison.
Is not this exactly what resulted in the problems for the Linux kernel? Borrwing code from proprietary Operating Systems is just as bad as withdrawing a usefull piece of software.

Re:I can see it already. (5, Insightful)

Snowmit (704081) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879995)

Oh yeah, and for our protection, I think laws should passed worldwide that anything posted on the Internet and subsequently removed cannot be recalled once downloaded by at least one person, so that if a company releases something as GPL and then pulls it, even if that is due to copyright violations on their part in including the thing in a GPL download, that company is subject to damages but not the downloaders, since they downloaded something as licensed under the GPL.

In other words, you want the international community to pass a law that makes it so that if someone steals my code and posts it online and then has a friend download it, I lose all rights to that code.

That's a very bad idea.

Re:I can see it already. (1)

fatwreckfan (322865) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880122)

Aren't you reading his post pretty selectively? You're reading it as *anything* posted on the net *must* be free. He's saying it should be made so that GPL code posted can't be taken back.

I don't necessarily agree with him either, since I believe that as long as all contributers to the source are in agreement, they can change the license it is released under. Is this right? If so, there really should be no way to stop them from posting the code, then pulling it and changing the license. Sure, the damage is done since the source is out, but future versions (if there are any) won't be available under the GPL.

Re:I can see it already. (3, Insightful)

Snowmit (704081) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880220)

I don't think I'm reading his post selectively.

If someone steals my code, then posts it online under the GPL illegally and then other people download it, I don't think that those other people should have Carte Blanche to do what they want with my code. I think that if I inform them and can prove to them that they are using code that should never have been in the GPL, then they have an obligation to stop using my code.

If we go with the great-grandparent's plan, then anything released under the GPL, no matter how it got there, would stay GPL. In other words, thieves would be totally free to steal and distribute code.

Which is a very bad idea, I think

Re:I can see it already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880268)

No, you don't lose all rights to that code. The only difference it that the people who download it aren't liable, it's the people who originally posted it as GPL code.

Re:I can see it already. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880030)

You just wait. I give this thing about 30 days, and then people will start hearing from all kinds of lawyers, and we'll have another SCO on our hands, claiming we jacked source code which we did not, in fact, jack.

Huh? Tell me, if I had a job as a janitor at Microsoft headquarters, and grabbed a copy of the Windows source code, would I be able to release it as GPL? And would the people downloading and spreading it be in the right? Of course not!

This is essentially AOL's argument: that somebody released the WASTE code under the GPL when they had no right to. If that is true, then they acted accordingly - they pulled the source and put up a notice in its place.

Now along comes VIA, who haven't got the message that their license is not valid. They "release" their derivative work, and then find out about the licensing screwup. They pull the software.

No matter how many people have downloaded the code, none of them have a valid license. VIA were never in a position to grant licenses.

So sure, if somebody is mistakenly under the impression that their license is valid, then they shouldn't be punished. But you are advocating ignoring the fact that the license is invalid, and committing copyright infringement.

But instead of using it to build the product, use it to plan a completely new design, and build that as a separate project altogether, using none of the original source code. Call it a different name, make it do slightly different things... when they come to bitch and moan, the damn thing won't share any lines of code. Shit, if there's int i in that source, our version should define int to INT and write INT i, just to throw off code comparison.

No, that's a derivative work, and is also covered by AOL copyright. Any attempt to "throw off code comparison" would be strong evidence that you knew that the license wasn't valid, which, I believe, triples damages when you inevitably lose the copyright infringement lawsuit.

Oh yeah, and for our protection, I think laws should passed worldwide that anything posted on the Internet and subsequently removed cannot be recalled once downloaded by at least one person, so that if a company releases something as GPL and then pulls it, even if that is due to copyright violations on their part in including the thing in a GPL download, that company is subject to damages but not the downloaders, since they downloaded something as licensed under the GPL.

So the janitor at Microsoft snarfs the source code, gets a new job at Sun, and uploads it onto their servers. Bingo, Free Windows, no more Sun.

Re:I can see it already. (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880079)

our version should define int to INT and write INT i, just to throw off code comparison.

If they compare the code after the preprocessor pass, that would be a waste of time. If it's written from scratch, why bother? (Besides, they just need a lawyer to wave a prop briefcase with "millions of lines of stolen code". Reality seems to have nothing to do with it.)

Re:I can see it already. (-1, Flamebait)

dave420 (699308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880128)

So your idea to further the cause of OSS is to plagiarise other peoples' work? Seeing as /. is the first place for people to scream blue murder when someone even gives the GPL a dodgy look, I find that pretty amusing.

For our protection, why don't they make a law that says no-one can sue anyone else, and no-one can go to prison! What a great idea! Then there'd be no lawsuits and empty prisons! I can't believe someone hasn't thought of this before!

sheesh.

Possible unlawful use of code (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879948)

People might want to consider that the release of WASTE was indeed unlawful under current law, AOL/Nullsoft was within their rights to withdraw the code and the GPL was applied to the code under wrong circumstances. A lot of people have mentioned in previous WASTE related stories something to the tune of "It was GPLed, I dont care who GPLed it, Im not discontinuing my use or distribution of it" while not actually considering that just because it had the GPL applied to it, the GPL was lawfully applied.

Since this product was based on WASTE, this is possibly why it was taken down, and if so, then the fact that a major company thinks the GPL wasnt applied lawfully to it, then Im inclined to think that all the other archives of it around are infringing as well.

Just my 2 cents on the matter. In the origional WASTE story, i offered to mirror the source code. I did this until i actually sat back and thought about it, then I removed the code because I didnt think its release was lawful.

Re:Possible unlawful use of code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880160)

if the original waste code was released by the person that wrote it, then it's morally correct to spread it, in my eyes.

just remember, lawful != moral (and, the corollary, unlawful != immoral).

Re:Possible unlawful use of code (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880252)

if the original waste code was released by the person that wrote it, then it's morally correct to spread it, in my eyes

I see your point of view, but what about works for hire, or employed programmers who had no pretence of ownership of said code?

Re:Possible unlawful use of code (4, Informative)

jdreed1024 (443938) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880267)

A lot of people have mentioned in previous WASTE related stories something to the tune of "It was GPLed, I dont care who GPLed it, Im not discontinuing my use or distribution of it" while not actually considering that just because it had the GPL applied to it, the GPL was lawfully applied.

Seriously. This is the kind of attitude that Steve Ballmer and folks can point to and say "See how viral the GPL is? Some guy under contract to AOL simply put the word GPL in the source - they didn't even have to make sure the release complied with the terms of the GPL, and now AOL's valuable IP is gone." And then millions of PHBs will ban the use of the word GPL in their offices, because Ballmer provided 'proof' that it was bad.

The GPL does not let you take any source code anywhere and release it under the GPL. If it did, we'd have seen GPL'd Windows 2000 from the leaked MS source, and a GPL'd version of every piece of source that was ever leaked onto the net. Heck, we could solve Xfree86 problem in a second - someone just grab the latest source with the annoying license, untar it, stick in a GPL LICENSE and COPYING files, tar it back up, and distribute it. Bingo - problem solved. Yet for some strange reason, no one has done that yet. Because it's not allowed. I bet even RMS would agree with that.

The GPL provides an awful lot of protection, but that all goes out the window if the inital release under the GPL was unlawful. And one such case would be if you signed an employment contract stating that any code you wrote was property of the company. If you plan to work on GPL stuff, either get a waiver beforehand, or find another job. But you don't get to decide that part of your contact doesn't apply because you don't like it or feel it's "wrong". If so, I could decide that I don't feel like repaying my car payment, or that I want to knock down a few walls in my apartment, regardless of what my lease says. The courts get to strike down parts of a contract after it's signed - the average person doesn't.

I'd say (5, Informative)

hopelessOne (180591) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879976)

this is the reason it was pulled:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=36 8414

Apparently, there were some GPL violations in the code but it doesn't sound like a permanent problem

Via's RNG publicity and a conspiracy theory... (1)

OlivierB (709839) | more than 10 years ago | (#8879985)

VIA's random number generator greatly increases the speed to generate the keys (ie faster than p4 2.6 ghz on VIA's 1Ghz proc).
However there is a full software mode so it still works.

I think VIA knew that waste's code was dodgy in the first place. They published it so it would make some noise and draw some attention to their hardware specs.

Or one of the US 3 letter agencies might have requested not to publish secure tools?
Anybody here thinks that securei easy IM might not facilitate terrorist message interception?

I mean if one uses secure IM, than they immediately draw attention of the security agencies. Now if everyone uses secure IM who can they focus on?

Re:Via's RNG publicity and a conspiracy theory... (1)

Penguin2212 (173380) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880009)

Well, if that's the case, why haven't they threatened the development of gaim-e [sourceforge.net] or gaim-encryption [sourceforge.net] ?

Re:Via's RNG publicity and a conspiracy theory... (2, Informative)

OlivierB (709839) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880065)

Gaim-e and gaim-encryption aren't exactly user friendly. They are not easy to configure and install. Especially on windows machines. Moreover Gaim-e is Open source. So the agencies couldn't really call up a CEO or something and have them removed could they?

The only thing that is a little mainstream (because it's easy to use and install) is Trillan. However it is closed source (possible back door) and the key generation isn't fully documented. Cerulean studios could have been obliged to give up their keys..

Padlock had it all: Open source, Secure and could potentially become maintream as it is easy to install (in windows) and cross platform

TEN FOOT POLE (4, Insightful)

ca1v1n (135902) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880008)

If the Nullsoft release was unauthorized (what constitutes unauthorized is not as clear-cut as AOL would have us believe) then the fact that the code was GPL'd is irrelevant. Go roll your own people. Don't even look at the WASTE source. You'll be tainted.

Check P2P Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880011)

Too late. I have already seen it out there under "VIA PadLockSL Security Suite and Docs".

mod d0wN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8880020)

opinion in other sxtates that there

don't do that (5, Insightful)

hak1du (761835) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880098)

Merely the fact that the software had a GPL copyright on it and happened to be available somehow doesn't mean that you can redistribute it. Until a piece of software has been intentionally released by its owner under the GPL, it is not covered by the GPL.

Furthermore, one of the most likely reason VIA pulled this is that they don't have the right to distribute it (patents, other people's copyrights, etc.). Then, even if you acquired a copy under the GPL, you couldn't use it because the GPL would be invalid.

Also, the person posting it may not have been authorized to do so by the copyright holder (the company itself). That would also mean that you don't, in fact, have the right to use it under the GPL because the GPL is an agreement between you and the copyright holder (VIA), and VIA has not entered into that agreement with you.

Even if you could get away with it legally for some reason, I really think it's a bad idea to behave that way. Good relations between VIA and OSS developers are essential in order to have Linux run well on their hardware. There is no hard-and-fast line, but in a situation like this (it seems it has had no widespread announcement, no user community, no external contributions), the creators of such a software package should be allowed to change their mind at the last minute.

Re:don't do that (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880174)

Exactly - otherwise you could buy Windows, burn it onto a CD with a copy of the GPL, and claim it's open source.

Licenses are the fine line between open source and anarchy. If we don't respect the licenses in place, no-one will respect ours.

Oh no! (0)

silence535 (101360) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880173)

What a WASTE!!

-silence

tum-te-tum... (2, Funny)

Bazman (4849) | more than 10 years ago | (#8880260)

% cp /usr/src/linux/COPYING /downloads/KaZaa/WindowsSource/

Hey presto everyone, GPL'd Windows Source code!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>