WASTE and the GPL, plus a patch for the code

[Bill Horne]

There's a patch on Slashdot for the WASTE source code:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=65797&threshold=2&commentsort=3&tid=93&mode
=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