This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WASTE article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I don't agree that WASTE is a friend-to-friend network. It's an invitation-only network, but once you've been invited you can discover the IP addresses of users you've never met before from [ ping packets]. Michael Rogers
Shouldn't this page be at WASTE? whkoh 01:11, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
The text mentions that revocation of a license is not possible under the terms of the GPL but this seems to be missing the point. It's not that Nullsoft has tried to revoke a license granted by them, apparently the software was made available by someone who is not the copyright holder (even if he happens to be a Nullsoft employee) and the original license grant is invalid itself. Similarly, if I were to distribute Microsoft Windows under the GPL, MS would not be unable to stop this distribution as I am in no position to distribute Windows under any license. 82.203.196.197 11:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Can it really say that we're linking to the 'official' WASTE website? I mean really, define official. In the eye's of AOL and Nullsoft (due to AOL's bullying or otherwise) it's certainly not official. Perhaps it would be better to just rename the link as 'WASTE on SourceForge' or something similar. Thoughts? Also I think this page could use more information on the posting and removal of WASTE, the controversey it stirred up and the implications of trying to revoke GPL'd licensed code. I'd do it but I can't find any good informed sources on the issue at this time. -- AsianAstronaut 01:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just to note:
http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/ is the "offical" website.
The article states that revocation of the GPL "is not possible under the terms of the GPL license". However, can a license be considered valid if the software is leaked? IIRC, WASTE was released without the prior approval of AOL who is, ultimately, the copyright holder of the software. Only the copyright holder has the authority to offer any license to users. I believe the CEO of Nullsoft at the time quit over this dispute. 72.66.97.119 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The W.A.S.T.E. postal service does exist and it is probably the world's biggest conspiracy. Anybody mind that or am I the only member using Wiki? Okok, after all it is all underground and I am not really supposed to talk about it.
i joined and it says the network is down, please Reply. 65.147.189.229 01:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WASTE article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I don't agree that WASTE is a friend-to-friend network. It's an invitation-only network, but once you've been invited you can discover the IP addresses of users you've never met before from [ ping packets]. Michael Rogers
Shouldn't this page be at WASTE? whkoh 01:11, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
The text mentions that revocation of a license is not possible under the terms of the GPL but this seems to be missing the point. It's not that Nullsoft has tried to revoke a license granted by them, apparently the software was made available by someone who is not the copyright holder (even if he happens to be a Nullsoft employee) and the original license grant is invalid itself. Similarly, if I were to distribute Microsoft Windows under the GPL, MS would not be unable to stop this distribution as I am in no position to distribute Windows under any license. 82.203.196.197 11:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Can it really say that we're linking to the 'official' WASTE website? I mean really, define official. In the eye's of AOL and Nullsoft (due to AOL's bullying or otherwise) it's certainly not official. Perhaps it would be better to just rename the link as 'WASTE on SourceForge' or something similar. Thoughts? Also I think this page could use more information on the posting and removal of WASTE, the controversey it stirred up and the implications of trying to revoke GPL'd licensed code. I'd do it but I can't find any good informed sources on the issue at this time. -- AsianAstronaut 01:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just to note:
http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/ is the "offical" website.
The article states that revocation of the GPL "is not possible under the terms of the GPL license". However, can a license be considered valid if the software is leaked? IIRC, WASTE was released without the prior approval of AOL who is, ultimately, the copyright holder of the software. Only the copyright holder has the authority to offer any license to users. I believe the CEO of Nullsoft at the time quit over this dispute. 72.66.97.119 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The W.A.S.T.E. postal service does exist and it is probably the world's biggest conspiracy. Anybody mind that or am I the only member using Wiki? Okok, after all it is all underground and I am not really supposed to talk about it.
i joined and it says the network is down, please Reply. 65.147.189.229 01:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)