Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
America Online Media Open Source Software

VLC 1.1 Forced To Drop Shoutcast Due To AOL Anti-OSS Provision 315

The folks over at VideoLAN are in the process of releasing version 1.1.0 of VLC, and one of the major changes is the removal of SHOUTcast, a media-streaming module from AOL-owned Nullsoft. "During the last year, the VLC developers have received several injunctions by e-mail from employees at AOL, asking us to either comply to a license not compatible with free software or remove the SHOUTcast capability in VLC." Within the license is a clause prohibiting the distribution of SHOUTcast with any product whose own license requires that it be "disclosed or distributed in source code form," "licensed for the purpose of making derivative works," or "redistributable at no charge." The license would also force VideoLAN to bundle Nullsoft adware with VLC. Update: 06/22 00:52 GMT by H : The 1.1 release is ready from their site; you can also read up on the release information.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VLC 1.1 Forced To Drop Shoutcast Due To AOL Anti-OSS Provision

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Good riddance.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by jsnipy ( 913480 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @04:24PM (#32645474) Journal
    Shoutcast is great, not an AOL creation, just acquired.
  • by bzzfzz ( 1542813 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @04:25PM (#32645494)
    From TFA:

    "When sold or distributed to End Users, the Integrated Product shall not [...] (c) incorporate any Publically Available Software, in whole or in part, in a manner that may subject SHOUTcast Radio or the SHOUTcast Radio Materials, in whole or in part, to all or part of the license obligations of any Publically Available Software. As used herein, the term "Publicly Available Software" means any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software or similar licensing or distribution models; and that requires as a condition of use, modification or distribution that such software or other software incorporated into, derived from or distributed with such software: (1) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (2) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (3) be redistributable at no charge." (Emphasis mine)

    This is a standard provision that is part of any license agreement for commercial software, and all it says is that you can't distribute the software in a way that makes it subject to the GFDL or some other Free license.

    I'm not sure what the real reason is, but the OSS provision isn't it.

  • Re:AO-who? (Score:5, Informative)

    by mikkelm ( 1000451 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @04:26PM (#32645504)

    You have to admire their consistency. I don't recall hearing of them ever doing anything to benefit the users.

  • Re:AO-who? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21, 2010 @04:28PM (#32645528)

    Actually, streaming media -shoutcast, if you will, is probably the only remaining area that they are, in fact, relevant in. So this is actually a fairly desperate bid to retain some sort of control/advantage in that arena.

  • by SgtChaireBourne ( 457691 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @04:31PM (#32645566) Homepage

    SHOUTcast is just a bad copy of icecast [icecast.org]. Keep using icecast [icecast.org] for your audio and video streaming and do not accept lesser, closed source imitations.

    I do hope that the specific VLC developers involved with the shoutcast fiasco get the drubbing they deserve, if for no other reason than as an example for others and as payment for the trouble they've caused the rest of the project. It's 2010, closed source does not belong on the net and FOSS developers have no business undercutting FOSS projects.

  • by mmkkbb ( 816035 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @04:41PM (#32645664) Homepage Journal

    Shoutcast predates icecast. And, in any case, this appears to have been a Shoutcast directory client, not a media server.

  • by spinkham ( 56603 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @04:44PM (#32645696)

    However, we are providing a way to integrate the "icecast directory" that provides an open source equivalent to SHOUTcast. If you know and like a radio station currently listed on the SHOUTcast directory, please make sure this radio is also available on the icecast directory and let the radio owner know about how AOL treats their content.

    There's a replacement, it's free and user editable. Sounds like the death of SHOUTcast to me.

  • Re:Wait... (Score:3, Informative)

    by andymadigan ( 792996 ) <amadigan@gmNETBSDail.com minus bsd> on Monday June 21, 2010 @04:48PM (#32645760)
    DeCSS is only illegal under the DMCA and other "anti-circumvention" laws. Open source has a history of respecting copyrights, but the DMCA is completely different. The DMCA also doesn't exist in most countries, and OSS has no interest init being followed. OSS does have an interest in copyright and copyright does exist in most jurisdictions.
  • by buchner.johannes ( 1139593 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @04:55PM (#32645838) Homepage Journal

    Why is this even an issue? Isn't VLC based in France?

    Were they using the source code from Nullsoft? Couldn't they rewrite the code themselves?

    TFA says:

    We want to emphasise the fact that features like SHOUTcast or icecast browsing are now doable using our new extension framework and you will find user-contributed extensions on http://addons.videolan.org/ [videolan.org]

  • Re:Wait... (Score:5, Informative)

    by slackergod ( 37906 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @04:55PM (#32645840) Homepage Journal

    Indeed! Just to clarify things for the AC above...

    This is an issue of the authors of some code demanding "adhere to our license or get rid of our code". Which I think everyone can understand the need to honor, if just as a matter of "do unto others, or else".

    DeCSS is a completely different case. The code was written by a Norwegian named Jon Johansen, who not only did the cryptographic research to invent the algorithm in the first place, but wrote the code and then released it to the world. Copyright-wise, the code is legally open-source. And for all countries except the US, the code is legal for use. So for anyone outside the US, there aren't any legal problems with the code. And VLC isn't a US-developed piece of software (though to help Americans, DeCSS is distributed as a separate library under many linux distributions).

    The only thing which taints the algorithm in the US is the "DCMA" law, which outlawed the use of any algorithms which circumvent a "copy protection scheme". The law is so broad that almost *anything* which alters the encoding of data (ROT13, etc) is a copy protection scheme; despite the fact that encrypting a DVD in no way prevents you from making copies of it (copies of encrypted bits play just like the original). So the DVD "CSS" encryption scheme doesn't even stop copying, yet it's able to wrap itself in the legal mantle the DCMA provides. What CSS *does* do is prevent you from playing a DVD unless the software author has paid a license fee to the people who created CSS (NOTE: not the people who creating the video codec it uses, that's just MPEG2). So all it does is stop you from making use of your fair use rights under US copyright law. It's your DVD, you have a right to play it, sell it, etc.

    Now, you might argue that the DCMA, while unjust, is still the law, and Americans should abide by it. And that's a whole can of worms to which Slashdot has devoted many pages of discussion over the last decade. But initially, the effects of the DMCA were broader: worldwide, there were *no* open source DVD players. Period. Because the CSS algorithm wasn't even available in source form anywhere. DVD player authors worldwide had to pay a license just to link in a binary-only library. That is, until Jon Johansen (and cohorts) successfully reverse engineered the algorithm in a completely-legal-for-Norway manner (he was tried in court and found innocent of any wrongdoing). Thus allowing the rest of the world to watch dvds without having to pay money under a racket created by a US-only law.

    And *thats* where DeCSS came from, and why it's nothing like this situation, which (while foot-and-bullet stupid) is perfectly within all internationally recognized rights of the authors.

  • Amarok (Score:5, Informative)

    by c_g_hills ( 110430 ) <chaz @ c h az6.com> on Monday June 21, 2010 @05:17PM (#32646124) Homepage Journal
    Amarok dropped Shoutcast support in version 2.2 (October 2009) because of this.
  • Re:AO-who? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21, 2010 @05:52PM (#32646612)
    They're all a bunch of weblogs under well... Weblogs Inc. [wikipedia.org] Some are extremely popular like Engadget [wikipedia.org], and Joystiq [wikipedia.org], the others not so much. Incidentally, you might notice I keep linking to wikipedia. There's a reason for that.
  • by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @05:52PM (#32646616)
    AOL only bought Netscape for the traffic going to the portal site. Management viewed Netscape's software portfolio as unwanted baggage, so they jettisoned that as early as they could, getting as much goodwill and publicity out of it as possible. $2M is chump change for a company bringing in over a billion in cash every year. The irony is that immediately after taking over, traffic on the Netscape.com portal site dropped by 90-95%. AOL has an amazing talent for buying high-traffic web properties and turning them into low-traffic ones. Having witnessed it first-hand, the disconnect between AOL's management and reality is utterly mind-boggling. /ex-AOL employee
  • Re:AO-who? (Score:3, Informative)

    by BLKMGK ( 34057 ) <{morejunk4me} {at} {hotmail.com}> on Monday June 21, 2010 @06:54PM (#32647158) Homepage Journal

    Boxee from XBMC which was first. XBMC has supported ShoutCast forever and Boxee is a fork of XBMC. Just a nit, Boxee being more commercial doesn't win it any points in my book.

  • Hello from SHOUTcast (Score:4, Informative)

    by friskygeek ( 1838700 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @07:17PM (#32647344)
    Hi all. We were disappointed to see VLC's announcement today that they were removing access to the SHOUTcast service in VLC. While the SHOUTcast service is proprietary, SHOUTcast has always supported open source development since its birth in 1999 and we will continue to do so in the future. The SHOUTcast API terms of service allow the SHOUTcast API to be incorporated into open source software applications via SHOUTcast API partner program so long as the terms of such open source software do not subject SHOUTcast Radio or the SHOUTcast service to the open source terms. VLC's comment that the SHOUTcast Toolbar is spyware is not accurate. The SHOUTcast Toolbar is not spyware. The SHOUTcast toolbar may only be downloaded by a user upon their prior consent. We will be reaching out directly to VLC to clear up any confusion that exists about this situation.
  • by TheRealGrogan ( 1660825 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @07:24PM (#32647420)

    Shoutcast isn't any special protocol. It's smoke and mirrors... it's really just http. Identify the protocol as penis:// or whatever you want, but it's still just http:/// [http]

    The mp3 file format lends itself to "streaming" because it is continuous data. Click a link to play an mp3 file with playback starting immediately and you are streaming it. A "shoutcast" radio station is just mp3 data. Write it to disk as it's streaming and you have an mp3 file.

    A web site directory that uses javascript to launch a player is really all there is to it. They don't host the "radio stations" or anything.

    AOL can kiss the very middle of my ass.

  • by kriston ( 7886 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @09:12PM (#32648318) Homepage Journal

    Yes, the article and the C&D letters appear to be about the directory service provided by Shoutcast, called Shoutcast Radio. This is separate from Shoutcast, the protocol. The quoted sections posted over at the VLC web site specifically say "Shoutcast Radio" so it's reasonable to think they're talking about the directory service, not the streaming protocol. The protocol itself for streaming the audio is open, and AOL even tried to promote it under the name "Ultravox" and it never seemed to get anywhere. But all I see that the VLC site is talking about is Shoutcast Radio, the directory service.

    It's also important to know that the protocol behind Shoutcast serves way more than half a million people. Most iPhone Apps that receive streaming audio are receiving them via the Shoutcast streaming protocol even if they're not using the Shoutcast Radio directory. In many cases the ICEcast open-source implementation of Shoutcast is what's being used. Let's see, CBS Radio (AOL and Yahoo Radio), AMFM's iheartradio, and so many others are using something very much like the Shoutcast protocol, once and no longer known as "Ultravox," for serving iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad clients. I don't know about Android but I would suspect they're using ICEcast since it's the one supported by the Ogg Vorbis crowd, too.

    Shoutcast/ICEcast ICY protocol is in so many more places than people know. It might not be purely AOL's Shoutcast by Nullsoft, but it's someting mighty close to it, serving tens of millions of people.

    We don't need the Shoutcast Radio directory. That's the technology in question from what I'm reading at VLC's web site.

  • by kriston ( 7886 ) on Monday June 21, 2010 @09:31PM (#32648420) Homepage Journal

    The letters all refer to something called the "Shoutcast Radio." This is the free, yet proprietary, directory of people using Shoutcast servers to serve audio data. I don't see anything that talks about the protocol itself, which is open and is used to serve audio to tens of millions of iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch users via apps like iheartradio, CBS Radio, and many others.

    This isn't such a big deal but I sure hope the VLC people don't think it means they should remove the Shoutcast streaming protocol, which it pretty clearly does NOT refer to.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 21, 2010 @11:39PM (#32649192)

    They also stole GAIM's name making a client called AIM and then turned around and sued the GAIM project for trademark infringement.

  • by segin ( 883667 ) <segin2005@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @12:28AM (#32649498) Homepage

    Except that they aren't using so much as one line of Nullsoft code. The license agreement in question is a service license, not a software license. It just says that any software that uses the SHOUTcast service cannot be published as source code, or require that it's source code be published, or even allow for people to make copies for gratis.

    In other words, it's saying that GPL'd software can't send commands to their server and get back data. No matter who wrote the damn code.

    After all, the name of the specific license that AOL is pushing is "SHOUTcast Radio Directory License Agreement and Terms of Service".

    For more clarification as to why this service license can dictate what license the client software utilizes (or at least, why AOL thinks they can dictate the license of client software that connects to their directory), let's take a little look at their "license".

    First, it refers to the client software as an "Integrated Product". This term is defined, by the license, as "a version of Your Product into which the API is integrated, whether in "works like," "works like-looks like," prototype, intermediate form, final form, or other form."

    "API", is then defined by the license as "the specifications, code samples, header files, libraries, and applications provided to You by Nullsoft, and any changes, alterations, corrections, or enhancements made thereto at any time by Nullsoft."

    Note the text I put in bold, "the specifications". Basically, if I write brand new code from scratch, and it can connect to the SHOUTcast Directory, then it somehow must conform to these specifications (even if I did not use Nullsoft/AOL's published documents providing these specifications - which are basically the underlying protocol for client/server interaction). As such, even though this is 100% free of Nullsoft code, it conforms to Nullsoft's specifications (as if it didn't, it would be unable to interact with the SHOUTcast Directory server), and is thus supposedly covered under the SHOUTcast Directory Service License, as the software uses the service.

    Note: I don't support Nullsoft/Aee-Oh-Hell (AOL)/Whoever-the-fuck-makes-this-shit, even if I sound like I do. I am simply explaining how this license supposedly works, or at least what seems to be Aee-Oh-Hell's interpretation of it.

    As with that, I think I might fork VLC and keep the SHOUTcast Directory browser code in the main codebase. Let Aee-Oh-Hell come after me, I'll tell them to go fuck themselves.

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Working...