Peercast Source Available 109
jilles writes "Peercast, a p2p streaming program, has had some attention on slashdot recently. Now the source code has been released under GPL. Please find the announcement + source code here."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Peercast Source Available
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
Re:first post! (Score:1)
Fastrack (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fastrack (Score:3, Informative)
giFT has proven to be an extremely reliable program, even though it's CVS only.
Please note that you have to checkout a new version every 3 days orso to be able to connect.
Re:Fastrack (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fastrack (Score:1)
Re:Fastrack (Score:2)
I can't imagine anyone knocking on your door, unless you use it to share their content.
Re:Fastrack (Score:2)
You might need a better imagination.
The *AA views the mere act of listening to mp3's, the mere act of using p2p to be piracy.
(No I'm not crazy. The foregoing is a plausible conclusion from the facts. How they actually view things is perhaps unknowable.)
They can always knock on your door, send you a letter, etc. (not busting down your door, I would hope) telling you to stop using p2p. They could harrass you until you went to the trouble to get them to stop.
Remember that with things digital we are moving towards a guilty until proven innocent system. "Hey, Mr. ISP, shut down his account because he is running p2p, and we claim copyright infringement." No proof required.
My point is simply that just because you are innocent doesn't mean the *AA might not harrass you.
Re:Fastrack (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a problem inherint in most Internet based sharing systems (as that damn annoying popup ad says, you're broadcasting your IP address (duh, it's how the Net works, you can't stop that (well, see below)).
There are alternatives however, the much proclaimed FreeNet [freenetproject.org], and IIP [http], however, with IIP, (which is secure & anonymouse IRC) sending/receiving files is, afaik, still in heavy alpha testing.
FreeNet, as a concept works, and as a product, is usable, however, due to the complex nature of the task it does (complete anonimity), it is slow. Frost is the best way currently to swap files. Frost is (imho), NNTP for freenet.
With every other system, your IP address is available, this includes Gnutella and Fasttrack. If you want to hide who you are, you need to use Freenet. Take a look at the "bad" stuff on FreeNet (I mean figuativly, not literally). The reason why there is so much, is because its SAFE to put it there (unless you are really stupid).
The only other thing you could do is find an ISP that guarentees to destroy any record of who used what IP address at what time. However, that doesn't stop a court ordered tapping being placed to monitor you in real time.
Re:Fastrack (Score:2)
Re:Fastrack (Score:5, Informative)
No, that would be HORRIBLE! Gnutella doesn't scale that much.
Re:Fastrack (Score:2)
Re:Fastrack (Score:1)
Re:Fastrack (Score:1, Interesting)
Whee.
Re:Fastrack (Score:5, Informative)
There's already an implementation of the FastTrack protocol, the problem is that the kazaa-and-friends network doesn't allow clients which aren't blessed by the authentication server to connect.
Gnutella clients have been and still are accumulating the useful features of FastTrack.
Download conditions? (Score:5, Interesting)
The GPL says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Sounds like there is some incompatibility here.
Re:Download conditions? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Download conditions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Download conditions? (Score:3)
To download the PeerCast source you must also agree to the following conditions:
a) You must not connect to the main PeerCast network if you have modified any of the code in the `core` module. (see below)
b) You must not submit modifications to us that contain or use code that is not under the terms of the GPL.
c) You must agree that any modifications accepted into the main PeerCast CVS will automatically fall under the terms of the GPL and PeerCast commercial license.
d) You must agree to the terms of the GPL license that covers PeerCast.
e) We reserve the right to accept or deny modifications to the main PeerCast CVS.
f) Modifications accepted into the main PeerCast CVS can not be revoked. (see below)
Re:Download conditions? (Score:2)
If you absolutely need to use the main PeerCast network to test, then you must let us know beforehand. Please state the changes made and when you plan to connect. Although in most cases its much easier to use one of our test networks instead. "
Re:Download conditions? (Score:5, Interesting)
(a) Could be the Terms Of Service for their network. Shouldn't be a problem with the GPL there. And they have set up a separate test network for you.
(b) and (d) are just restating the GPL
(e) Is fair enough. They can accept whatever they want into their tree. If you don't like it, fork.
(c) and (f) should also be fine. They have released their code under the GPL. There is nothing in the GPL to obligate them to incorporate any changes you make back into their tree.
If you want your code in their tree, agree to their terms. If you don't like it, fork.
-Spyro
Re:Download conditions? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know, the GPL doesn't stipulate that you must agree to the GPL in order to use the software. Since the GPL affords extra rights you can either:
a) use the software like any other closed source software, with all the protections of copyright law (eg no unauthorised distribution etc.)
or b) agree to the GPL, and in doing so receive the extra rights that the author gives you such as the right to modify, reate derivative works etc, under the conditions specified in the agreement.
You have a choice - either agree to the GPL in it's entirety or just use the software under the usual terms of copyright law. The GPL is not a EULA that defines the terms of you using the software, it is an agreement one chan choose to enter into, in order to gain additional rights.
Re:Download conditions? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Download conditions? (Score:2)
Re:Download conditions? (Score:5, Interesting)
You need a lawyer to properly interpret what they mean in c. Do they mean a specific version of the Peer Cast Commerical license, or do they mean what it says after you've agreed, and they've since re-written it?
The really stupid part, is they don't force you to give up your copyright. So if they you submit changes back to them, and they want to change the license, they aren't the copyright holder, you are, so they have to ask you for your permission. At least, if you hire a lawyer and stop them they do.
Okay, what in the hell do they mean by revoke in part (f)?. No one but a CVS committer can "revoke" anything. Are they saying, if legal issues come up you can't force them to remove the code. Uhh, they can't usurp the legal authority that says they can't have it in the first place. Are they saying, that if you change your mind on the source, it can't be removed. Uhhh, I've already agreed to your current license, what more do they want? They can always keep the current code I've submitted under the commerical license in effect when I submitted the changes. This has potential for abuse.
Do they mean, if they add code I don't like, I can't remove/revoke it in my local copy. Uhhh, that really not very GPL like, and clearly not compliant with GPL source.
Depending on how all this reads, and what precisely the legal implications of it are, this is not a very nice license. If they want to say, look, we'll accept your changes into the mainline tree, but you have to give up your copyright, and it's releasable under the GPL and our commercial license. That's a lot like the FSF, except the commercial license bit.
If they want to have terms on connecting to their network, that's fine. Make it a term of agreement for connecting to the network, but that isn't compatible with GPL as a term of downloading the source. The really ironic part, is what if you give it to me under the GPL, I never agreed to any of these terms, so they don't apply to me at all. I have them under the license of the GPL. None of these terms transfer w/ the GPL (specifically, because you can't add additional terms to the GPL). It might be a GPL like license, but it sure isn't the GPL.
I see what it is they are attempting to accomplish, but it's pretty clear they don't have a good legal staff. IANAL, and even I can see all kinds of blantant legal problems with this. I'd expect them to fold inside of a year as a business if this is all the more they pay attention to detail.
Kirby
Re:Download conditions? (Score:5, Informative)
f) is common sense, if you submit a patch that gets accepted then you can`t really expect us to be able to roll back N versions if you suddenly decide you don`t want it in there anymore.
BTW peercast.org isn`t a business, we don`t have any legal staff, we`ve got a few programmers working in their spare time.
Re:Download conditions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks, for linking to the parent of my post.... It's the one I was responding too, after I read it, and clicked "Reply to this". I was well aware of what was said there.
So if it isn't a business, why exactly do I have to agree to let you distribute it under your commercial license? It's a business, or you intend to start one if you have a "commerical license". Working in your spare time is how most small business start, hell it's basically how Apple and probably HP started. If you have a product, and a commercial license, you should at least have a lawyer of some type who reviews contracts, and legal documents like commercial licensing agreements. Even if it's just a friendly group of people. If you ever do any thing for money, your probably going to want to either incorporate, or setup some form of legal agreement between all the major copyright holders, and that will take a lawyer.
You've not accomplished much at all by the licensing agreement, besides making it illegal to use your software. The licensing terms violate the terms of the GPL, which basically means nobody can legally use your under the GPL, and you haven't granted them the rights to use it anywhere else. Which pretty much means it's useless.
Kirby
Re:Download conditions? (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. Using the software isn't covered by the GPL:
Re:Download conditions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kirby
Re:Download conditions? (Score:1)
Sadly, thats the reality of business on the Internet these days.
Re:Download conditions? (Score:2)
For example, i can write a program and put it on my website and say, "You can use this program under the terms of the GPL so long as you jump up and down first and call yourself a beagle." However, once they downloaded it, i couldn't stop them from making it available on their website without the jumping/beagle clause.
Re:Download conditions? (Score:2)
Re:Download conditions? (Score:1)
The GPL says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
The GPL also says "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
So there's no problem. Move along.
Re:Download conditions? (Score:2)
Their extra restrictions are mostly deal with CVS, their peercast network, and re-iterate that it's uner the GPL. No conflict if you actually read it.
how useful is Peercast? (Score:1)
Re:how useful is Peercast? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:how useful is Peercast? (Score:2)
Assuming the issues of buffering have been addressed (I.E.: don't make a stream available until it is complete on the network), this could be a pretty neat idea.
Re:how useful is Peercast? (Score:3, Informative)
Essentially, when streaming, you tell shoutcast/oddcast or whatever encoder you are using to stream the music to your peercast client rather than a regular shoutcast server. Peercast then inserts some meta information into the peercast network so that other clients can find your stream. Other peercast clients can connect to your client to receive the stream. Peercast treats received streams exactly the same as streams that come from oddcast so anyone listening to your stream can also relay it further on. Theoretically, this allows a modem user to stream to a nearly endless amount of users by uploading just 1 stream. In practice it is better to allow for two or three streams so you have somewhat better reliability. Of course you need bandwidth in order to be able to relay. Low bandwidth ogg streams propagate better through the network than 128kbit mp3 streams. Ogg streams of around 45 kbit seem to be popular among peercast users.
Recently the ability to relay regular shoutcast streams was added so if you have a regular shoutcast server, you may save some bandwidth by encouraging your users to connect using peercast rather than directly to your server. Alternatively you can set up your own peercast node next to your regular server.
GPL + Commercial (Score:5, Interesting)
I am modestly fond over this practice, but hey, more GPL software is good for everyone !
However some issues arise, say I write a patch for their program, and they incorporate it. If some then buys a 'commercial license' they are selling MY patch under a non Free license...
Furthermore, the FSF has announces an updated GPL in a few months... something tells me that the FSF might be tempted to make this sort of things impossible, since, if you look at it straighly this is a bit fishy.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:GPL + Commercial (Score:2, Insightful)
That is a very good question. What happens when someone makes a patch for a piece of GPL software and the parent company incorporates it into its tree. Is the patcher compensated? Are they legally able to turn around and sell their product? Or do they get away with selling "support" and not the actual product?
Re:GPL + Commercial (Score:1, Insightful)
You have to explicitly grant them the right to dual-license (submission == permission in this case).
Re:GPL + Commercial (Score:2, Informative)
1) an agreement with the patch author to redistribute his/her code in the commercial version, which may involve some kind of compensation
or
2) a licensing clause detailing what parts of the commercial software are under different licenses as they've been submitted by other authors, and prompt the user to agree with those other licenses or remove the "patch" functionality
or
3) seperate installations of their base code and the modified "patch" code with seperate license agreements and credits for them
At least that's how I plan to do it. I want to do something similar to this with my own software but I really could use some experienced advice on it.
I think number 3 is not that unreasonable an option. The company could continue selling their "commercial" package as is, and then add a "bonus CD" full of GPL enhancements, updates, etc that the user may install seperately. As long as they're not absorbed into the product, and the user knowingly agrees to the different license terms for each, it should be fine.
Re:GPL + Commercial (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever you get QT, IIRC, all of the source code in Troll Tech's distribution is owned by Troll Tech, even if there are revised versions floating around for KDE, or distribution packages.
There is no legal grey area here - developers can license there code under several licenses, and no reasonable change I can see to the GPL will stop that. Further, I can't see the FsF having any disare to put an end to the practice, as it is, in reality, supporting the end goal of Free Software.
Re:GPL + Commercial (Score:2)
Re:GPL + Commercial (Score:3, Insightful)
I think its because alot of GPLd projects have been abused by both large companies and freeloading spy/adware makers. This is the main reason we have the commercial license in there at least. It would be great if we could do what MySQL [mysql.com] have manage to do, ie. stay GPLd and funded at the same time. As you say, an updated GPL license that clarified this a little better would be very welcomed. We`d certainly use it.
Re:GPL + Commercial (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not fishy at all. In fact, it's very much what the GPL has in mind. The GPL is about letting people have the freedom to modify the code they run and to distribute those changes, rather than being forced to treat all software as a big black box that they have to beg vendors to fix when it breaks. (Well, that and disclaiming liability.) Giving people the additional freedom to keep those changes secret and still distribute the product is perfectly fine, as long as you wrote all the code (or it was given to you). As the owner of the a program, you have all rights to it, and can give any subset of those rights you want in exchange for anything. There's nothing the GPL can do about that, short of adding a "belongs to RMS" clause.
The GPL is not about keeping money away from code.
Updates to the GPL are going to be about closing the loophole of web applications and the like, not about this.
Re:GPL + Commercial (Score:2)
But if the people who are distributing modifications to you are accepting the GPL in order to do so, then you don't get to reliscense the GPL-ed code as commercial. The patch can't be "given" to you without the "secret" be distributed and hence GPL-ed.
Shhhh... (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA leaked it? (Score:5, Funny)
Phase 2: GPL it and have the servers Slashdotted.
Phase 3: ?????
Phase 4: Profit!
Yea yea, this is COMEDY people. I'm not quite that paranoid...
The PeerCast FAQ (Score:5, Informative)
...agree to the following condition... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah sure... how many crackers will adhere to this condition?
Re:...agree to the following condition... (Score:5, Informative)
None. Its there to let well meaning hackers know what they should/should not do after they`ve downloaded the source.
Re:...agree to the following condition... (Score:1)
A lock is just to keep an honest person honest. A dishonest person will get past it whether or not its locked, nor will they care that they had to.
one good application... (Score:3, Interesting)
one of my favorite audio programs comes from a local club down the street, who streams their dj shows. they have limited bandwidth, and can only support 10 128KBit streams simultaneously. i often can't listen to some of the live shows, because there are no more available connections.
with this software, now the number of listeners is unlimited... yay!!
Re:one good application... (Score:2)
BTW, dont use 128K mp3, use 64K ogg, just as good, 1/2 the bandwidth. Also peercast supports ogg metadata, if your on ISDN(or idsl) you can actually listen to CD quality streaming music without pauses. Very cool.
Re:one good application... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite unlimited (Score:2)
Apparently it appears so. But the fact is that the bandwidth would again limit it. Well the server will need only one or 2 user BW, but what if you have somebody behind a firewall and dosent want to share... You have a broken chain. In the ideal world everybody would share, and you can have 1000 listeners on 100 K orginal source, but in the real world around 20% will be willing to share.
Re:Not quite unlimited (Score:3, Insightful)
I therefore submit the following conjecture:
70% of bandwidth-equipped internet users are too stupid to do anything at all about sharing. 1/3 of these people are behind Linksys routers that they know nothing about, or are otherwise irrevocably firewalled.
This leaves about 46% of the unwashed masses sharing by default. That's about 32% of the whole Internet populace can do nothing but share, because they don't know any better.
And then there's the remaining 30%-big category of people who might be able to control whether or not they share with any surety.
A third of the people in this group are spiteful leeches and will never share. Another third favor equality, and will make an effort to give back what they take. And the remaining third are intelligent enough to realize that the more people share, the lesser the individual bandwidth penalty for sharing becomes. This latter group will spew forth as much data as needs dictate and their connection permits, thus cancelling the antisocial efforts of the spiteful portion.
Thus, on average, 62% of all internet users share.
This means that to sustain a stream, this 62% sharing majority of users will need to relay the program to an average of 1.6 people each. Some will do a bit more, some a bit less.
My RR cable modem wouldn't even notice if I started streaming at 50kbps (which sounds remarkably good with ogg) to 4 or 5 other people, let alone the paltry 1 or 2 listeners that such a system as this requires to stay healthy.
That all said, it'd sure be nice if multicast IP became a widespread reality. It'd put all of these issues to bed with much haste...
1: See "Jargon File," under section titled "The September that never ended."
is anyone else sick of the suffix cast? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:is anyone else sick of the suffix cast? (Score:2)
Re:is anyone else sick of the suffix cast? (Score:1)
Re:is anyone else sick of the suffix cast? (Score:1)
Re:is anyone else sick of the suffix cast? (Score:1)
P2P week on slashdot? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:P2P week on slashdot? (Score:1)
Freenet is an example of a network that (in theory) could survive by being technically sound but not legally sound.
An interesting inference (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not too sure what legal redressal RIAA has against this thing, I doubt if there is any right now. Could anyone enlighten me?
Frankly speaking this could be a big coupe. Even if they change laws etc( I doubt that will be any time soon) they cant go running after everybody in the chain. If this network gets to be big, the hounds have a big task ahead of them. The only possible redressal for them is if they get the govt to ban the internet itself!Guess what, technology always stays ahead...
peercast (Score:1)
After reading through some of the message boards on their homepage, it seems the questions of it being released under a GPL type license were not met with too open of arms.
Interesting thread [peercast.org] to read here. It will be interesting to see if this works or is just a stunt to pull in a bigger listener base to increase the network size. After all from the looks of that license, it seems to leave an out for everyone else to do the coding and them to sell it as a commercial product.
Re:peercast (Score:3, Insightful)
The license is GPL if you don`t intend it sell your app, its commercial if you do. Which I think is fair, unless you think we should spend our time coding so other people can make money?
Its quite funny because some not to unknown people advised us not to make it OS; "you`re damned if you do, damned if you don`t" they said.
I can see why now
Re:peercast (Score:2)
So if they download, isn't it GPL? Don't they have to mail you first to get to commercial standing?
Re:peercast (Score:1)
The license is GPL if you don`t intend it sell your app, its commercial if you do
ok, but what if YOU decide to sell it? Do individual contributors get compensated for your gains. If so, then yes, there could be no more fair of an agreement.
Which I think is fair
Wow, you mean you actually think the agreement you made up for your own software is fair...shocking!!! Id wager 99/100 contract writers think the contract is fair, the important part is how its percieved by the users
Re:peercast (Score:1)
If there was a realistic way of doing that then yes we would. Suggestions?
Wow, you mean you actually think the agreement you made up for your own software is fair...
Do you think the MySQL licensing agreement is fair?
Re:peercast (Score:1)
If there was a realistic way of doing that then yes we would. Suggestions?
Sure, compensate contributors...the rest is up to you, its your business model. Either it works or it doesnt
Do you think the MySQL licensing agreement is fair?
it must be fair to those that use it, as for me personally, dont have a need to use it. Interesting tangent though.
Re:Ok, but how many actually use it? (Score:2, Informative)
This uses the gnutella protocol to repeat internet radio broadcasts between listeners. If you listen to a radio station, you have the option of rebroadcasting what your listening to to another person. This distributes the load of hosting a radio station and allows you to help out small (in particular personal) broadcasters.
I would love to use this, but I think that my University is filtering all evil copyright-infringing gnutella traffic to
Re:Ok, but how many actually use it? (Score:2)
Is it like icecast?
Re:Ok, but how many actually use it? (Score:3, Informative)
BTW, that woxy.com radio on peercast is rather good, listened to it the other day on a 64k ogg stream, awesome.
Re:History repeating. (Score:3, Informative)
With Gnutella, you're sharing files. With this software, you're sharing streams.
The cool thing about this is that a radio station (or any user for that matter) with limited bandwidth can now stream their program to an unlimited number of listeners.
I hope my
Start your education here (Score:1)
The bottom line of kernels is that to most people they are a given. It is the software on top that is important. A superior OS allows for superior software. That is why it is heartening to see non proprietary kernels evolve so well and become an alternative for desktop use.