Piriform Asks BleachBit To Remove Winapp2.ini Importer 305
ahziem writes "As author of the BleachBit system cleaner, I received a polite but firm request from Piriform, makers of the similar application CCleaner, to remove a two-year-old feature from BleachBit that allows individual BleachBit users to import winapp2.ini data files created by the community that define which files to delete for applications. Does Piriform's request have merit? Do I need a lawyer? What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?"
Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Informative)
Do I need a lawyer? What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?
And once again for the 1,000,000 time, yes, and this isn't the place to get legal advice...
On the other hand, a "firm request" doesn't quite sound like a legal threat. Anyone can send a "firm request".
Maybe check it with a REAL lawyer, but not worry too much until the people you've collided with send you a letter with more solid threats?
Who knows, I'm not a lawyer...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, nice "Slashvert". I'm sold...
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Insightful)
And once again for the 1,000,000 time, yes, and this isn't the place to get legal advice...
True, but there's really any advice that you should ask for from ./er's? How to meet members of the opposite sex? Which Linux distro to use? Whether Metro is better than Unity?
Once you get it in perspective, the question makes as much sense as any other.
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
True, but there's really any advice that you should ask for from ./er's? How to meet members of the opposite sex?
Last time I followed advice from Slashdot on the chicks, I got a visit from the Sheriff's Department.
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
Last time I followed advice from Slashdot on the chicks, I got a visit from the Sheriff's Department.
Oooh, a sexy chick in uniform! Tell us how that went!
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
Oooh, a sexy chick in uniform! Tell us how that went!
I think she might have been into the "bondage" thing, because she cuffed me.
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
Did she cuff you before or after you put on your robe and wizard hat?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
She was ok with that, but when I showed her my gnarly staff, she reached for the cuffs.
Re: (Score:2)
What about her wizard sleeve?
Re: (Score:3)
Says the douche who caught the reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh, a sexy chick in uniform! Tell us how that went!
I think she might have been into the "bondage" thing, because she cuffed me.
I've heard this one before. "You've been a bad boy resisting arrest like that, and you need to be ... punished!"
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:4, Funny)
"You've been a bad boy resisting arrest like that, and you need to be ... punished!"
Oh god, kill me now. I just read that in Jar Jar's voice.
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh, a sexy chick in uniform! Tell us how that went!
I think she might have been into the "bondage" thing, because she cuffed me.
If you don't mind me asking, what was the advice you followed to get yourself into this ... ahm ... terrible predicament? Please!
Advice on the chicks... (Score:2)
Last time *I* followed advice from Slashdot on the chicks, I ended up on a blind double date with Rhode Island Red and a Miss La Fleche.
Actually, I've been going steady with them ever since. Not for the romance, you perv... I need the eggs.
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
Basement dwelling tips, thats probably safe. Best Pizza outfits, also a good bet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And asking about the best keyboard will get you more people claiming to have 10 Model M's in their closet just in case their main one dies than there were Model M's manufactured in the first place.
"Model M's are indestructible and last forever. In fact I have 10 spares just in case and no I will never sell any of them." I swear, they're worse than CAT people!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They don't last forever but this one's been going quite a while now. No need to hoard, though, unless Unicomp goes out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, though I have one spare; quite sure both will outlast me.
CC.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, wait, wait. CAT people? As in "Cat Power"? Why on earth would anyone WANT a diesel engine if it's not a Caterpillar? You've lost me here - few people even try to argue that Cat is the best, and most of those work for Cummins or Detroit. The rest are from Europe.
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Insightful)
And once again for the 1,000,000 time, yes, and this isn't the place to get legal advice...
True, but there's really any advice that you should ask for from ./er's? How to meet members of the opposite sex? Which Linux distro to use? Whether Metro is better than Unity?
Once you get it in perspective, the question makes as much sense as any other.
Except this wasn't even a request for advice. This was a thinly veiled attempt to invoke the Streisand Effect.
He wasn't asking for a legal advice (Score:5, Informative)
And once again for the 1,000,000 time, yes, and this isn't the place to get legal advice...
Lemme quote that guy had stated:
Does Piriform's request have merit?
Do I need a lawyer?
What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?
Of the three quoted questions above, "Do I need a lawyer?" comes closest in resembling a "legal advice", but it ain't.
The gist of what poster "ahziem" was looking for is "What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?" - that is, how should one go about under that situation.
Re:He wasn't asking for a legal advice (Score:5, Funny)
"Do I need a lawyer?" is a question that only a qualified lawyer such as myself can answer.
Let's call that a half hour.
Re:He wasn't asking for a legal advice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He wasn't asking for a legal advice (Score:5, Insightful)
The questioner doesn't say where he is based, which makes a big difference. In Europe this kind of compatibility is specifically permitted by the law, so there really is nothing Piriform can do.
A polite "no" might be a good place to start, and then see what their response is. Ask them to explain why they want it removed and what basis they have for asking.
He DOESN'T need a lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not a legal request and the company has simply asked him to remove the feature. He simply declines, he is under no such obligation.
Here, I'll even craft the letter for him:
Dear Louise,
We are under no legal obligation to remove that feature and we therefore decline. If you believe there is a legal basis then please get your lawyer to outline your claim in more concrete terms.
Yours,...
Don't waste your money. There's nothing here.
Re:He DOESN'T need a lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother responding? Why bother letting them know that you're listening to and giving consideration to their threats? Why bother making a paper trail of any kind?
If I had a lawyer on staff twiddling his thumbs, then I'd have him one-up the situation and write a "shut up and don't bother us" letter; but otherwise, I'd just dodge that shit entirely and remain silent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He DOESN'T need a lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That approach might have been more effective if he hadn't already plastered the email onto Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
It was just an email - just dismiss it as spam and wait for a more formal request.
Now that he's posted it on slashdot, it is a little too late for that.
Re: (Score:3)
To be honest, I can't see how this would get taken further when it's obvious that the terms of service aren't applicable as he's not using their software.
Re:He DOESN'T need a lawyer (Score:4, Informative)
I think its obvious that he's considered it due to the slashdot thread!
But yeah, he really isn't obliged to comply. Unless they can point to a specific patent or something that infringes on something then he really hasn't got any obligation to thake them seriously at all AFAIK.
The files are created by other people, and no judge on the planet is going to accept that the agressors EULA which is an agreement between them and THEIR customers in anyway entraps third parties without the third parties consent. Just importing a datafile isn't consent otherwise the entire edifice of IT interoprerability would be under siege.
Re: (Score:3)
Among other reasons, he's already posted on slashdot. One geek or another who happens to be in favor of the other guys will carry the tale of this entire discussion back to the other company's forum. At which time everyone in the world with even the slightest interest will log in or read anonymously to offer their opinions. Any potential claim of ignorance is gone with the wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Direct them to the site of your lawyer.
http://www.bettercallsaul.com/ [bettercallsaul.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm certainly not a lawyer, your lawyer, or his lawyer; but I'm pretty sure that 'having a feature that might facilitate some third party breaking the terms of use that they may or may not have agreed to' isn't actually a crime(unless you are being sued by the MPAA/RIAA, in which case basically anything that transmits or stores information that might conceivably be copyrighted is a conspiracy with the worst of pirates and pedo-terrorists).
Nothing that says they can't bury you in procedure until you suffocat
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but....
Group 1 makes a third-party add-on that works with Company A's and Company B's product. Neither company controls Group 1.
Company A is not using anything at all from Company B, but makes use of Group 1's items.
Company B is telling Company A to remove the feature of using Group 1's items because it violates ToS.
So either Company B's person somehow thinks that the Company A product violates B's ToS (which is not in effect, since B is not in use at all and the interaction is with a third party), or B thinks that A's implementation violates Group 1's ToS and is giving a "courtesy" alert. If the former, then a simple response pointing out that A's product and feature does not utilize anything under the control of Company B and thus Company A is not subject to B's Terms of Service since B is not providing any services to A would suffice. If the latter, then check the ToS of Group 1 and remedy if the allegations are correct.
I suspect that somebody (Louise) saw the words "CCleaner's Winapp2.ini files" in the ghacks article that implies (apparently incorrectly) that the files are created by and owned by Piriform, so assumed that her company owns them and nobody else is allowed to use them. Instead the case looks to be that "Group 1" creates and owns them and her company USES them, so her company's ToS does not apply to the use of a third party item they don't own or control.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see how ToS are relevant if he's not using their software.
Re: (Score:3)
I think he should read the TOS first and get a feel for the situation.
Why would he need to read their ToS to know if he can include a feature that imports an unencrypted text file?
Re: (Score:2)
Because unencrypted or not, the copyright might have some specific exceptions to permissions and it might not allow it to be downloaded automatically for use in other programs. Then again it might specifically allow it making the request pretty much a non starter.
The ToS or license file would have a lot of information that could very well end this without any further action or with simple action like maybe credit for the part in some obvious place.
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that I can see that could apply would be if CCleaner has patented the ini text format, but that would be absurd and I can't see that standing up in court.
A simple letter stating that he doesn't use the CCleaner software and that the ToS are irrelevant to him should suffice. Let them come back with lawyers and see how much money they want to waste.
Re:Who knows, I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think he should read the TOS first and get a feel for the situation.
Why would he need to read their ToS to know if he can include a feature that imports an unencrypted text file?
It's not just any text file... Why it's a specially crafted .INI / .CONF formatted text file.
Who knows, I'm sure if I hired a patent attorney they could write up patent claims vague enough and using terms obscure enough that a patent clerk wouldn't find any relevant hits in the patent database, so there's really no reason to assume that the INI file format isn't pattented... but if it's not, then they can piss right off.
He's not re-distributing their files, so he's not infringing copyright. The name winapp2.ini is too generic to be a strong trademark, except maybe to Microsoft over Windows (tm).
I wouldn't worry about shit. In fact, I wouldn't have even acknowledged that I received a notice of any kind.
Protip: In the future if you want to incorporate a 3rd party's data format, implement a plugin system and API for importing the generic data to isolate the main application from the import functionality. Distribute the plugin that implements the import feature separately, it can download after install at the behest of the user. Defer all complaints about plugin functionality to the "owner" of the plugin -- A different entity than the one that holds the rights for the main application. I call that a firewall.
I suppose INI itself may be so generic as to not really qualify as supporting another program's data format, but even so it would be pretty simple to make a .INI translator program that simply search and replaced the [SECTION] tags with differently named tags, and distribute a converter that converts their format into your format prior to import. I really wish SCOTUS would do something about data formats: No one should be able to assert rights over something ilke .WAD, .JAR, .INI, CSV, XML ugh, Microsoft was sued over using XML. [pcworld.com]. So, I think the only way to achieve that is to say all file formats are public domain. Good luck with that.
Then again, IANAL. However, I've been through this shit several times. There's nothing you can actually do at all to avoid being sued. Anyone can sue for fucking anything, why worry about it? Oh No! A million people could sue me tomorrow! No problems folks, I'm incorporated. That would be the sixth time I close up shop and re-open the next day as a different corporate entity, I'm exceedingly efficient at it. Hell, get your own incorporation today, even if you're not going to run a business! Just pay your corporate dues and file your taxes, and you can sell them off for a decent profit to bigger corporations that need a few shell corps to do some dirty work under -- And on paper can be "In good standing since $INCORPORATION_DATE." Yep, brand now company buys an LLC shell to operate under and adopts its good standing credit, and incorporation date.
So, bottom line: Are you incorporated or operating as a 501c3 charity? If so, fuck em till you get sued, then fuck-em some more. Your code is open source, and you're protected by the corporate veil: Be Prepared to Reboot in case you have to "turn it off and on again". If there's no insulating imaginary person-hood in place, then get yourself that way ASAP, and get a damn lawyer. There's free "pro bono" advice to be had, esp. for non-profits, but Slashdot isn't the place to ask for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the "community" web site:
clarification needed (Score:3)
It is complicated. He might have begun as a user of CCleaner, then decided to write his own software because he recognized deficiencies in CCleaner. It's not in the lawyer's interest to know about his history of using CCleaner.
IANAL, but I might start by arguing that writing the winapp2.ini importer does not technically require breaking CCleaner's TOS, so Louise's claim that "having written an importer implies that TOS is broken" does not hold. This is preferable because the argument does not depend on how
IANAL (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a lawyer nor your lawyer, but I would just ignore the e-mail. Don't answer, just ignore it. Importing a text file has nothing to do with their ToS. This is not a legal advice.
Re:IANAL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IANAL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IANAL (Score:4, Funny)
IAAL (Score:4, Informative)
I am not a lawyer nor your lawyer, but I would just ignore the e-mail. Don't answer, just ignore it.
IAAL (not practising) and a developer and this comes closest to what I know I ought to do in this situation. Don't communicate until such time as a formal legal request is made and then communicate only as per legal advice.
Personally I would be fighting with myself really hard to stop replying (aka giving them evidence)... however I wouldn't dream of representing myself (not even if I were practising).
At this stage I would save myself the $$$ and just wait to see if they escalate the matter. I'm in no position to assess the legal liabilities in your particular situation. Nor should you accept the analysis or assurances of anyone commenting here. It may be they have no case, in which case their lawyer should tell them to wear it. At least in my jurisdiction a lawyer can face disciplinary proceedings for initiating action without "reasonable chance of success," and threatening legal action where no legal basis exists is a huge no-no (for lawyers that is). That may be different where you or Piriform are.
If a formal legal letter threatening action (a lawyer is of course free to ask you to stop doing something on behalf of a client ... "pretty please ...") were received I would take legal advice in quick order.
This is not a legal advice.
Nor, it should go without saying, is this. It's just what I would do. If it makes you sleep better at night and you have cash to splash about you may want to get your legal team to take these jokers apart starting tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in my jurisdiction a lawyer can face disciplinary proceedings for initiating action without "reasonable chance of success," and threatening legal action where no legal basis exists is a huge no-no (for lawyers that is). That may be different where you or Piriform are.
That's why they never threaten leagel basis, they just state that they are a lawyer and they are requesting you do something or they'll be forced to take it to the next level. Little do they know that the next level is an even more impotent letter, strongly worded and pointless.
Re:IANAL (Score:5, Funny)
Backfire (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been using CCleaner on the few Windows boxes I maintain for a while now. I'd never heard of BleachBit. It looks like it does a lot more than CCleaner, and especially in light of Piriform's obnoxious legal theats, I think I'll switch to BleachBit.
Thanks, Piriform!
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, while Piriform's request might be considered obnoxious, there's really not a threat involved. As far as letters go, it was pretty mild.
That's not to say that threats (legal or otherwise!) won't be forthcoming, but they're not here yet. I hope slashdot follows up; will be interesting to see what happens next.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Da fuq? Having browsed first ~5 pages of J'raxis' comments, I see not a single case of astroturfing.
His sig is indeed in bad taste, but that's not a reason to spread misinformation -- or worse, upmod disinformation.
Hanlon's razor (Score:3)
This is probably just an example of a clueless PHB who doesn't realize the souce of the winapp2.ini files.
Perhaps a polite letter asking how you are violating their TOS, pointing out the source of the winapp2.ini files? Also, you probably never accepted their TOS did you?
Re:Hanlon's razor (Score:4, Informative)
They said "terms of use". Use of what? If HE downloaded CCleaner files and included them with his app, then I do see problems galore. But if he did not download CCleaner files himself I do not see how he is obligated contractually to their terms. Contract Law 101.
Re:Hanlon's razor (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends how he wrote his winapp2.ini importer. Did he use Pinform's documentation/SDK? If so, something may apply if that documentation was provided for the purpose of having users write winapp2.ini files and not for the purposes of developing a competing app.
If he wrote it by examining how users wrote their winapp2.ini files and made guesses, then he's in the clear (reverse-engineering).
If he asked for help from the community, things get trickier because now the licenses and all that are horribly tangled.
I would get a lawyer and compose a polite reply asking why they think it's a TOS violation - perhaps they thought you accessed their documentation and used it against the license?
Right now things are at the "polite" level. Asking for more information on what they think is wrong doesn't hurt, maybe even politely explaining and showing documentation you didn't violate the ToS. It could be a huge misunderstanding and they thought you took their file and used it directly, without realizing there are other sources? (And that's not secure - since that community source could involve someone uploading CCleaner's version).
What are these CCleaner files? (Score:3)
This will depend on the CCleaner files. If they are public visible files anyone can make for themselves, you might well have a valid case. If they are files Piriform makes, maybe not. You need an ATTORNEY to help you determine your position, and especially if they sue you. If the formatting of the CCleaner files involves a patented technology, they could have a valid basis to sue you (even though I would personally disagree with it). If the CCleaner files are encrypted, they may have a case based on cracking them. If they are in the clear, then it's no different than you having written a music player to play UNencrypted music files.
Re:What are these CCleaner files? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.winapp2.com/ [winapp2.com] "This website and its files are not endorsed or supported in any way by Piriform. They take no responsibility for any damages or problems that arise from its use.",
Looks like Piriform has sent similar messages to them.
This is a giant AstroTurf circle. (Score:2, Insightful)
Winapp2 is produced by the same people as Bleach. This is a giant AstroTurf circle.
Re: (Score:2)
Winapp2 is produced by the same people as Bleach. This is a giant AstroTurf circle.
Since both programs are free, and the connections aren't hidden, I can't see anything to complain about.
Other software does the same thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be like Microsoft asking OpenOffice not to import Word format. Or, for a closer analogy, for them to ask Mozilla not to have Firefox import IE bookmarks when you install it. This type of thing is done all the time. Unless they claim to have a patent on the format in the .ini file, it's totally fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be like Microsoft asking OpenOffice not to import Word format.
Actually - it's more like Microsoft asking OpenOffice not to import txt format - Piriform/CCleaner had nothing to do with the design of the winapp2.ini format, they just happen to use it in their application - same as BleachBit does.
Easy target first (Score:2)
If they have a problem with their TOS being violated, then they should take it up with the people that are actually violating it. (Class action lawsuit anyone? Piriform vs All PC users: importing ini files stored in the clear. Yeah that will work.) It looks like this has nothing to do with you.
This feature annoyed them and they figured, what the heck, if you were weak kneed about it then sending you a pansy email would be the easiest solution.
How does TOS affect YOU? (Score:2)
IANAL, but as far as I know it's perfectly legal to build an app to read data from Excel, or Word, or QuickBooks, or whatever... unless it's incrypted (in the U.S.), the makers of those programs have pretty much no say in the matter. And even if encrypted, I would not consider it a moral obligation because the laws against un-encrypting are pretty darned questionable anyway. They are just a form of c
Re: (Score:2)
"If he used CCleaner to reverse-engineer the file and there was a clause in the TOS forbidding that, it might be a problem right?"
Technically, I suppose. Again, IANAL. I think that would make him, as a user, guilty of violating the TOS... but I still don't think it has anything to do with his own product reading the files. And it would be pretty hard to prove, too. He could have bought the knowledge about the file format from his next-door neighbor.
Re: (Score:2)
That could be an issue, but it seems highly unlikely in this case. Having taken a look at the winapp2.ini from winapp2.com (the file isn't made by ccleaner as best I can tell.) there wouldn't have been any need to reverse-engineer anything. It is an incredibly simple format. Below is one entry from the file. It seems fairly representative. I cannot image he'd need to reverse-engineer their software to figure out what it meant.
[Amazon Kindle for PC*]
LangSecRef=3023
Detect=HKCU\SOFTWARE\Amazon\Kindle
Default=F
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The header for winapp.ini contains this...
----
Application Cleaning file
WARNING - DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE
If you would like to create custom entries then create a new file
called winapp2.ini which follows the same format as this one.
CCleaner will automatically pick up the new file.
Copyright 2004-2008 Piriform Ltd, All Rights Reserved.
This file and it's contents may not be copied or distributed
without the express permission of the author.
----
The copyright section does indeed say that you aren't allowed to use win
Re: (Score:2)
It's arguable that winapp2.ini is a derivative work of winapp.ini, given that they go out of their way to indicate that the format is derived. If so, then they have a legal leg from a copyright perspective, although it's not a strong one, given that it's aggregate data.
They also have a patent filed and assigned to the company by the CEO, although 20120290530 wasn't published until 2012-11-15, which means that the use of the file predates the patent by some years.
Question Judo (Score:2)
Ins response, offer them code (or just a document) to read your custom definition file so they can do the reverse.
Pretty clueless (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is a case of a manger that wants to get good points from the upperhand, not knowing how ridiculous her/his requests are.
What's the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems that piriform is all worked up about an article that implies that BleachBit is importing CCleaner's data, this article [ghacks.net] in fact. However, the article does not say anywhere that the data is coming from CCleaner, it says the data is coming from Winapp2. Note that Winapp2 specifically states that they are not affiliated with Piriform!
In other words, it looks like Piriform is saying "You can read the same file format that we can read and we demand that you stop reading it", despite the fact that Piriform has no claim to the files in question.
gist (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically their message is as follows:
"You're pissing us off by having a feature that competes with us, and we have an army of lawyers to throw at you if you don't back down."
This is blatant intimidation.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
we have an army of lawyers to throw at you
Perkins: "But, couldn't we just sue him?"
Louise: "Shut up and get in the catapult!"
Ignore them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should you be frightened of a violation of their TOS? Have you or your software agreed to be bound by those terms at any point? No? Well then, why the fuck are they threatening you? Answer: because it's easier than threatening their own customers who might actually be violating those TOS, since threatening them will create a Streisand Effect and have them leaving in droves for good.
You might have another TheOatmeal-versus-FunnyJunk moment here.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, why the fuck are they threatening you?
In fact, no one has "threatened" anyone.
They made ridiculous request that can be safely ignored, but it was hardly a "threat".
Way too much is being made of this by the Bleach people, but I'm sure that after this Slashdot "story", their downloads are up...
Re: (Score:2)
You should know an opening legal salvo when you see one by now. I'd wager that it is a threat and ultimatum, however polite and passive-aggressive it may be. I think the people who drafted the text are trying not to appear like the bully, but I think that is exactly what they will prove to be with the next letter... if they don't have the common sense to sense a battle that isn't worth winning even if it can be won and just as politely back off.
Get a lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like winapp2 is an independently-developed "application" that Piriform does not own. If you wrote your own libraries to parse the file, then they'll have trouble successfully suing you. But that doesn't mean they won't sue. If you're using their libraries, then best ditch it and rewrite that piece yourself.
In either case, you need a lawyer. Let the lawyer respond.
OP is either a clueless n00b... (Score:2, Funny)
...or ingenious 13th degree black belt master of the Streisand Effect.
As far as I can tell (Score:4, Insightful)
Does Piriform's request have merit? Do I need a lawyer? What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?
No, maybe, no sure-fire answer. The first option would be to plainly ignore it, which is probably what I would have picked until I got any more formal but since you've already publicly acknowledged receiving it that's out the window. I'd probably reply:
"Your terms of service is an agreement between your company and your users, as BleachBit is not a party to this agreement we see no legal basis for your request and have not evaluated your claims further."
Most likely, you'll hear nothing and it'll go away but they can always send a lawyer after you, in which case you might want one too. But I think this answer should be fairly safe since the only thing you're saying is that you never agreed to any terms of service.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is replying preferable to just ignoring them? I'd just ignore them -- it's easy to get into a discussion.
Don't back down (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't remove this feature. Politely tell Piriformis to go fuck themselves. If you hear from them again, get a lawyer.
But never back down to these bullying assholes. (Unless they're willing to buy you out for $10 million or something, then I think we'd all sell out.)
Company A asks Company B to stop using Company C? (Score:4, Interesting)
They're trying to intimidate without using lawyers because they don't have any legal power to stop you using winapp2 - ignore them.
Read their complaint again (Score:4, Insightful)
> Does Piriform's request have merit?
Did you read the article they are complaining about? It reads like a how-to to rip off Pirform's data. The subtlety of winapp vs. winapp2 may have gotten lost somewhere. But statements like "The Open Source disk cleaner Bleachbit takes advantage of this as it can import all of CCleaner’s cleaning locations." sounds like a real problem.
Is this a poorly worded article or is the author suggesting taking Pirform’s proprietary data? Does your organization support/encourage people to take Pirform’s proprietary data for use in BleachBit?
The winapp2.com site seems to list a data file from Pirform, not the community. This may not be your responsibility, but it certainly puts the whole community into question. How closely aligned are you with that community?
> What is a good response to avoid any ugly situation?"
I would expect you to be an expert in these tools, this market, and the winapp2 community. The fact that you are asking us these questions suggests you are not. Do you support the article? Do you support the use of anything proprietary to be used by BleachBit? Does the winapp2 community support anything inappropriate with Pirform's data? You should take a position on all of these items. Even if what you are doing is technically legal, how you present yourself can attract unnecessary trouble.
> Do I need a lawyer?
Who knows. So the only safe answer is "Yes". But, this is as much of an image issue as it is a legal issue. You might need a marketing person to explain this as much as a lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
winapp.ini is the internal file CCleaner uses to store it's cleaning rules. It follows the basic standard Windows INI file syntax. The entries in each section are specific to CCleaner, but appear to be fairly obvious just looking at the file without any further documentation.
winapp2.ini is an external file read by CCleaner to import additional (non-Piriform) cleaning rules. It's intended use is to let people other than Piriform add rules to CCleaner. The full documentation on it's syntax is available (witho
Re:Read their complaint again (Score:5, Informative)
I am a lawyer. The previous post is wrong - the usual rules of copyright apply whether or not you've accepted terms of service.
Piriform's objection is not very clearly stated, but there is a problem if the Bleachbit developer is encouraging people to import winapp.ini - the information in it is copyrighted and this is likely an unlicensed use. It would be prudent for Bleachbit to tell people not to use its import functionality to import Piriform's original winapp.ini, and better still if the software rejects attempts to do this.
Whether importing third party (non-Piriform) rules is acceptable depends upon the terms on which those rules are made available. If they're posted in a forum whose rules provide the files can be used only in Piriform products then Piriform has an arguable case (that Bleachbit is procuring a breach of contract/copyright) but that's a more difficult argument for Piriform to make, as they have to show the terms of the contract/copyright license are effective.
Bob
Re:Read their complaint again (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you're a crappy lawyer.
Unlikely (Score:2)
IANL, but I don't see how you could be violating their TOS if you're not a licensee.
This doesn't make sense... (Score:2)
Why is Piriform reaching out when WinApp2's own site says: "This website and its files are not endorsed or supported in any way by Piriform."
Click reply, type "No, thank you."
Send.
I would say you pretty much nailed it (Score:2)
You're Asking About A Windows App? (Score:2)
Yer not from around heah, are yew?
Data/Fact is not copyrightable (Score:5, Informative)
This has been established over and over and over again in case law. Phone books, statistics and lists are not eligible for the type of legal protection being sought.
Information is being made available by the public to the public. Part of that public includes a commercial entity. There is no case here as far as I can see.
Doesn't sound like you do. (Score:2)
You're loading a third-party text file in a not-totally-arbitrary format into your app. Are you using any CCLeaner libraries?
What the hell has it got to do with CCleaner, other than it just so happens that it can read the same sort of file?
My two cents as a bleechbit user. (Score:3)
Andrew,
First off, thank you for your efforts on this project. While I buy a healthy amount of commercial software (OS, video editor and games for the most part) I prefer to only run software from a trusted source. Yes this includes Microsoft and Steam, and while we all have colorful things we might say about them the fact is I pay them, they are huge and issues I do face with them are known to me. Everything else I simply prefer source access. Your project includes source so it is much easier to trust your software then an alternative that, judging by the look of the website, is likely to want to opt me in to Chrome or something else I would have installed already if interested. What really makes them seem a bit dodgy is that you know it is commercial yet the site offers no blockers to downloading. These guys wanna get their meat hooks into my workstation!
Well enough of the "your app is awesome and they blow" speech. One issue I see is that you automatically download it, from their forum, given their complaint. I suggest that you instead utilize the following link below as the winapp2.com domain does not appear to be theirs. I would first contact either Robert Ward or Shane Gowland to be polite. Perhaps even sharing a percentage of your donations with them to help pay hosting costs, Being community oriented they might just tell you to keep it and use their INI all the same. Abuse of community projects by for profit companies never sits well with those of a community mindset, but I think this was not Piriform's true intent. Typically a corporate bully sends the thugs (lawyers) in the opening round with a cease and desist letter, but their request could have been a bit more clear about their intentions.
You should contact them and make the required arrangements. Alter your code to use their site or if you are refused by them rewrite for manual download and import. Once you have released, if you had been using the piriform.com forum, write them a thank you for informing you of their desire to not use their server resources and let them know that your current release has halted such behavior from your application.
http://www.winapp2.com/Winapp2.ini
Re:Well... (Score:4)
Thank you for the gratuitous insult.
Yes, it was harsh of him to insult scum by comparing them to lawyers.
Re:You don't distribute the ini file, correct? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
winapp2.ini [winapp2.com] is not property of Piriform. It is a separate project by other people and even notes the compatibility with BleachBit as a feature. Piriform is just being a bunch of assholes. Fuck them.
If the OP is advocating that the user download some other company's cleaner program so that your cleaner program can read its definitions to more effectively clean things up, that seems like a bit of a jerk move, even if it is 100% legal (compare to taking a GPL project and simply rebranding it with your own logos and rereleasing it).
However, Winapp2.ini seems to be completely separate from Piriform and CCleaner, as pointed out. Simply remove all references to Piriform and CCleaner from your site (Are you
Re: (Score:2)
What you have right now is a layman's understanding of the situation. Congratulations!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because the wording sounds possessive as in belongs to something. Bill's ball is blue is possessive making seem like a blue ball is bills.
The 's is the real giveaway. But when looking a third and fourth time, it looks like the statements can be read several ways. I believe this is a mistake based around unclear wording and quick reading missing the details.