Is Showmypc.com an Open Source Pretender? 323
shaitand writes "When looking for a remote support application that penetrates firewalls and can be initiated by my clients with a couple of clicks, I came across Showmypc.com. It was a standalone executable but looked like it would work and best of all it was open source. The only thing I didn't like was the interface, so I went to check out the Sourceforge page. I noticed a substantial problem: CVS is empty and the source on the download page is for the 2.6 version. The version of the executable is 3.53. I mailed the developers that they needed to distribute their modified SSH client and VNC source to be in compliance with the GPL license. They said they didn't modify those programs and ignored my request for the current source code. So I ask again, if this is a GPL'ed application; where is the source?"
no source in CVS now (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uuuuu... (Score:5, Informative)
You are if you distribute a binary version with your modifications.
No source needed (Score:5, Informative)
And as for VNC and friends, well, if they didn't change that code they don't need to give you the source either.
Re:Off-topic, but... (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.copilot.com/press/faq/ [copilot.com]
Here's a serious question: has Fog Creek ever given anything back to the open source community?
Who are you? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No source needed (Score:3, Informative)
If they distribute it to their customers only and one of their customers gives it to you, then you can ask the customer for the source and they have to provide it to you.
If they've release a piece of software under the GPL then they have to do this(they can close future versions of the product and stop distributing the gpl'd versions, but as far as I can determine you can't ungpl something you've already distributed as gpl). They also have to do this if any of the software they've modified or linked to is GPL(exceptions for lesser GPL).
That said, I can't find anywhere on their website where they actually say they're GPL, only that they're open source, so if the license for plink ssh and myvnc is a BSD license they could probably claim to be releasing the product under a BSD license now and simply not give you the source.
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Informative)
"VNC was originally developed at AT&T. The original VNC source code and many modern derivatives are open source under the GNU General Public License." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VNC [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's probably because (Score:4, Informative)
-Mike
Re:No source needed (Score:1, Informative)
Re:/. isn't where you report this (Score:3, Informative)
There ya go.
Re:No source needed (Score:3, Informative)
They distribute the binaries for free on the website. You can go download one now and be entitled to the source.
Re:It's probably because (Score:3, Informative)
You will see in each post (when you have mod points) a window with a drop-down menu with the choices available (-1 Troll; +1, Informative, etc.). It will show up near where you are used to seeing the 'Reply to This' link. If you want to mod that post, select from the window and go on. At the very bottom of the page will be a 'Moderate' button. Just click on that button to 'apply the mods' you made-if you forget this, your mods won't take effect. Pretty intuitive when you actually see it.
As for #2, you could use : '-1, overrated' as a safe starting point. I do get your point about having some mod category updates though, but overall,
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
"Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community."
UltraVNC + tightvnc (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They may be fully compliant... (Score:5, Informative)
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Of course, that means any distribution of object code, even with corresponding source code, that wasn't on physical medium would have been against the GPL.. and I doubt that was the intent.
BTW, under the GPLv3 the appropriate clause for network distribution of object code forms is:
Which is one of the many reasons why the GPLv3 is so necessary. Things that were "adequate" in GPLv2 are just not today, as technology keeps moving forward.
Re:No source needed (Score:1, Informative)
And as for VNC and friends, well, if they didn't change that code they don't need to give you the source either.
Read the GPL. That only applies if it's non-commercial distribution.
Re:/. isn't where you report this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You missed the obvious joke... (Score:5, Informative)
And then what happened?
Slashdot really is scraping the "slow news day barrel" this week.
Re:Off-topic, but... (Score:4, Informative)
And this is wrong how, seeing as they provide the source?
The source [copilot.com] isn't enough for you?
Re:No source needed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Informative)
If the developer makes use of ANY GPL code that the developer doesn't already own the copyright to, they must remain bound by the license.
I knew what you were getting at but it took me a couple seconds to stop second guessing it.
UltraVNC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You missed the obvious joke... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Off-topic, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, all they got was: [fogcreek.com]
Doesn't seem that shabby...
Re:It's probably because (Score:3, Informative)
Use the Wayback Machine (Score:2, Informative)
sourceforge requires sources in their conditions. (Score:3, Informative)
sourceforge REQUIRES [sourceforge.net] you upload the source. This is a sourceforge requirement, and is independent of the gpl.
Just create a support ticket on sourceforge and in some weeks(in my expierience) that project is either closed or the source is put in the file release system.
Re:No source needed (Score:3, Informative)
Simply not true. If you distribute GPL'd code, you have to distribute the source (in a manner prescribed by the GPL). Whether you modified it or not does not matter one bit and if you offer your product for download, you have to host the source on your own servers. A link to the source code at some other location is NOT good enough.
There have been smaller linux distributions that get burned over this, but it is the rule under the license.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You missed the obvious joke... (Score:3, Informative)
Because the GPL requires it. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary [gnu.org] and read the
next 4 or 5 entries.
Providing a legitimate link to source is just as good. Otherwise, they could be in for chewing up valuable bandwidth and transfer charges.
It's not "just as good" to provide a link to a site you don't control or have some sort of agreement in place with. From the GPL FAQ:
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".
Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available.
Re:Off-topic, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually its UltraVNC and RealVNC both, and the versions they used are GPL'd. So yes, I told THE DEVELOPERS they were violating the license. I told SLASHDOT they were failing to provide source for their own so-called GPL'd application.
'I would love to know why you think open source means GPL.'
The GPL is an open source license and the one they are claiming their program is licensed under.
Re:FOSSie outrage machine (Score:1, Informative)
The Cheneys donated 78% of their 2005 income to charity. That includes all of their Haliburton stock options and book royalties. GW Bush and his wife average about 12% every year. The Clintons average about 9% and the Gores about 5%. In fact, in 1997 the Gores gave a grand total of $353 dollars to charity. That's not a typo. Three hundred and fifty eight dollars, less than two tenths of a percent of their income.
Barack Obama made a big deal of his charitable giving, but failed to mention this is a recent development for him that's utterly transparent. In 2002, the year before he declared his candidacy the Obama household income was $259,399 (in the top 2%). That year they donated just $1,050 to charity, or 0.4%. The national average was 2.2% that year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117686685252673734.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries [wsj.com]
Re:UltraVNC: 1) Repeater, 2) NAT-to-NAT 3) UVNC SC (Score:2, Informative)
How many open source products do you use? How many have you read end to end? How many do you understand well enough to re-implement any random portion of the code, and without referring to any comments?
Do you understand the math behind encryption and signing well enough to eyeball a typo (intentional or otherwise)?
If the answer to any of the above is negative, you are just as safe with closed source.