Is Showmypc.com an Open Source Pretender?

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?"

REport em

[Anonymous Coward]

did you report them to SourceForge?

Re:You missed the obvious joke...

[Divebus]

Right on their front page [showmypc.com]: "It started as an open source Desktop Sharing and Remote PC access project..."

And then what happened?

Guess they are just lying then...

[digital photo]

Well, they claim their software started out as open source(read: probably derived from open source projects like vnc/ssh/etc). Their sourceforge page indicates that the code is under GPL license, which implies that the source code should be made available to individuals wanting to use it for their own use.

However,other than the front page and the sourceforge page, there is nothing else on their site indicating that the application is in anyway open source in spirit, letter, or intent.

Of course, you can always just ask them if they are indeed still Open Source, or if they were, but have since reneg'd on their license agreement to be Open Source. I forget... do you need to make your code open source/GPL if your code essentially links to libraries of GPL/Open Source projects? Or perhaps if your product is derived from Open Source application source code?

If they are making use of code from another Open Source project and are burying it in their binary-only distros, might be worthwhile to check their code for library strings and see whose projects' rights are being tread upon and ask why they haven't upheld their GPL/OS obligations.

That's, IF they are using/leveraging/linking...

Re:Off-topic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, another piece of commercial, proprietary software derived from VNC.

...And from the unpaid, or underpaid, work of interns acquired through spamming. From the FAQ:

How long did Fog Creek Copilot take to write?
The three programming interns wrote the beta version of Fog Creek Copilot in under two months.

[...]

How were the four interns selected for this project?
Internship postings were made to the Fog Creek software website, www.FogCreek.com as well as to CEO Joel Spolsky's blog, www.JoelonSoftware.com. Fog Creek Software also mailed applications to hundreds of students at top universities. The posts sought out those enrolled in a four year academic institution with preference to those between Junior and Senior year with top grades, a track record of success, top notch computer programming skills for the Software Development Interns, and coursework in marketing or business experience as well as programming experience for the Software Marketing Intern. 800 students from top universities applied and 4 were chosen.

From the FAQ [copilot.com]. (emphasis added).

Re:They may be fully compliant...

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is easily bypassed in a very simple way. Since the GPL provides the receiving party of the GPL-derived code a right with access to that code (which becomes effective upon receiving the closed source), all you have to do is to require the receiving party to withdraw from any GPL claims (prior to delivering the code).

Re:Why not?

[Skreems]

That doesn't seem true at all. Plenty of OSS programs out there release a GPL version for non-commercial uses, and a pay version under a proprietary and for-pay licensing scheme. That would definitely violate the GPL if they didn't own the copyrights on the code, but they're not "losing moral standing in the community" just because they found a way to finance their project.

It's VNC...

[Stonent1]

It is VNC based. I tried to download it and got this message:

WARNING: (Name of company I work for)'s security system has detected a virus contained in the web site or file being downloaded.

Your system has been protected. There is no need to contact the Help Desk.

File has been dropped. 2007-09-10 06:03:55-05:00CDT

Machine name: (Name of Machine) Server: X.X.X.X Client: Y.Y.Y.Y

Virus: "not-a-virus:RemoteAdmin.Win32.WinVNC.4" found! URL: http://download2.showmypc.com/ShowMyPCSSH.exe [showmypc.com]

Re:UltraVNC: 1) Repeater, 2) NAT-to-NAT 3) UVNC SC

[devilspgd]

No, we don't. We all benefit when someone actually DOES look at the code and see that there is no hidden funny business.

Since most of the time that just doesn't happen (don't believe me, if you have commit access to a small open source project, add an "impossible" (put it behind a "if 1=2") dialog offering $50 to the first person to email a specific address with a secret word and see how long it takes for anyone to notice.

Don't make it a comment, people read those, but throw it in the middle of a huge boring subroutine.