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?"
You missed the obvious joke... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You missed the obvious joke... (Score:5, Interesting)
And then what happened?
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:You missed the obvious joke... (Score:4, Insightful)
So did the guy receive binaries of GPL-based software? If that's the case, he can demand the source. If not, he just wasted our precious time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 bori
Re: (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 binarie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
REport em (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's original work, can't the copyright holder decide to close the source? If it doesn't contain anyone else's work that happens to be GPLd, I don't see a problem here.
Need more info...
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps that's why the current version isn't on Sourceforge?
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."
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (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.
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:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be true if the code were unmodified versions of GPL'd code, but glancing through the two helper EXEs (spcplink.exe and spcwinv.exe) reveals quite a few references that look like they might be directly pulled from VNC or OpenSSH. Interestingly enough, these two helper apps are written in Visual C++, while the main app is written in VB6.
Now that I look closer, I notice that spcwinv.exe is actually referred to as "VNC Server Free Edition for Win32", and the copyright is "Copyright © RealVNC Ltd. 2002-2005", yet the strings within the file have been modified to refer to it as a ShowMyPC product. I'd say that's a dead giveaway.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
If it's an original work then yes but there is still a problem. They are claiming this program is GPL'd and open source. Their site is designed to imply they are an open project in every way possible. If they closed the application a major version and half ago they are not entitled to ride the open source buzz. If I didn't want to person
no source in CVS now (Score:3, Informative)
Use this without source code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing can be said about any piece of software. At some point you have to take the risk that your machine might be exposed.
Re: (Score:2)
Without it, who knows what backdoors they could be offering; it's especially concerning since it's specifically designed to penetrate firewalls. Beware!
The same thing can be said about any piece of software. At some point you have to take the risk that your machine might be exposed.
Although a good point, with this type of software, you're expecting that you'll be receiving an inbound connection through the firewall; when you 'install' whackAMole.exe, which is a single player game, and find netbus connections in netstat, you know something is up. That, of course, isn't something that ever happened to me in my teens, but rather a story I just made up on the spot, really.
Re:Use this without source code? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or... you could just use open source software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, The parent comments are pure FUD which can be applied to just about any closed source start-up...And this assumes you automatically trust closed-source software from a large company. This also assumes if it were open source that people have reviewed it in enough
It's probably because (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's probably because (Score:4, Informative)
-Mike
Re:It's probably because (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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 tha
Mod points like busses (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, check out that connection to akamai your computer makes when starting. It is in the same building as the FBI. You will find it in the firewall logs of the super good internet securities sweet. (I know)
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
They need to give the source to anyone they distribute to(assuming the program is actually GPL) who asks. If they distribute free to everyone, then anyone who asks for it has to be given the source, that's the whole point of the license.
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.
But the OP isn't a customer. He has not been given a binary of the system by anybody. GPL or not, he simply has no right to the source as things stand. He can get the source in one of two ways: he can become a customer by buying a binary, or he can ask one of their existing customers to give or sell him a binary. Only at that point does he actually have a right to get the source code (for a fee if needed) as well.
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).
Any code that is theirs, they can change the license at will. They can't change the license o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They distribute the binaries for free on the website. You can go download one now and be enti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The initial question asserts that SSH and VNC had been modified. Whether that's true is really unknown.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who got the binary has the right to request source under the GPL. The binary is freely downloadable on their website, and the submitter says he asked them for the source code, and they refused.
Not true. If they didn't change it, they still need to provide th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
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.
They may be fully compliant... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please read the following from gnu.org's FAQ:
QUOTE
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
UNQUOTE
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: (Score:2)
The section that says:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Demanding a 'voluntary' waiver of the source code right prior to distributing code to someone is almost certainly going to be considered a legal restriction on that code, semantic differences aside (unless your judge happens to have shoved a hatpin through his frontal lobes that day).
In any case, a commercial enterprise would ha
Re: (Score:2)
No, you would only have to offer the source code to those who you have distributed to. The downstream users wouldn't have an
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno about you, but I have multiple copies of the GPL on my hard drive, and it's all over the net. Maybe you should read it before opening your mouth. I'd make a sarcastic comment on how I actually cited the actual passage, but I cite
Guess they are just lying then... (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can ask for the source, but you cannot bring them to court.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, looks to me like he asked them for the source and did not bring them to court. What's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Per the terms of the license agreement if a binary has been distributed to me under the GPL, I have a RIGHT to the source. Of course I demanded it. They are responsible for honoring those terms. If they fail to honor them and I can show damages then I can sue them, just not for copyright infringment.
Even if they were the original author and gave me the software gratis, if they offered say... support and failing to provide that support caused damages to me I could su
Re: (Score:2)
I tell ya what, you go find yourself in that situation and *try* to sue them and see how far you get.
Even if they provide you with that "written offer" to provide source code under section 3(b) of the GPL version 2 and then subsequently refuse to give you the source code when you ask for it, you still can't sue them for breach of contract because you've made no consideration.
All that you can do is get the copyright holder to sue them for copyright violation becau
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't the GPL contain a clause that allows others than the copuright holder to sue for violations? That would have been awesome! Think about the suefest!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, he is demanding something when he does not have the right to do so. I can ask you for a million dollars, but you probably won't give it to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense, everyone who they distribute a binary to has the right to demand the source. They just don't any teeth to back up the demands.
Re: (Score:2)
/. isn't where you report this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it was actually about GPL violations in windows apps going unnoticed [slashdot.org], and mentioned several violations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There ya go.
Re:/. isn't where you report this (Score:5, Informative)
Why is this front page news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this front page news? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A similar problem...a different solution. (Score:2)
GPL doesn't require releasing the source (Score:2)
That's perfectly valid.
The GPL, or any other license, doesn't apply to the copyright holder.
I've always wanted to do that, just to get a rise out of the community.
Of course, if they included GPL software, making this a derivative work, disregard me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. The GPL specifies that the source code must be distributed along with the binary or must be made publicly available otherwise.
And if it isn't? I suppose somebody would sue the guy. Why, THAT'S IT! He's gonna sue HIMSELF!
Thanks, you've brought me much enlightenment. On your particular level of stupidity, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
UltraVNC + tightvnc (Score:2, Informative)
The main page has been updated... (Score:5, Insightful)
UltraVNC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uuuuu... (Score:5, Informative)
You are if you distribute a binary version with your modifications.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't want to release your code, the remedy is simple: Don't base your fscking stinking work upon someone else's GPL'd work, start it from scratch, then, if you start it from scratch, you can keep it closed as much as you want.
(And given
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there is a difference. Some licenses REQUIRE you to release ALL/ANY modifications (even if they are for personal use)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Off-topic, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, all they got was: [fogcreek.com]
Doesn't seem that shabby...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Off-topic, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Commercial. Proprietary. Yes, the magic words that get some people's blood to boil. You wield them well.
My question would be why you care? In case their VNC core comes from licensed software allowing a commercial derivate as a binary, there is no problem. I believe AT&T's core was GPL'ed so that would raise some questions, but it's possible that by "VNC core" they mean some VNC-compatible derivate with a compatible license. In that case, the devs of that core also specifically intended use of it like this, being more open than just for OSS devs to use. Yes, there is a "more open" than that. And those developers don't have an issue with this, and maybe just you not wanting to see a 100% free use of their code. And if it doesn't follow the license, there's a breach of license, and then that would indeed be bad.
But this is clearly an issue of whether licenses are followed, not about a company doing "good" or "bad". If they follow the license of the developers -- that is using the software like they specifically intended others to use it -- they are per definition doing good. At least unless if you disagree with how their VNC core devs chose their license.
If there's something I get annoyed about, it's not about companies properly using licenses, but people like you who try to impose a personal code of ethics on companies who only use the code the way the original devs intended it to.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I support companies that support free software, and choose not to do business with companies that don't.
But this is clearly an issue of whether licenses are followed, not about a company doing "good" or "bad".
That's not the issue I was asking about.
If there's something I get annoyed about, it's not about companies properly using licenses, but people like you who try to impose a personal code of ethics on companies who only use the code the way the original devs inte
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall claiming they were violating the license when I posted the story. I asked if they were an open source pretender. This company is implying they are an open source application and trying to claim fanfare because of it. This is not open source and they are entitled to no fanfare, just the opposite.
Re: (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.
Add crossloop to that list (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm like that with ANYone who can't figure which country they're in... So, is it the US or is it Canada?