Slashdot Mirror
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?"
"Where's ShowMySource.com?"
did you report them to SourceForge?
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...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
CVS http://showmypcssh.cvs.sourceforge.net/showmypcssh / is empty.
Whereas GotoMyPC is a serious business with a vested interest in keeping users' machines secure, this site has no such commitments, and as such it seems like a pretty bad idea to use it without being able to check the source code. Potential GPL violations aside, a significant reason that we need the source is to confirm that it does what they say it does. Without it, who knows what backdoors they could be offering; it's especially concerning since it's specifically designed to penetrate firewalls. Beware!
Last time I checked, OpenSSH was distributed under the BSD license, not the GPL. So your request for the source is meaningless.
Maybe Theo was right...
Stop crying! you, GPL evangelist! Stop being fundamentalist.
If I use a GPL software and modify it, "I'm not obligated" to release my modifications. BUT if I release the modifications, they should be GPL as well, or anyone who can have access to the modified source releases it, that's ok, but obligated???? From where you got that wrong idea?
I'm tired to see people pretending to know the GPL but are a bunch of ignorants. Starting by the Debian folks (the biggest GPL ignorants, a shame) and followed by a big group of people. Before crying in public, do a read of the GPL, the GPL FAQ or write to someone at the FSF or even to RMS.
Looks like three uses ever. https://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?g roup_id=165628&ugn=showmypcssh&type=cvs&mode=year If they don't reveal their source, should SourceForge be hosting them?
this program contains code that they don't want you to see, because they are a shell company for microsoft that is simply using the VNC platform to spy on people so they can report back to the government.
If you feel like the government is watching you, they're not. They're watching everyone! Stop BIG BROTHER!
They don't need to give public or cost-free access to the source. All that is required is that they give the source to their customers, for a reasonable copy and distribution fee, if they ask for it.
And as for VNC and friends, well, if they didn't change that code they don't need to give you the source either.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
...because the GPL only requires that an offer of source code be distributed along with the application. Have you purchased a copy of their commercial offering?
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
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
From the look of the site and the feel of their 'community'.
Along with this.
Registrant:
Vagish Narang
3915, 28th Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T6L6G7
Canada
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: SHOWMYPC.COM
Created on: 11-Jun-02
Expires on: 11-Jun-09
Last Updated on: 30-Apr-07
Administrative Contact:
Narang, Vagish vagishnarang@yahoo.com
2368 Donner PL
Santa Clara, California 95050
United States
+1.4082301678
Technical Contact:
Registrar, Domain domain-registrar@register.com
Register.Com
575 8th Avenue 11th Floor
New York, New York 10018
United States
1-902-7492701
I sure wouldnt run anything from them. But i'm paranoid like that.
Ah, another piece of commercial, proprietary software derived from VNC.
https://www.copilot.com/press/faq/
Here's a serious question: has Fog Creek ever given anything back to the open source community?
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...
Winged Power Photography
How we know is more important than what we know.
I'm *pretty* sure there's an established procedure for reporting GPL violations, and I'm *pretty* sure submitting a /. story griping about your experience with that software ain't it.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
This is flame bait... this is not news and it's definately not the proper way to report a GPL violation. Are we really hurting for news submissions?
Regards, Ryan McAdams
I had a similar need some time ago but didn't like the solutions out there. I ended up setting up an OpenVPN server (listening on 443 to ease outbound firewall penetration). When the user needed help, they connected to my VPN server, I connected to it (if I was not in the office) and then did as I pleased (RDP, SSH, what have you). In this manner, I had a guarantee of security (which I was able to control) and ease of use on the customer's part (all they had to do was fire up an OpenVPN connection). There was obviously a bit more to this (setup on client side, etc.) than described here, but no biggie.
"If I use a GPL software and modify it, "I'm not obligated" to release my modifications. BUT if I release the modifications, they should be GPL as well"
you're correct, but you need to rephrase. The modifications are subject to the GPL license as well, and you MUST release the source to your mods. Everybody seems to have it right except you.
You're welcome!
C++ user? Linus has a message for you.
I am about halfway through that thread. Linus is turning out to be a real asshole. It's tough to sit through this guy flaming the opinions of others, simply for having their opinions, with nothing more than opinion himself! He has a very serious and tragic god complex. I'm a big fan and user of the Linux OS, but Linus himself? You can keep him. What a jerk.
In any case, he is dead wrong about C++, and a complete fool. To claim one tool (his precious C) suits every job out there is just plain amateur (and surprising to hear from such an obviously brilliant computer scientist).
Maybe his wife isn't giving it up these days? The mind boggles.
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. (emphasis added).
Kiddo, you're at the wrong website! This is the one you wanted. Make sure your speakers are turned on and up, or you'll miss the best stuff!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Somebody can write a program, release it under GPL, and not release the source.
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.
Create a distributable exe via http://www.uvnc.com/addons/singleclick.html You can set it for connection ports, etc .. all you need after that is any vnc that is running in listener mode. client runs the exe that was created, connects to the listener machine and displays the remote desk. Client closes exe at teh end of the session and session is teminated and can't be reinitiated from the listener end. Goes through firewalls, routers, etc .. Total cost = 0 .. No additional login info needed .. I used to have my clients config vnc server and make connections that way, this is much easier and more secure for them.
I've worked on an alternative recently. A-VNC (or Ajax VNC) can be downloaded from http://www.dr-a.net/index.php?action=Projects From the README: "A-VNC is a remote control software to see and control a Windows machine desktop. It is designed to overcome firewalls and proxy limitations, and depends on Mozilla Firefox as a client. A-VNC is open source, implemented using .NET, and relays on pure HTTP and Ajax. Binary, readme, screen shot, and source code available for download at the projects page."
It lacks so many features (v1.0), but I use it whenever I need to fast-access my home computer from office (where only HTTP connections are allowed.)
1. Use some GPL code in your commercial app
2. Notify slashdot that sourcecode is unavailable
3. Get lots of publicity
4. ???
5. profit
What have they given back? Well, the source to Copilot comes to mind immediately. Why, what do you expect them to give back?
Beyond posting to /., what exactly are ya gonna do?
Sue them?
They removed the link to the sourceforge page.
You're trolling, but the same could be said of Torvalds' voluminous e-mail flamewars, and nobody's ever accused him of "never [giving] anything back". Real work still gets accomplished. The fact that Spolsky takes the time to share his experience shouldn't be viewed as an indictment of his (or his company's) productivity.
And this is wrong how, seeing as they provide the source?
The source isn't enough for you?
Gee, thanks. Now I have lead poisoning.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
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.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
At least they don't charge for it, yet.
No sig today...
I just launched a new product, ShellShadow... http://www.shellshadow.com/
;-), but a topical one, I hope.
By "launched" I mean the site is public for the last 2 weeks but no general announcements yet. Just a few friends testing to make sure its behaving well.
Unlike so many GUI Collaboration tools, ShellShadow is Terminal Client collaboration (light, low bandwidth, and doesn't share your desktop).
The client is derived from PuTTY. I have not released the source to the derived client or the coded-from-scratch relay server. The PuTTY license does not require me to do so.
There are some key questions that should be answered about giving back to the open source community. But nothing can be given back without the company having a stable and growing revenue model.
I welcome meaningful feedback on this business and the use of the various open source technologies it leverages.
Yes, this post is a shill
I've looked at ShowMyPC.com and happy to see more action in this market. If they are in violation of some open source agreement, I hope they get it worked out.
enjoy, Jon
According to the site, the SSH they are using is "plink" (same suite of tools as PuTTY), and the VNC software is RealVNC. Neither of these is licensed under GPL.
So how about you take your "demands" and shove them... somewhere. The copyright holder can do whatever the fuck it wants to do. Sorry that didn't work out for you, though.
No, dumping a zip file somewhere is not "giving back". Fog Creek did almost the minimally necessary thing to comply with the GPL.
(And if their "Deleter" application is any example of the kind of software they develop, Joel really should stop blogging about software development!)
UltraVNC and UltraVNC "single click" can do just what you want, is greatly customizable, and completely free.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
Don't you dare complain about doing the minimum. If you want more than that, write your own license and start to use it instead of the GPL.
My question would be why you care?
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 intended it to
I'm not "imposing" anything on anybody, nor is open source a question of "ethics" to me. All I did was ask about Fog Creek's contributions to open source.
You're jumping to conclusions and apparently have an ax to grind.
and nobody's ever accused him of "never [giving] anything back".
The GP didn't accuse Fog Creek, he was asking.
Why don't you stop evading the question and actually answer the question: have they or have they not given anything back to the open source community?
'But this is clearly an issue of whether licenses are followed, not about a company doing "good" or "bad".'
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.
That's bs. Even if you distribute an unmodified GPL program, the onus is on you to provide the source code if the entities (people or organisations) who you distribute the program to request it.
Read the GPL, the distributor of the executable does not have to distribute the source themselves. A third party may do so, the distributor merely needs to tell the recipient where they can find the source.
There's no "maybe" about it. Theo was completely correct.
We see two issues here:
1) The GPL causes lots of confusion. In this case, this poor fool has come to believe that it is the only open source license. So he thinks that even BSD-licensed software must be treated as if under the GPL, which is of course quite false!
2) The BSD license is true freedom. As shown here, it's safest to use BSD-licensed software. The terms of the license are concise and easily-understood by all, and are written in a way that promotes maximum usage of the software. Virtually everyone is free to use it as they see fit, even if they don't want to contribute back changes. The freedom to not contribute changes is just as important as the freedom to contribute changes. When freedom is maximized, you can do either.
Yes, all they got was:
Doesn't seem that shabby...
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
You must be new here.
Just a thought, here: there are contests mentioned on slashdot, regularly, that have to do with writing code that looks like it does one thing, and actually does something completely different.
In terms of such obfusciation, being able to see the source is not all that strong a protection. A much stronger protection (though also not anywhere close to absolute) is the vested interest in keeping a good name.
Even stronger protection against intentional malfeasance, is seeing how they do it and then writing your own code from the ground up. Of course, then you get back to the limitations on skill. One person is not as good as a whole team of people.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
One more point. I went to Sourceforge and downloaded the zip file. It only comes with binaries, but they are the copyright holder and not bound by the GPL license (even though they released it under the GPL). I think they wanted to distribute the binaries only as freeware and got caught up in the GPL hoopla.
The site now says "based on open source products". If you look at the old versions of the site they all say "an open source remote PC access implementation". Seems they were deliberately misleading people to me, and now they've just changed it. Check it out
"If not, he just wasted our precious time."
Don't waste time. Install UltraVNC. Version 1.02 with the supplied video driver works fine. Open source.
http://www.linux.com/articles/55285
The requirement to supply source code is covered by section 3 of the second version of the GPL. Under these sections, the distributor of GPL code is obligated to provide source code "on a medium customarily used for software interchange" for up to three years. In practice, this medium is usually a CD or DVD, or a server from which it can be downloaded. Under section 6 of the GPL, each distributor of the code comes under the obligations specified in section 3. This obligation is specified even more strongly in section 10 of the draft for the third version of the GPL, which specifically states that "downstream users" (those who, like Woodford, adopt the work of another project -- the "upstream distributor" -- for their own use) fall under these obligations. "We think it's pretty clear," says David Turner, GPL compliance engineer at the FSF. "One problem with allowing people to skip out on source code distribution is that there's nothing that requires the upstream distributor to continue to offer source code. If they stop doing so, the source could become totally unavailable. Or, more commonly, the upstream distributor will upgrade the version of the source code available, leaving downstream distributors totally out of sync. In order to fix bugs, users need to get source code exactly corresponding to the binaries they have available."
No..
sourceforge REQUIRES 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.
The lead poisoning is minor compared to the fact that by visiting that web site you have now been programmed to do everything a woman says.
A GoDaddy registration places an upper limit on the registrant's technical knowledge. See No Daddy.
My eyes! It burns! It burns!
or otherwise for the oblig. Simpsons quote.
Ze goggles! Ze do nothing!
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
Why not just use Remote Assistance that comes built-in for free on Windows XP?
Funny, everybody is whining (or anti-whining) about the release (or lack thereof) of the sourcecode.
But what about the GPL license?
If the people making this software are claiming it is GPL'ed, shouldn't the actual GPL license document be the first thing you were looking for?
What license ACTUALLY comes with the software in question? Forget what is says on outdated web pages. What does it say in the license which followed the product?
Only after examining the ACTUAL license, can we decide if there is a license violation or not. And as a user of the product, who wants to know what your rights and privileges are, you should focus your attention on the license - not buried within the sales pitch of a web page.
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
https://www.copilot.com/ from those fog creek losers does exactly the same thing. they say they allow you to download their VNC modifications... but just try compiling them .... you can't
P: "Ah, another piece of commercial, proprietary software derived from VNC."
GP: "Commercial. Proprietary. Yes, the magic words that get some people's blood to boil. You wield them well."
P: "You're jumping to conclusions and apparently have an ax to grind."
The conclusions he "jumps to" are quite correct: you're the one with an axe to grind.
Yes _that_ Joel.
https://www.copilot.com/
Why not just use CoPilot. If I can talk my technophobic cousin through installing it over the phone, any one can use it.
Then they don't need to show you anything and can ignore your request - especially if the ShowMyPC program and VNC "communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program." On their page they don't say it is a GPL program, but based on open source programs. ShowMyPC should have a page like this that explains how they do not violate GPL http://www.crossloop.com/VNC.html What's most relevant to this topic is probably this. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLInP roprietarySystem
I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.
However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.
If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.
Well, the project claims it's "open source" and is hosted on SourceForge with the license set to GPL. If it's "open source", then the source must be open. If it's on SourceForge, the source must be provided. If they want it to be proprietary, that's fine, but then have to host it on their own and not claim that it's "open source".
Basically I see the complaint as the developers claim it's open source, list the license as GPL, distribute it on a host for open source projects, but refuse to actually open the source. That means: 1) They're lying about it's license. 2) They're violating SourceForge's ToS.
Report the bastards.
T.J. Schmitz - the man, the myth, the legend - o
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're missing the context:
TFA: [company may be abusing GPL software[
GGP: [spamvertisement for CoPilot]
Furthermore "commercial, proprietary" are note "magic words", they are simple technical terms. If they make your or anybody's blood boil, that person has a problem.
People like you have a problem.
I actually bought the DVD that was created to document the experience the interns had while working on that project. They all seemed very happy to be there, and honestly it was a very nice work environment, particularly compared to some places. Could have been worse, they could have signed on at one of EA's sweatshops. As an added bonus, most Universities require some sort of internship in order to receive your degree, and the sort of work experience they acquired working for Joel not only looks good on a resume, but better prepares them for a professional job as a software developer.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Slashdot serves the same need to FOSSies as Faux News serves to conservatives: phony outrage for phony people.
It's little surprise there is so much overlap between FOSSies and conservatives. Both claim to be moral people, but constantly demonstrate how flexible and situational their "morality" truly is. FOSSies will do absolutely anything to destroy Microsoft, and conservatives will do absolutely anything to destroy America.
I suggested reading the GPL itself, you cite someone's paraphrasing of the GPL instead. At least you had the brains to post anonymously. Here is an excerpt of the GPL that discusses one of the methods by which you may convey source code. Note "third party".
"If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
Why read someone's paraphrasing of the GPL when you can easily read the GPL itself. Note third party servers are an option. The distributor does not have to make the source available himself.
"If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
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.
i would have laughed and called you a nerd plus a few other choice names.
the open source community is crap and everyone knows it.
'That seems awfully like you are claiming a violation of the license.'
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.
We sure could, but sadly we don't have one right now. Thanks for the catch. (Seriously.)
VNC and SSH in this case aside, it seems that no one could possibly have standing to force someone to release their own original source code even when the software is released under GPL. After all, the redistribution restrictions only apply to the first deriver of the software, not the originator. There's nothing in the GPL that says the licenser has to share the code; only that the recipient (aka "you" in the license text) has to share the code if they release a modified version of it. The originator (aka "copyright holder") is not a recipient, therefore doesn't have to share a thing under the text of the GPL. The GPL makes no promises or commitments on behalf of the licenser.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
The license violation in inherent in your line of questioning, you were overtly calling attention to a license violation whether you intended to or not.
Cheers.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
so what you're saying is that if he wants people to do more than the minimum, why doesn't he just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair?
I have to agree with Jugalator; you are trolling. I'd also add that you're either ignorant or ignoring certain facts: Fogcreek's source is available. So what exactly do you expect? Maybe a big fat cheque made out to the maintainers?
No. It's enough that they're complying with the license. Either following the minimum requirements of a license is good enough, or the person releasing the code picked the wrong license. In the one case, there's no blame to be assigned. In the other case, the person releasing the code can only blame his or herself. Even if they ask you to help them whining that it's unfair, you shouldn't, but you especially shouldn't start whining when they're happy.
Complaining about people following the license just increases the emotional -- but not financial -- cost of dealing with open source. It gives people a bad taste. It gives a bad reputation to the community as a whole. Your complaints make the original developers look bad. (Compare that to, say, Fogcreek, which has managed to make the developers look really good.)
In short, please stop trying to help the open source community by pretending to represent us while simultaneously contradicting against what we've put in writing. The GPL's license terms are pretty clear, and if I release my code under that -- well, that's (probably) what I meant to do.
Complaining about people following the license just increases the emotional -- but not financial -- cost of dealing with open source. [...] In short, please stop trying to help the open source community by pretending to represent us while simultaneously contradicting against what we've put in writing.
I didn't "complain", I didn't try to "help", and I didn't try to "represent" anybody. All I did was ask whether "Fog Creek [has] ever given anything back to the open source community".
Apparently, the answer is "nothing beyond complying with the letter of the GPL". That's all I wanted to know. Sorry if that embarrasses you or Fog Creek.
I'd just like to share with you my general satisfaction with logmein.com. I've used it a few times for clients and it has saved me a lot of time. I haven't had issues with it in terms of firewalls. It has even come in handy when I'm too lazy to go in the other room to check something in IE.
I also recently played with Yuuguu for the mac (and pc). It is kind of slow but its interface is quite good. The chat on the side of the window share is quite nice.
My 2 cents.
We use UltraVNC over a VPN built into a hardware firewall. UltraVNC has "repeater" software that works around firewalls: "Repeater: With the help of the repeater you can use UltraVNC viewer behind a NAT router. NAT-to-NAT: The NAT to NAT connector allows for connections between UltraVNC viewer and server behind NAT routers without any router modification."
OpenVPN works around firewalls: "With OpenVPN, you can: * tunnel any IP subnetwork or virtual ethernet adapter over a single UDP or TCP port". I haven't used OpenVPN because the documentation was cryptic, but it looks like very good software. There is an OpenVPN How-To, but it seemed poorly written to me. OpenVPN 2.1_rc4, released on 2007-04-25 looks a little easier, but I didn't test it. The basic idea of OpenVPN software seems to be that, if you are a very advanced networking professional, you will be able to read the explanation.
UltraVnc SC, as someone said below: "UltraVNC SC is a mini (166k) UltraVNC Server that can be customized and preconfigured for download by a Customer. UltraVNC SC does not require installation and does not make use of the registry. The customer only has to download the little executable and Click to make a connection. The connection is initiated by the server, to allow easy access thru customers firewall."
It's crazy to use closed-source remote software, in my opinion. They say, in effect, "You can trust us, none of our employees built in a back door. Really. You can trust us also that our company hasn't been sold recently, or changed policies without notifying customers."
Joel on Software's Fog Creek remote software is a joke, in my opinion. Joel says, in effect, "Let us perform a billectomy on your wallet. Then you can use our software that built on open source software and was extended by some interns over one summer."
I think the same about encryption software. There is only one good option. The open source, excellent, cross-platform TrueCrypt.
You may want to see the full story, a comment I just posted: UltraVNC: 1) Repeater, 2) NAT-to-NAT 3) UVNC SC 4) OpenVPN.
I think they will likely take the same position that Crossloop takes.
http://www.crossloop.com/VNC.html
Actually, it's still interesting to consider what's on their website and in other marketing materials. If they advertise the software as being Licensed under the GPL, but it isn't, sounds like a lawsuit to me.
This discussion is about ShowMyPC.com, Fox Creek's CoPilot, and other closed source remote access software that has been mentioned.
ShowMyPC.com is new, and may not survive, since there are so many companies doing the same thing.
CoPilot is shockingly expensive: $5 to use it for 24 hours.
In my opinion, all the closed source commercial companies who make remote access software, that I've seen, have shaky business models. That means that you are partnering with a shaky partner. If the partner disappears or is sold, it can be expensive to find some other way to connect remotely.
Microsoft recently killed an entire computer language: FoxPro. It is dead. Software's Doctor Death, Bill Gates, said so. No serious explanation. Just, that's it, the end. A few years ago, FoxPro had 1,500,000 users, I was told by someone at Microsoft. Now it is dead, and in a few years there won't be any support for it.
If someone commits fraud using commercial software, the commercial company will almost certainly try to hide the incidents. If someone commits fraud using open source, free software, it is likely that numerous people in the user community will make sure that the fraudster goes to jail.
If a company finds a serious vulnerability in its commercial software, it will almost certainly try to hide the vulnerability, because of the negative public relations. Open source vulnerabilities are advertised.
Open Source non-commercial software will always be there, and carries FAR less risk.
http://www.showmypc.com/source-info.html We have recently seen, a lot of interest in the use and the source of this program. We are working hard on providing additional information about the source code availablitiy and licensing for this product. We will update this page very soon. Thank you for your comments and questions. Please be patient and check back this page shortly, Updated: Sep 10th 2007. evidently we got their attention.
I can't stop laughing, you're actually complaining because some shitty program you downloaded won't release it's source?
Maybe you should spend more time worrying about getting rid of your horrible acne.
Hardly. Unlike you, I'd never hold strangers responsible for guessing what I want without me telling them.