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?"
CVS http://showmypcssh.cvs.sourceforge.net/showmypcssh / is empty.
You are if you distribute a binary version with your modifications.
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.
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?
Good point about OpenSSH, but VNC is indeed GPL.
OpenSSH is BSD-licensed. VNC is a protocol. RealVNC is a commercial product of RealVNC Ltd and can be licensed for inclusion in third party products. It is not open source software.
You would see a message upon logging in stating that you have 5 mod points, which expire in 3 days from the time you get them. You may not have been around long enough to get mod points yet; if you go here, you'll get more info on moderation (scroll down the page a bit to get to the moderation parts).
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Developer Violate
"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."
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. Which got me thinking.. maybe that was the intent in the first place.. If you go read the relevant section of the GPLv2: You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
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, See that "medium customarily used for software interchange" bit? I'm pretty sure that a court would interpret that as "send me a CD-ROM please", not "you can get it from this URL".
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: d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. 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. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. Or the peer-to-peer option of (e).
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Thank you I actually wasn't aware of that. Whether they are technically violating the license is beside the point, they are distributing what they claim is an open source GPL'd application and not providing the source. Companies falsely claiming to be participating in order to gain the good will of the community should be exposed to that community. Slashdot is a rather convenient outlet to get through to a rather big chunk of it.
And then what happened?
And if what they claim (that they use, but haven't modified vnc/openssh) then there's no problem here, and no, as per their Web site, it isn't open source.Slashdot really is scraping the "slow news day barrel" this week.
And this is wrong how, seeing as they provide the source?
The source isn't enough for you?
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!
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>.
Comment removed based on user account deletion