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?"
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.
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!
...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
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
'In other words, he is demanding something when he does not have the right to do so.'
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.
If I fscking release my fscking work under a GPL license, what in hell gave you the idea that it's fair if you take my code, modify it, and then start selling my fscking code with your fscking code modifications without contributing your changes back to the community.
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 your attitude and dumbness I think it's a great idea if you really keep your code CLOSED)
Your ad could be here!
They removed the link to the sourceforge page.
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!
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.
OpenSSH is not GPL but BSD licensed so there is no problem IMO. I haven't checked for VNC (sorry, I'm just too lazy). And besides, GPL is all about distribution, not about modification; if I modify a GPL program and keep it to myself, there is no problem. There is no way you can force me to give up the changes. But if I distribute it, I have to supply the source code with my modifications.
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.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
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.
Bill Gates and wife isn't Microsoft and they aren't the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds