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!
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!
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.
...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
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.
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!
Well said.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If you're just going to keep bringing facts into this argument then nobody is going to have any fun.
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.)
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!
I'm like that with ANYone who can't figure which country they're in... So, is it the US or is it Canada?
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
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?
No, that's NOT how the GPL works. It says simply that if you give someone a binary then you must also give them the source code (if they request it I think). You can modify the code as much as you want and you have NO requirement to release it to anyone UNLESS you already released a binary of it to them. Of course they can in turn give the source code and binary to whomever they wish to.
Yes there is a difference. Some licenses REQUIRE you to release ALL/ANY modifications (even if they are for personal use) to the world or the original author or some such.
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
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.
This guy's giving out the binaries so arguing what not releasing them means isn't useful.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
'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.
With or without modifications, the GPL says (from memory) that if you distribute a binary you must distribute with it either an offer to provide source, details of how to obtain the source, or the source itself.
The GPL applies to everyone who distributes, not just those who also modify.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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
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.
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
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...
The GPL is a source code licence. If I developed the software I can distribute the binaries under any licence I like. If I choose to also distribute the source code and I choose the GPL then I theoretically do not have to abide by its terms myself but since I have given you the source code I have complied by default.
If I am redistributing GPL software commercially then I must obviously abide by the terms of the licence. For instance if I sell binary copies of gcc I must either include the source code or provide a written offer to give you - or anybody - the source code at a price that covers only the costs of distribution. What I cannot do is merely give you the URL to the gcc distro on the Free Software Foundation's FTP server.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
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.
T.J. Schmitz - the man, the myth, the legend - o
Funny thing is Microsoft actually wrote an OS in c# ... Singularity
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dude, chill, seriously...
Legally speaking, the parent to your post is 100% correct. You ONLY have to release source if you release binaries. If you take a GPL project, modify it, and then use it yourself, you have NO legal obligation to give the source back to the community.
The same goes for a corporation - If a corp takes a GPL product and uses it in-house, they can make billions off of it and never have to contribute a single line of code back.
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.
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.
A liberal microsofty? Dude, you just blew my mind...
I can't help but note the irony of your sig right now.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
'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.
I think the parent was merely stating that he doesn't need to release the source to modified GPL software if he does not distribute it (just my reading of his post; your reading may be the correct one). Certainly, it would be unreasonable for the GPL to compel a hacker modifying GPL software for his/her own personal use to release the modified source code to the public. Of course, it does seem odd that the hacker would be modifying it solely for his/her own use; many interesting apps these days involve a network connection somehow, which likely implies either server/client architecture or peer-to-peer (p2p would definitely require the hacker to release the source).
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.
What gives you the right to tell someone to whom they can or cannot communicate some information they received from you?
If I teach you how to do something, is it fair, or right, for me to require that you offer to teach that skill to anyone you practice that skill for, or else you lose the right to practice that? If build a chair for you, and teach you how to build chairs like that, can I stipulate that any time you build a chair like that for someone you MUST offer to teach them how, or I'll sue?
GPL is just another form of copyright, and like all copyright it is an affront to the essential right to freedom of expression. If you don't want someone to make use of your code unless they're willing to share theirs, don't distribute your code except to people who've agreed to that.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Cheneys donated 78% of their 2005 income to charity. That includes all of their Haliburton stock options and book royalties. GW Bush and his wife average about 12% every year. The Clintons average about 9% and the Gores about 5%. In fact, in 1997 the Gores gave a grand total of $353 dollars to charity. That's not a typo. Three hundred and fifty eight dollars, less than two tenths of a percent of their income.
Barack Obama made a big deal of his charitable giving, but failed to mention this is a recent development for him that's utterly transparent. In 2002, the year before he declared his candidacy the Obama household income was $259,399 (in the top 2%). That year they donated just $1,050 to charity, or 0.4%. The national average was 2.2% that year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117686685252673734.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Bill Gates and wife isn't Microsoft and they aren't the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
Freedom of expression applies to views and opinions, not on this case, because I have the right of property. If it's my code, it's my code for gods sake, and I can do whatever I want with: keep it closed or make it a BSD code-slut if I want to. I have no right to block you from writing your own code to do what my code does, you can reimplement my idea the way you seen fit, but copying my code without my permission is not on the realm of freedom of expression, because, hell, it's not even YOUR expression. Democracy is not at risk when you can't steal my code.
That said, I am much for Open Source, if I ever write something on my own (out of my job, the code I write there is THEIRS) that I find that could be useful for someone else, I will release it GPLd, even if I have a commercial interest on it, because I think that philosophical questions aside, Open Source is the only way for a talented individual compete against the giants. But FOSS is not against copyright, in fact, there can't be FOSS without copyright, because without it FOSS would be eaten alive by stinking asses like those from showmypc.
Your ad could be here!
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.
Freedom of expression applies to views and opinions, not on this case, because I have the right of property.
Freedom of expression is nothing but a subset of the fundamental right to liberty; I can say, write, print whatever I damn well please (those things being mere actions like any other, e.g. twiddling my thumbs or jumping rope) so long as I'm not infringing someone else's rights. (Copyright law supposedly creates such rights, if actual rights can really be created by government fiat like that, which I would dispute). Freedom of expression is in no way limited to "views and opinions"; it is my right to walk around singing "la dee da da" as much as it is my right to say George Bush sucks or that global warming is caused by decline in pirate populations. Unless, of course, "la dee da da" is copyrighted or trademarked, and such laws are actually worth the paper they're printed on.
And my claim follows directly from the notion of property rights. There is no such thing as "intellectual property", even in the law; the only things that can be property are real, physical things. (All other "property", e.g. copyright, spectrum leases, etc, are nothing but legal privledges; there is no thing that you actually own in such cases). So if you write some code, you have every right not to distribute it; that is, you don't have to expend the effort (however little these days) to produce a copy of the code, and even if you do, you own that copy and are under no obligation to give it to anyone else. However, once you give someone that copy - give them an object with that code on it, or transmit a signal encoding it to them - then it is now THEIR property and they may do whatever they please with it (including copying it, selling it, or giving it away), you have no right to tell them otherwise. No moral rights, that is; the law of course says otherwise.
Democracy is not at risk when you can't steal my code.
I'm concerned with liberty, not necessarily democracy. The two are not the same thing, and they can conflict; as in this case, where a (theoreticcally) democratically-elected government has passed laws infringing on peoples' liberty.
Further, making unauthorized copies of code you originally wrote isn't stealing anything from you. You still have your copies of the code, and even if someone were to start selling binary-only copies of it and not giving you a dime of the proceeds, you can still sell your copies too, or give them away for free; so if, like most FOSS projects, you're not actually charging money for your code, then people have no reason to buy it from the commercial vendor rather than download it free from you, and so suckers are merely being parted from their money. It sucks for the suckers, but that's the fault of their own ignorance, and it's not doing you any harm. Your code isn't any less free just because someone is only distributing compiled versions of it. It would only be less free if they somehow tried to prevent you or other people from distributing copies of the code.
But FOSS is not against copyright, in fact, there can't be FOSS without copyright, because without it FOSS would be eaten alive by stinking asses like those from showmypc.
I agree that FOSS (if by that you mean the GPL, as BSD-style licenses are quite different) is not against copyright, but rather relies on it; and that is my only complaint against it. A GPL license is better than a proprietary license, because it obliges people to do something good rather than prohibiting them from doing something harmless; and to that extent the GPL is a good thing. But it is still a license, and as such relies on the idea that people are de-facto prohibited from promulgating certain bits of information unless they are specifically licensed to do so, which means that despite whatever amount of good it might promote, it is doing so by unjust means. The only truly free license is a public domain license.
Before, I go, a question for you:
O
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Damn! I really hate people who have real arguments. Fsck!
Well, maybe I was a bit wrong, though I still haven't decided, but just to save my honour, let me say that when I release my code under the GPL I am letting clear that I am distributing that code only for people who decided to abide to those terms, it's not like someone was using my code and then, when they decided to extended it, someone came and said "Uh no! now that you extended it and are about to release it as commercial product, I would like to say that if you release it you need to give your extensions also!".
Your ad could be here!
However, these two issues become entangled with copyright-like terms of contract, because - without going on the long tangent into my rather novel theory of the ethics of contracts, which would also invalidate such contracts - the doctrine of First Sale, which is pretty well established in America at least, basically says (as I understand it) that you cannot use contracts to prohibit people from doing with their property as is otherwise legal. I cannot sell someone a lawnmower and stipulate what sorts of laws they may mow with it (though I can agree to only provide free service for lawnmowers which have not been used to mow certain sorts of laws, i.e. mowing the wrong lawn may void the warranty). So, by that reasoning you couldn't stipulate what people may do with the CDs in your yard or the files on your server once they have been given away; either that whole contract was invalid and they never had permission to enter your yard or access your server in the first place (in which case the crime is trespassing, or whatever the cyberspace equivalent is called, but not breach of contract); or, only those particular terms of it are invalid, and you just gave them a free CD with code on it (or a free download from your server) with which they can do whatever they please. Or could, if it weren't for copyright law, that is.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
Are you sure it wasn't a typo?
codegolf.com - smaller *is* better.
Hardly. Unlike you, I'd never hold strangers responsible for guessing what I want without me telling them.
Perhaps.
... looking in the license?
:-)
But that does not invalidate my observation: Nobody showed any interest in the actual license. How on earth can we even debate a license issue, if nobody knows what it says in the actual license???
Could be a violation. Sure. But the only way to know would be
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...