Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Showmypc.com an Open Source Pretender?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the show-us-the-source dept.

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?"

19 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. You missed the obvious joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Where's ShowMySource.com?"

    1. Re:You missed the obvious joke... by Divebus · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Right on their front page: "It started as an open source Desktop Sharing and Remote PC access project..."

      And then what happened?

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    2. Re:You missed the obvious joke... by ajs · · Score: 4, Informative

      Right on their front page: "It started as an open source Desktop Sharing and Remote PC access project..."

      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.
  2. Why not? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    CVS is empty and the source on the download page is for the 2.6 version. The version of the executable is 3.53

    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.
    1. Re:Why not? by courtarro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would be true if the code were unmodified versions of GPL'd code, but glancing through the two helper EXEs (spcplink.exe and spcwinv.exe) reveals quite a few references that look like they might be directly pulled from VNC or OpenSSH. Interestingly enough, these two helper apps are written in Visual C++, while the main app is written in VB6.

      Now that I look closer, I notice that spcwinv.exe is actually referred to as "VNC Server Free Edition for Win32", and the copyright is "Copyright © RealVNC Ltd. 2002-2005", yet the strings within the file have been modified to refer to it as a ShowMyPC product. I'd say that's a dead giveaway.

    2. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Why not? by DustyShadow · · Score: 4, Informative

      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."

  3. Use this without source code? by courtarro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  4. Re:Uuuuu... by mini+me · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I use a GPL software and modify it, "I'm not obligated" to release my modifications.

    You are if you distribute a binary version with your modifications.
  5. No source needed by JanneM · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  6. They may be fully compliant... by BobandMax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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
    1. Re:They may be fully compliant... by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative
      Ya know. In the GPLv3 that's no longer the case:

      You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
        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.
  7. Re:Off-topic, but... by m2943 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  8. /. isn't where you report this by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:/. isn't where you report this by shaitand · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  9. Re:It's probably because by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 4, Funny

    I seriously considered modding you down as offtopic just for the fun of it, but it would be anonymous and definitely not fun. But few things could be better as a practical joke than modding down someone discussing slashdot moderation :-)

    --
    Your ad could be here!
  10. The main page has been updated... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They removed the link to the sourceforge page.

  11. Re:Off-topic, but... by vico · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ah, another piece of commercial, proprietary software derived from VNC.

    And this is wrong how, seeing as they provide the source?

    Here's a serious question: has Fog Creek ever given anything back to the open source community?

    The source isn't enough for you?
  12. Re:Off-topic, but... by NickFitz · · Score: 5, Informative

    And from the unpaid, or underpaid, work of interns

    Yes, all they got was:

    • Weekly stipend of $750
    • Free housing in an area dorm (usually with private rooms)
    • Free gym membership
    • Free MetroCard (gets you on any bus or subway in New York)
    • Free soft drinks
    • Free lunches
    • Free weekly social events. 2005 events included attending a Yankees game, a boat trip around Manhattan, walking tours, museum trips, two Broadway shows, a movie opening, and parties.

    Doesn't seem that shabby...

    --
    Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.