RSS (RemoteSupportSystem.com) purchase UltraVNC SC

[maddinwo83]

One Licenz Remotesupportsystem cost 349. It use SingleClick from UltraVNC. I think this is illegal.

Nice Greetings

Martin

[Oliver]

If this is the case we'd need a binary from them to verify it. However, keep in mind that Rudi offers some of his code commercially.

[B]

One Licenz Remotesupportsystem cost 349. It use SingleClick from UltraVNC. I think this is illegal.

Nice Greetings

Martin

So what? What's wrong with that?

ANYONE can charge as much money as they want for GPL licensed software!

Their only obligation is to make the source code available to THEIR customers.

They don't owe UltraVNC anything (although credit would be nice).

I'm NOT sure about any trademark issues though.

The OTHER possible problem is if they're using Rudi's online service to GENERATE the SC packages -- that might be some kind of theft of services.

[maddinwo83]

On the Website and in the Program is no Link or reference to UltraVNC. The Exe-File is an rssvnc.exe but it's a renamed winvnc.exe (Fileversion 1.0.0.18 Copyright UltraVNC)

Where can I send the binaries?

[maddinwo83]

On the Website and in the Program is no Link or reference to UltraVNC. The Exe-File is an rssvnc.exe but it's a renamed winvnc.exe (Fileversion 1.0.0.18 Copyright UltraVNC)

Where can I send the binaries?

[B]

Legally there does NOT have to be any reference to UltraVNC. (Other licenses like MIT/BSD require that.)

People rename winvnc.exe ALL the time, including several projects semi-hosted right here. I'll say this again -- they are probably doing nothing wrong. I can legally charge you $6,000 for a copy of UltraVNC as long as I abide by its license.

For uploading I suppose you could try something like sendspace.com and posting the URL here.

[Oliver]

On the Website and in the Program is no Link or reference to UltraVNC. The Exe-File is an rssvnc.exe but it's a renamed winvnc.exe (Fileversion 1.0.0.18 Copyright UltraVNC)

Where can I send the binaries?

Not needed anymore, looking at the non-commercial version is quite sufficient

Legally there does NOT have to be any reference to UltraVNC. (Other licenses like MIT/BSD require that.)

Actually they don't. Neither one does. But the old style BSD license contained this (which is the exact opposite of what you're saying ):

Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

People rename winvnc.exe ALL the time, including several projects semi-hosted right here. I'll say this again -- they are probably doing nothing wrong. I can legally charge you $6,000 for a copy of UltraVNC as long as I abide by its license.

Indeed. But remember that not all parts of UVNC are under GPL. Some are actually closed source. Particularly the driver - which is one of its most attractive code parts from the view of a commercial exploitation.

Their license agreement (from the installer of the non-commercial version):

NOTE: By using this software you agree to the following statements and conditions of its use. Unlike many other programs that are available, there is NO PER LICENCE FEE for the use of this program, nor is this program limited to a set connection destination.

This program may be used freely for non-commercial use. Commercial use required registration. Registration is a based on your company name. So when registering be sure to include your companies name EXACTLY as you wish it to appear in the program.

NOTE: You are registering for this software AS IS, please take your time to evaluate it before you register.

PLUGINS: Some plugins utilize third party servers, and as with the rest of the program suite, no claims are made to their reliablity, security or future functionality. Use them at your own risk and with full understanding of the preceeding statement.

http://www.remotesupportsystem.com/FILES/SOURCE.ZIP

DISCLAIMER:
R.D.H. LLC, NOR ITS MEMBERS CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY SOFTWARE, HARDWARE, OR INTELECTUAL PROPERTY DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE USE OR MISUSE OF THIS, OR ANY OTHER ASSIOCIATED PROGRAM OR UTILITY BY THE USER OR ANY THIRD PARTY. USE THIS SOFTWARE AT YOUR OWN RISK. BY CHOOSING TO REGISTER YOU ARE AGREEING TO PAY THE REGISTRATION FEE FOR THE CURRENT VERSION OF THIS PROGRAM AS IS. NO FUTURE SUPPORT OR UPGRADES ARE GUARENTEED OR IMPLIED. BY THE USE OF THIS PROGRAM AND/OR ITS REGISTRATION YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE STATEMENTS IN THIS DOCUMENT. IN COMPLIANCE WITH OPENSOURCE REGULATIONS, SOURCE FILES FOR ALL INCLUDED OPENSOURCE PRODUCTS CAN BE FOUND HERE: [ HTTP://WWW.REMOTESUPPORTSYSTEM.COM/FILES/SOURCE.ZIP ].

Let's not dwell on the unprofessional and typo-infested "agreement", but rather on the fact that this agreement would be in contradiction with the GPL as far as I understand both the agreement and the GPL.

[Oliver]

btw:

Code: Select all

C:\Users\Oliver\Desktop\SOURCE>dir /b
MSRC4Plugin118_src.zip
ultravnc_src_240605.zip
upx-1.25-src.tar.gz

Who wants to do the forum (or web) search on alone the security issues fixed since then? ... yes, 240605 is actually 24th of June 2005 ... proof? Exhibit A:

Code: Select all

2005-07-05  13:23           127.896 MSRC4Plugin118_src.zip
2005-07-05  13:24         2.728.372 ultravnc_src_240605.zip
2005-07-05  13:25           250.849 upx-1.25-src.tar.gz

I love software archeology. To some people I'm known as "software necromancer", because I can "raise" dead code

[Oliver]

7z code is missing from the source package they provide.

Copyright notice has been removed/replaced in some cases, which - to my knowledge - does not comply with the GPL. Adding your own copyright to source and binaries is okay, pretending that one owns the fully copyright is not.

I also doubt MS has allowed them to redistribute to use this DLL: MSSTDFMT.DLL (contained in the subfolder Utils, file version 6.1.97.82), it's possible however. It somehow belongs with VB. Which figures, since several binaries of that concoction are indeed written in VB.

Oh and the icing on top in this case is that the binaries have been manipulated with a resource editor. That company hasn't actually built them themselves.

Don't get me wrong: if they abide by all terms of the GPL and don't try to take away rights from the user that the GPL grants the user, everything is fine with me. Seemingly, though, they don't (see above).

[B]

Interesting... so are the only modifications to the GPLd code the reshacks? There's at least one other popular little project that is guilty of a similar shortcut. As far as I could determine, strict interpretation of the GPL means that reshacked versions can't exist, since original source just can't be supplied for them.

[Oliver]

Interesting... so are the only modifications to the GPLd code the reshacks?

For the C/C++ binaries it looks like that, yes. We'd have to compare any released binary so far and we could find the version they're based on.

Either way, it's not my business. I don't own the copyright to UltraVNC (or parts)