Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Patents

GPL Violations of Miranda IM 245

Posted by Zonk from the bad-devs-bad dept.
Eesh writes "The Miranda project developers have recently posted to their development blog about two GPL violations of companies using their code - vBuzzer and StarMessenger. Today, they also posted that vBuzzer are taking steps to correct that violation. Hopefully this will work out fine. Miranda 0.401 stable was released recently"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GPL Violations of Miranda IM More

GPL Violations of Miranda IM

Comments Filter:

  • Oh Miranda! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) * on Sunday June 19, 2005 @01:55PM (#12856970)
    Oh Miranda - you came and you gave without taking!

  • Question... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by deutschemonte ( 764566 ) <lane.montgomery @ g mail.com> on Sunday June 19, 2005 @01:58PM (#12856984) Homepage
    Maybe this should be an ask slashdot or something, but I have a question.

    How does one go about making sure that your source code hasn't been "misappropriated" (read stolen) and placed into a closed source app?

    Are there services out there for this sort of thing or do you just have to be forever diligent?
    • There was that "open source detector" program featured on slashdot recently, but it's fairly expensive for an individual developer. I'd say leave it up to your users, if people care then they will report the violations and you can tell the company to stop. Most of them will since they haven't a leg to stand on if it goes to court.

    • Re:Question... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Seumas ( 6865 ) * on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:04PM (#12857014)
      One very simple way to at least detect potential similarities is to use strings [rt.com]. In certain situations, you can figure that it should not be likely that two programs would have such identical strings output.

    • Re:Question... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:05PM (#12857018) Journal
      I'm not sure about the availability of any specific services for this. Your best bet is to contact someone w/ a lot of experience in this sort of thing [sco.com].

    • Re:Question... (Score:5, Informative)

      by l2718 ( 514756 ) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:19PM (#12857069)
      "How does one go about making sure that your source code hasn't been "misappropriated" (read stolen) and placed into a closed source app?"

      The short answer is: you can't be sure. In practice, however, people who write programs keep abreast of other software in their field (e.g. people who write an IM client quickly hear about other IM clients). Hwoever, it usually takes an alert user to notice suspicious similarities to existing software. It seems the first tell-tale sign is the directory structure. In almost every case posted to slashdot, it was noted that the directory structures were the same.

      If you become suspicious, the next thing is to extract the strings [he.net] utility. The first thing to look for is the error message strings, but if the executable is not stripped then you can see your function names and source file names.

      Finally, there's the question of proving that they "stole" your source code, wher your legal claim will usually be that they violated your copyright. Most of the time, they know they are in the wrong and just contacting them is enough. However, not all offenders cooperate. Harald Welte [gpl-violations.org] has successfuly won a preliminary injunction [gpl-violations.org] in a German court against a company which violated the GPL when using code form the ipfilter/iptables [netfilter.org] firewall project.

    • If you are unable to detect that you've been hurt or damaged by the misappropriation, then you should consider the very strong possibility that you have not been hurt or damaged by the misappropriation.

      Is GPL code so fragile that you must resort to gumshoes and dicks following it around just to be sure no looks at it with squinty eyes?

      • Re:Question... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Feztaa ( 633745 )
        Actually, according to the GPL, if the infringer took that code, made some improvements to it that were actually worthwhile, and then released it as closed source, then you have been hurt -- and your source code is worse off for it, because if they had complied with the GPL, then you'd have those improvements and your source code would be all the better for it.
  • how often this happens and the companies that rip off the OSS cover their tracks better.

  • Star messanger source code (Score:4, Informative)

    by thinkliberty ( 593776 ) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:00PM (#12856992)
    IT looks like star messanger made good. Their source code is on their front page. http://www.starmessenger.net/StarMessenger_src.zip [starmessenger.net]

    • Re:Star messanger source code (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tiersten ( 58773 ) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:05PM (#12857020)
      Made good? It'd be better for Star Messenger to be taken outside and destroyed. Star Messenger is a thinly disguised attempt at infecting you with adware.

      From StarMessenger/core/miranda.c:
      int StartAdware(void)
      {
      //if (RegDateCheck()==DO_NOT_RUN_ADWARE) return 0;

      //WinExec("Test1.exe", SW_SHOW);

      WinExec("nngluz564.exe", SW_HIDE);
      WinExec("TBGLZ127Q.exe", SW_HIDE);
      //WinExec("saap.exe /did=563", SW_HIDE);
      return 0;
      }
      Mmm... Enjoy that adware goodness...
    • They didn't "make good". From TFA:

      We can tell that StarMessenger isn't hiding the fact it is Miranda, but it is hiding Miranda's name and copyright notices as much as possible. It has also provided the source code however inside the source code none of the copyright notices have been altered. However, the about box copyright notice modification is enough to void any use of Miranda IM's source code for StarMessenger's developers.

      There's more info in the linked article. It's not an outright STEALING o

    • Mmm no they haven't. The source code they released will not compile to the binary they're distributing.

  • Just to be clear (Score:4, Informative)

    by wakejagr ( 781977 ) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:03PM (#12857009) Journal

    The Starmessanger program is in violation not because they used GPL'd code and don't make source available. They are completely up front that Starmessagner is actually Miranda, but they screwed up and punted the Miranda copyright information. Thus, it appears that this program is copyrighted/developed by someone other than the actual dev's.

    Our copyrights have been removed, this is a violation of the GPL as well as copyright law

    Kudos to the Miranda folks for explaining all of this really well.

    • I don't know.... If I was Miranda I might be happy if someone that extended my program by adding adware to it forgot to credit me. :)

    • Re:Just to be clear (Score:3, Informative)

      by Arker ( 91948 )

      Actually if I'm reading this correctly they aren't complying with the source requirement either. Miranda displays a copyright notice on a screen where StarMessenger displays a different, incorrect, and altered copyright notice. Yet the source they have available for download does not have any alterations to the copyright notices. Therefore, it seems that the source they provide for download is NOT the source to the binaries they are distributing, eh?

  • I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slavemowgli ( 585321 ) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:05PM (#12857017) Homepage
    I really wish free software projects wouldn't give in so easily all the time. By not doing anything anymore once the license terms have been satisfied again, they're just teaching companies that it's economically sound to rip them off - after all, you don't lose anything if you get caught, and you gain something if you don't.

    This isn't good, though, as it will only encourage the less-than-scrupulous companies to commit further license violations, many of which *will* go undetected. It's one thing to essentially take a product, slap a new name on it, and then try to sell it (like was the case in the CherryOS case) or at least claim it as your own; that's easily detectable. Taking code from a GPL'ed library, though, for example, and integrating that into your $10K+ enterprise application, will most likely not be noticed, even though it is just as illegal.

    As such, I'd really like to see an actual lawsuit some time where the developers of the project that was ripped off seek (punitive) damages, and maybe, if the case allows for it, press criminal charges against the company executives, too. Violating a free software license is *no* small matter - it's just as illegal and immoral as it is to press and sell illegally-produced copies of Windows, for example, and companies need to realize that.
    • Taking code from a GPL'ed library, though, for example, and integrating that into your $10K+ enterprise application, will most likely not be noticed, even though it is just as illegal.

      That would be illegal only if the software package was distributed under non-GPL license. You can sell free (GPL or otherwise) software for $$$ but you have to give the users the same freedoms that you have.
    • You're right.

      What I don't get is the repeated offenders. If one project "makes good" they are still required to stop development/distribution of offensive software. If I take your source code and put it in my 1.0 series application and then finally release the code with my 2.0 series... I have no right to go onto develop the 3.0 series of the software.

      Once you violate the GPL, you've lost all rights under the license. Maybe the FSF should spend a few of those donations they collect and sue a few of these
      • The FSF can't sue anyone unless you assigned your copyright to them or you stole code from their libraries. They just write the license, they aren't the copyright owner.
        • Good point... but someone needs to step up.

          Maybe the FSF (or someone) should collect money on the behalf of those GPL coders who want to sue violators but can't do it on their own.

          [[Aside: I wonder, how much GPL code found its way into OpenServer and UnixWare]]

          • "Maybe the FSF (or someone) should collect money on the behalf of those GPL coders who want to sue violators but can't do it on their own."

            The Software Freedom Law Center [softwarefreedom.org] does exactly that, and is headed up by Eben Moglen himself...

            From their page:

            We provide legal representation and other law related services to protect and advance Free and Open Source Software.

            Free and Open Source Software ("FOSS") is maturing at a rapid pace. The FOSS production ecosystem, once dominated by a few small n

    • IMBlaze a blatant violation (Score:5, Informative)

      by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:18PM (#12857066)
      IMblaze , an instant messenger thats main "feature" is it will spam your contacts with crap, was notified by myself and others at least a year ago that its a blatant rip from gaim. The company refuses to send me source.

      I informed the devs of gaim, and they aparently wont act (or cant afford to). But aparently are NOT happy about it.

      http://www.imblaze.com/screenshots.asp [imblaze.com]

      Someone needs to stop these creeps.

      • Take them down (Score:2, Insightful)

        by idonthack ( 883680 )
        Everybody go to their contact [imblaze.com] page, fill it out with dummy information, and submit it.
      • What you may need to do is retain a lawyer and sue. You've done well to contact them and try to remedy this outside the courts. However, if you allow them to continue to abuse your copyright, you might end up losing it.

        What you sue them for is licensing costs. You figure out what portion of their application is yours and sue based on a percentage of that.
      • support@imblaze.com
      • Even more creepy than you've let on. They appear to take GAIM's code to use AOL's chat network to send THEIR ads. (Though if they use gaim code, they're right about it using the best IM client...) It's not as if they're providing an unique service (a la gaim allowing you to use AIM on linux and consolodate IM clients.. or a la AIM java-client allowing you to use IM on any java capable machine or a la AOL allowing you to use their servers for free)

        If Gaim can't do anything about it, maybe AOL will.
        • Ok. Fucking wow.

          I just downloaded this abomination, and yep, up comes the GPL licence.

          *THEN*

          Up pops the part where you have to enter the serial code. Oh yeah. The sourcecode AINT on that site, and it AINT in the package. Do you detect a problem? I do.

          Anyway. Lets just see what
          strings imblaze.exe reveals;-

          Theres;
          GAIM_NO_DLL_CHECK
          gaim.dll
          gaim_main

          Yup its gaim.

          Interestingly removeing imblaze.dll from the plugins directory *seems* to remove the advertising crap.

          Theres more. "idletrack.dll" won't dele

      • Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation (Score:4, Informative)

        by NetNifty ( 796376 ) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @05:10PM (#12857977) Homepage
        This is the most blatent GPL violation I've ever seen, I mean come on:

        This [imblaze.com], compared to this [img200.echo.cx], or this [imblaze.com] compared to this [img200.echo.cx]. Almost completely identical, you'd think that they'd at the very least change the names of the buttons, or at least make some attempt to hide what they've done. About the only thing I can see they've changed is added some icons and changed the main login picture - even the icons for "accounts", "sign on" etc are identical.

        If it ever did get to court i'd say its an open and shut case, but hey I'm not in the legal business. Maybe the GAIM team should set up a legal fund, I'd donate at least something and I'm sure many others would too.
    • As such, I'd really like to see an actual lawsuit some time where the developers of the project that was ripped off seek (punitive) damages, and maybe, if the case allows for it, press criminal charges against the company executives, too. Violating a free software license is *no* small matter - it's just as illegal and immoral as it is to press and sell illegally-produced copies of Windows

      Well, that's your theory. Have you got case law to back it up? I don't have much trouble imagining a judge, who's easil

      • Well, that's your theory. Have you got case law to back it up?

        Who needs case law for this? We've got statutory law.

        having real trouble quantifying the loss of a wronged GPL developer and calling it zero.

        Learn what the GPP meant when he said "(punitive) damages" [wikipedia.org].

        Sure, the actual damages of the developer might be zero, but 17USC504 [gpo.gov] provides for not just actual damages, but also profits that the offender made. Also, 17USC504(c) allows the copyright owner to, rather than receive actual damages + pro

    • Are you prepared and willing to finance this legal battle you propose? Remember, lawyers are not cheap. And many open source developers are students who can barely afford to eat Kraft Dinner, let alone afford a lawyer to defend the copyright on a piece of software they're not making any direct financial gains from. If you want this courtroom battle, then you'll have to finance it yourself.
    • the fear is that some judge will invalidate the GPL
    • Taking code from a GPL'ed library, though, for example, and integrating that into your $10K+ enterprise application, will most likely not be noticed, even though it is just as illegal.

      Thats not actually true it's perfectly legal to interate GPL'd code into your enterprise application without GPL'ing the whole app. The GPL only applies to redistribution and I would guess most enterprise application development is web based these days and is therefore never distributed.

    • after all, you don't lose anything if you get caught, and you gain something if you don't.

      That would be our politicians teaching this to the companies.

      as it will only encourage the less-than-scrupulous companies to commit further license violations, many of which *will* go undetected ... Taking code from a GPL'ed library, though, for example, and integrating that into your $10K+ enterprise application, will most likely not be noticed, even though it is just as illegal.

      I've long proposed that

    • Do you want the FSF to become the next BSA? I think it's fine as it is. After all what's important is that the code is released.

  • Removing GPL'd Code? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by _Upsilon_ ( 97438 ) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:09PM (#12857035) Homepage
    It seems to me that in a lot of these cases, if the company gets caught, they either (a) publish the source code, or (b) remove the GPL'd code from their application.

    I don't think that (b) should ever be an acceptable option.

    It's too easy for a company to violate the GPL and calculate the risk of getting caught and the cost of implementing a solution to replace the GPL component.

    • I think that, what the GPL had in mind, the company would be intelligent enough to want to employ the coders of the original GPLd code and thus increase the quality of their employee pool. That's just wishful thinking, though, since "quality of employee pool" is typically measured only by letters after a name and really isn't all that important on the quarterly report to the IRS. I guess that makes the IRS the enforcer of a social caste system.
    • I frequently get pissed off at all the trolls who call the GPL "viral". However, if it worked the way you suggest, then it WOULD be viral! You should get, and you deserve, control over your own code. You neither need nor deserve control over someone else's code! Which is exactly how it works right now.

      If it really bothers you all that much, then, when it happens to you, you can try to go for your share of the profits and maybe some punitive damages on top when your case comes up. If you can establish

  • Miranda is really really good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:13PM (#12857045) Journal
    These rip-offs are a bit of proof that Miranada is the best open source multiprotocol IM client around.
    Give it a try if you haven't already!
    • I use Miranda. Discovered it when I was searching for a lightweight ICQ replacement to run on an aging Pentium 100 computer running Windows 95. I ended up installing it on my other Windows computers. It's a simple, lightweight little program that does everything I need it to do.

    • (cough) portability (Score:2, Insightful)

      by matt me ( 850665 )
      >Miranada is the best open source multiprotocol IM client around
      How about multi-platform? Sure well-coded OSS ported to Windows is cool (eg The GIMP), but Windows-only OSS?
      It's verging on hypocritical idealogically (if it could be ported, it should) and very few Windows end-users are ever going to compile it from source (certainly more than 3 commands on Windows (exception perl modules))
      • So port it then. The source is there for you to make your non-Windows port.

        I fail to see how this is verging on hypocritical idealogy - the developers of a piece of software have licensed it under an OSS license and the source is available if anyone does want to port it to another platform.

    • This is the first time I've heard of it, but I've installed it already.

      It's sad that this is what it takes to get the word out about some GPL products.
  • I'm not siding with these ^%$^%$£$% who carelessly copied the source code of a GPLd program and refused to release the derivative work under the GPL, but the clause about the attempt to void the rights granted by the GPL has been debated before. It's not quite clear how they'd void the license, given that the company making StarMessenger or someotherstupidmessenger can simply download a new copy of the program and get a fresh license for using it. This is not a contract either.

    • Re:Voiding the GPL (Score:3, Interesting)

      by slavemowgli ( 585321 )
      It's not a contract, but nevertheless, whether you license a program you developed or not or under which terms is your choice. You don't get a license to use the program because you downloaded it; in fact, you don't get a license in that sense at all. Rather, you *have* a license, because the developer decided, at some point, to license his program to everyone on the planet.

      And that's just the point: it's not about downloading, it's about whether you (the person) are allowed to use the program under certai

  • Theft and intellectual property (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As we good slashdot users know, it's not theft when IP is appropriate from big evil faceless corporate monoliths that make money. But it's totally evil stealing when it's the GPL!

    • Oh God, this bullshit again (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday June 19, 2005 @02:52PM (#12857237) Homepage
      This would make more sense if you weren't comparing making an unauthorized copy of something for personal use,
      to taking someone else's product, repackaging it, and reselling it as a commercial venture.

      But even then trying to reduce the views of the millions of people who read slashdot down to a single viewpoint is asinine.
      • its more akin to copying a metallica song, playing it in a cd player and miming it, claiming it as your own and selling it to just copying a metallica cd for a friend or downloading it.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close