License Issue?

[B]

Hi. I just noticed that your distribution includes SCHook.dll, which I think is still a closed source driver donated by one of the UltraVNC writers.

I had assumed that your "open source wrapper" project was only using open source UltraVNC components? Is that untrue?

I have run into this question before when noodling with both UltraVNC SC and PCHelpware (and it's a big reason I avoided PCHelpware and started looking at the SCPrompt project, and now yours).

Please let me know...

[supercoe]

I'm very new to GPL but this was a question I had as well.

From what I've read, you can't include non GPL code into a GPL project and distribute it as an installer. This is why the UltraVNC setup has you download the non GPL components seperatly.

AFAIK it's ok to distribute the files together as long as it's not a single installer. Even UltraVNC does this with their bins .zip file.

The ChunkVNC code is protected by GPL because it stays at "arms length" from the non GPL files. This is another reason why you are the one running the script compiling everything together into one package.

This is also a reason why I haven't release an installer....

I will update the License to include the seperate info for cad.exe and schook.dll

If someone with more knowledge of GPL could shed some light on the subject I would be more that appreciative.

[B]

Shoot, that's too bad. I was hoping to find a setup that was "pure" from an open source standpoint.

I'm sure that what you've done is perfectly okay (ethically and legally, vis a vis both copyright and the licenses involved; I think the Repeater is actually BSD).

I just didn't want yet another "open source" project to be critically dependent on a component that was an opaque black-box, that could not be modified and whose function and use was entirely at the whims of a single developer. Sigh.

I don't know what restrictions, if any, the licenses of those components have on YOU as a developer/distributor or me as a user. As far as I know the GPL per se has NO user or (internal) developer restrictions -- it's only a DISTRIBUTION license. Not that familiar with BSD.

One thread is at [post=58368][/post]

It seems it's at least partly Microsoft's fault?

[supercoe]

You can remove both schook.dll and cad.exe from the project to make it "pure". You will just lose the great features these files bring.

AFAIK:

cad.exe - Security-by-obscurity, as explained in the link you've found.

schook.dll - From a closed source project Rudi was a developer for.


The chatter about UltraVNC 2.0 is that it will be built from the ground up, thus allowing the team to move away from the current situation with these files.

[B]

Err, I'm not sure if you're serious or not. Does ChunkVNC/UltraVNC still function, at all, as a remote control product without those files? What great "features"?

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that the team may be moving away from the current situation; I had feared they were using some closed source intentionally rather than as matter of circumstance.

And please don't let my concerns here slow down your development; I'm still looking forward to the new ChunkVNC!

[supercoe]

What great "features"?

cad.exe needs to exist for Ctrl+Alt+Del support in Windows higher than XP.

schook.dll helps substantially with screen updates, without it the vnc server needs to poll the entire screen so updates are slow and sometimes misinterpreted in the viewer.


Anyway, I'm glad to hear that the team may be moving away from the current situation; I had feared they were using some closed source intentionally rather than as matter of circumstance.

Ditto.


And please don't let my concerns here slow down your development; I'm still looking forward to the new ChunkVNC!

I lurk the forums during the day while I run my business, night time is programming time.

[B]

Excellent; thanks. I MIGHT be able to live without Ctrl-Alt-Del, but the speed is a BIG issue.

By the way, I guess I'm wrong about the repeater you're using being BSD. It says right in the running log window that it's GPL 2 or later.

It must be a different repeater than the BSD-licensed one described at http://www.uvnc.com/addons/repeater.html

Curiously they're both (c) 2005 by "UltraVNC Team Members"? Dual license? Different product? They changed their mind? I have no clue. (Which I think is apparent. )

[B]

As an aside on the subject, it's moderately hilarious that in the midst of this "open source" VNC ecosystem it's still the few little closed source parts that cause real problems. I just noticed that CAD.EXE, in particular, is causing some cert-related problems that it seems could be easily rectified with access to the source.

[topic=16525][/topic]

That, and it's a bit sad that something as inherently "good" as signing one's code with a public key could be causing that kind of trouble.

[Rudi De Vos]

cad.exe is made with a non public library from MS.
We don't have the source, only the lib.

[B]

Oh. It's not my issue, but could you just omit the code signature and alleviate the problem they're discussing in that thread? (according to the poster there it's signed by "rudi.de.vos@skynet.be")

Though I might have just misread the thing....

[B]

As an aside on the subject, it's moderately hilarious that in the midst of this "open source" VNC ecosystem it's still the few little closed source parts that cause real problems. I just noticed that CAD.EXE, in particular, is causing some cert-related problems that it seems could be easily rectified with access to the source.

Sigh. Here we go, yet again. Apparently, instead of moving towards a <b>more</b> open code base with the next version, Rudi and the development team are going to use yet another restrictively licensed technology and release the next UltraVNC with a <b>modified</b> GPL license.

[topic=17012][/topic]

This is just not good. In my opinion, at least. The intentions (better performance, I gather) are noble, but it really hampers the reputation, adoption rate, compatibility, and expandability of UltraVNC.

[krash_control]

Sigh. Here we go, yet again. Apparently, instead of moving towards a more open code base with the next version, Rudi and the development team are going to use yet another restrictively licensed technology and release the next UltraVNC with a modified GPL license.

[topic=17012][/topic]

This is just not good. In my opinion, at least. The intentions (better performance, I gather) are noble, but it really hampers the reputation, adoption rate, compatibility, and expandability of UltraVNC.

The way I see it, Rudi and all the other developers are doing a great job in providing something to all of us at no financial cost to us. For this I am very grateful. It's one thing giving suggestions and feature requests, but all I seem to see you do is complain and to be honest, if it bugs you so much that they are using closed source stuff then either provide the required open source code or don't use it. If you can't do either, please contribute something else other than complaints.

[B]

<b>all I seem to see you do is complain </b>

Then you are being highly selective in which of my posts you choose to read.

I have been overwhelmingly positive in my limited contributions to these forums, often trying to help those whom I can, and trying to be as constructive as possible, though I am not a developer.

Kindly contribute something else other than pointless vitriol, krash_control. It does not reflect well on you. And kindly do not pretend to defend "Rudi and all the other developers" -- they, like the rest of those reading here, hardly need you. They can, I suspect, listen to dissenting voices without your protection.

If all you want is something for "no financial cost", as it appears you do, then you have a lot more choices, many of which actually work a bit better than the current VNC series of programs. The concept of "free/libre" open source software promises a lot more than a simple free ride for cheap people, but perhaps you have not yet come to understand any of that promise. I'm sorry.

[krash_control]

I won't turn this thread into an argument so we'll agree to disagree (or at least I will).

many of which actually work a bit better than the current VNC series of programs

Please do share.

The concept of "free/libre" open source software promises a lot more than a simple free ride for cheap people, but perhaps you have not yet come to understand any of that promise

Feel free to enlighten me (or better yet point me at some articles)

[supercoe]

krash_control,

B was just adding constructive criticism, thank you for taking the agree to disagree stance.


B,

It has been explained many times why certain parts of UltraVNC are under closed source and each has a valid point. At this point in time it seems like UltraVNC 2.0 will still have some of the same issues for you. Although I understand your concern, it is possible for you to remove the closed source "features" to get what you are looking for. I realize that you wish for it not to work this way but sadly it seems to be the only choice at the moment. That is until the developers can find a different way around.



Thanks again to both of you for not heating an argument over this, let's keep this thread on topic.

[B]

For the record, specific to licensing on the the Ctrl-Alt-Del component, "Super-Mod" redge mentioned a possible open source cad.exe alternative at [post=67499][/post] and before that at [topic=15993][/topic]

Someone else asked about it at [topic=16747][/topic]

I don't think it got a developer response yet, but I hope he/they are still considering using it.

[redge]

redge mentioned a possible open source cad.exe

wrong, is not open source.

[supercoe]

redge,

I think what B means is creating an open source cad.exe by utilizing SASLibEx.

[hm2k]

I wouldn't worry too much, Aut2Exe is included in ChunkVNC and that isn't open source either.

It would be nice to have ChunkVNC as close to GPL as possible.

The way around licensing issues would be to have the script download the required files from the source rather than to actually distribute them with it.

[B]

redge,

I think what B means is creating an open source cad.exe by utilizing SASLibEx.

I wish that's what I had meant, but redge is right - I mistakenly thought that other CAD program was open source -- but upon examination it's not.

Sorry to hear about AutoIT too -- I had been putting off checking on its license. Oh well.

[Zyxyx]

I'm not sure but I think that AutoHotkey is a great open source alternative to AutoIt that could be worth considering.

http://www.autohotkey.com/

Zyxyx

[supercoe]

B,

Crap, I was under the same impression about SASLibEx...

Zyxyx,

I do like the "pure open source" idea that B wants to see, maybe an AutoHotkey port of ChunkVNC would be an option if we could straighten out not requiring the non-gpl portions of UltraVNC.

The biggest problem is I (at this point in time) don't have time to do a rewrite and learn a different language. I like the ease of use that UltraVNC and AutoIt gives me and I'm willing to give up open source "pureness" to get that (for now).

[B]

I know... but...

The biggest problem is I (at this point in time) don't have time to do a rewrite and learn a different language. I like the ease of use that UltraVNC and AutoIt gives me and I'm willing to give up open source "pureness" to get that (for now).

...but, at least according to AutoHotKey's site, you don't have to!

http://de.autohotkey.com/docs/AutoIt2Users.htm

Enjoy nearly complete backward compatibility with AutoIt v2. <b>There is no need to learn new syntax and commands unless you want to.</b>

Probably worth a try if you get some time. I do note the "nearly" in there.

[supercoe]

B,

AFAIK, the reason it is compatible with AutoIt v2 is because AutoHotkey is just a fork of AutoIt before they went closed source. The syntax in AutoIt v3 is much different and sadly preferred by me.

[B]

Oh.

Well that sucks.

[hm2k]

I'm with you on this. Autoit3 is superior to autohotkey, but it's a shame it's not open source.

Having said that, i'm sure if we just focus on the scripts being open source and have it download anything it needs from the source.

For example with Aut2Exe, you could have it download the AutoIt - Self Extracting Archive...

See: http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/downloads.shtml

Download here: http://www.autoitscript.com/files/autoi ... v3-sfx.exe

This way there is less hassle for to maintain Aut2Exe inside ChunkVNC.

[B]

Is he permitted to host a copy himself? It would be bad to be reliant on multiple sites to put a real-time user package together (in case the other site moves files, closes, etc.).

[supercoe]

Is he permitted to host a copy himself? It would be bad to be reliant on multiple sites to put a real-time user package together (in case the other site moves files, closes, etc.).

And this is why I include all the necessary files in the zip, simplification.

In the past I've had newer versions of AutoIt get detected as a virus more than an older version and that is why I like to pick the compiler version...
It's up to the user if they want to update the AutoIt compiler to a version different version than the one included with a release.

[B]

When you get a chance you might want to include a License.txt or something that gives a rundown of the various licenses for the software in the package. It gets confusing fast.

Even the repeater apparently switched from BSD to GPL.

[supercoe]

B,

Sounds good, I'll be sure to include all the licenses in the next release.