Open Source Spyware!?!

Puteq

http://nzeka-labs.com/hacking/KSpyware.htm

Syth

That's not released under an open source licence. So it's not open source.

Looks like I'm safe.

aidan_walsh

Do you really require a license to call it open source when the code is sitting in front of you? FSL and Open Source are not explictly the same thing.

Cabaal

aidan_walsh wrote:

Do you really require a license to call it open source when the code is sitting in front of you? FSL and Open Source are not explictly the same thing.

Well open source is generally the term for software licensed under the GPL

Also because the above software is not licensed under the GPL I can get the code modify it, use it and not re-release the modified code afaik

scojones

Cabaal wrote:

Well open source is generally the term for software licensed under the GPL

Also because the above software is not licensed under the GPL I can get the code modify it, use it and not re-release the modified code afaik

Open Source is not generally the term for software licensed under the gpl.

Capt'n Midnight

KSpyware is (I think) the first open source spyware available on the net.

Why I developped KSpyware?

If the author describes it as open source then that's good enough for me.

Though the law talking guys would probably use (I think) as a loophole not to mention this bit at the bottom of the page

Copyright 2005, Nzeka-Labs. Tous droits réservés.

L1011

Cabaal wrote:

Well open source is generally the term for software licensed under the GPL

Also because the above software is not licensed under the GPL I can get the code modify it, use it and not re-release the modified code afaik

No, its not.

Not only is the GPL barely opensource, barely OSI and DSFG compliannt, its also a very new licence, compared to the X11 licence and the 4-clause BSD licence

I don't see GPL code as being truely opensource. Its close enough.... But opensource != GPL

Syth

aidan_walsh wrote:

Do you really require a license to call it open source when the code is sitting in front of you?

One of the reasons for the free software/open source split was the name 'free software' which many would think meant freeware. (Just look at any GNU text and it mentions "This software is free software. That's free as in freedom, not beer"). It looks like a case of the phrase 'open source' being ambiguous here.
Free Software/Open Source means you can access the source code (if you have the programme), and you are allowed to make copies and derivative works, etc. etc.

Copyright 2005, Nzeka-Labs. Tous droits réservés.

This actually makes perfect sense. It probably couldn't be open source if the author did not copyright it and reserve all 'rights'. Remember free software/open source != public domain. By reserving authors 'rights', this means legally the author gets to deciede what restrictions are on certain actions done to the work. i.e. what restrictions are put on copying, on derivative works. Most copyrighted works is put under a restrictive licence. With open source software the author says "I get control of how copies are distributed etc", the difference is that the restrictions are that you are allowed to do it ut you must let others do it. In most copyrighted work it's "You can't make copies at all".

Cabaal wrote:

Well open source is generally the term for software licensed under the GPL

Actually sjones and MYOB, Cabaal's statment is logically correct. Cabaal is saying "Software X is licenced under the GPL => Software X is open source", which is true. The corrollary "Software X is open source => Software X is licenced under the GPL", is false, which is what you two though Cabaal said. (Note "=>" means implies) Not to be nitpicky about logic or anything

declan_lgs

MYOB wrote:

No, its not.

Not only is the GPL barely opensource, barely OSI and DSFG compliannt, its also a very new licence, compared to the X11 licence and the 4-clause BSD licence

I don't see GPL code as being truely opensource. Its close enough.... But opensource != GPL

Doesn't the GPL perfectly satisfy The Open Source Definition?
I agree that opensource != GPL, but how is the GPL not "truely opensource" in your opinion?

EDIT:

Cabaal wrote:

Well open source is generally the term for software licensed under the GPL

While alot of people would agree with that, I (being a GNU advocate) wouldn't. I'd prefer to call GPL software free software.

L1011

declan_lgs wrote:

Doesn't the GPL perfectly satisfy The Open Source Definition?
I agree that opensource != GPL, but how is the GPL not "truely opensource" in your opinion?[/url].

Read around a bit. Theres a lot of suggestion that the GPLv2 has so many restrictions on what you can do with the source, and by the virtue that its infectious, that its actually not OSI or DSFG compliant

I, for one, will never submit new code (diffs for BeOS building excepted) to a GPL project. I like to keep my rights, not sign them off.

Zombrex

Firstly, you do not have to copyright something to protect it. Anything you produce falls automatically under default copyright law.

Secondly, he has put All rights reserved which means you cannot do anything with the code he has put up. Therefore it is not open source. It isnt even like Microsofts Shared Source program. This code is completely protected against you using it or even compiling it yourself.

Mutant_Fruit

Wicknight wrote:

Secondly, he has put All rights reserved which means you cannot do anything with the code he has put up.

I was wondering about the

Copyright 2005, Nzeka-Labs. Tous droits réservés.

that was at the end of the webpage too. I'm pretty sure that means that it ain't opensource... Just because you can SEE the source doesn't mean the source is open to be changed.

In fact, i believe it would be illegal to change that source due to the copyright reserved at the end of the page.

cregser

Maybe he's trying to make a quick buck by putting the "All rights reserved" in French. Some german 14yr old will make his first spyware program and become famous only to be sued by Nzeka-Labs.

Copyright 2005, Cregser. Tous droits réservés.

P.S. Go on, quote me, I dare you

damnyanks

cregser wrote:

Maybe he's trying to make a quick buck by putting the "All rights reserved" in French. Some german 14yr old will make his first spyware program and become famous only to be sued by Nzeka-Labs.

Copyright 2005, Cregser. Tous droits réservés.

P.S. Go on, quote me, I dare you

Done

Gordon

The reason it has copyright written on it is due to the fact that it is probably on a default template webpage. If someone contacts him and tells him that it isn't actually open source then he'll probably remove the copyright bit at the bottom. I reckon.

©Gordon 2006

Mutant_Fruit

I would quote you, but then i might get sued!

I stand by my "its not opensource" comment until that copyright notice is removed.

nadir

bleh, I dont get this thread, what the hell are ye talking about

McClane

Kspyware ? LOL sounds like something from the KDE project.

PhantomBeaker

Would it be evil to point out that you can get a perl compiler for free (as in beer)?

http://www.indigostar.com/perl2exe.htm

What with the source of the spyware being in perl and all that.. (and the rarity of perl on most windows systems)

I also like the one he wrote for unix in python.

Take care,
Phantom Beaker

clemyeats

GPL means Open Source.
Open Source doesn't necessary means GPL.

If the source is given with the app, then the app is open source.

I heard a lot of misconception and I'd like to say that :
- There are loads of different licenses for an app to be open source
- An app can be open source without any license.
- Open source doesn't always mean FREE. An open source app can perfectly be sold (but only with its source code).

Clem

Syth

clemyeats wrote:

If the source is given with the app, then the app is open source.
...
- An app can be open source without any license.

No.

Open Source/Free Software (as defined by the Open Source Initiative, the Free Software Foundation, and just about everyone else) requires that the copywrite holder promise some things, like the promise to give you the source, the promise to let you distribute it, the promise to let you make derivitive works, etc. In order for these promises to be legal, the software would have to be released under an 'open source licence' (of which there are many).

Free Software doesn't mean €0 software and Open Source doesn't mean you can see the source.