Page 2 of 4
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:11 pm
by rsts
You both make good point and some maybe not quite so good.
It appears the software itself is not an issue. However people are beginning to become a little tired of licenses which appear to infringe on what they consider their normal rights - witness the Sony digital rights situation.
It appears an issue is the part of the license that attempts to disallow it's use or detection by monitors. In most locals, violation of a license or copywrite is a civil rather than criminal matter.
On the other hand, it's nothing like writing a virus and telling Symantec they can't detect it, unless the virus comes with a license agreement the user agrees to before they install the virus- then we're back where we are now - another civil action.
In the US, it wouldn't enter the criminal stage unless they were illegaly selling the software or something like that. Where do you feel the case for criminal (rather than civil) action lies?
cheers
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:19 pm
by DoubleDutch
If they have downloaded software without the copyright owners permission then haven't they commited a crime in the UK I think it is a crime?
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:32 pm
by Num3
thefool wrote:If its taken as spyware, VNC should be as well..!
And it is! By windows spyware tool ... LOL
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:34 pm
by rsts
DoubleDutch wrote:If they have downloaded software without the copyright owners permission then haven't they commited a crime in the UK I think it is a crime?
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I have had a bit of experience in sotware license management at various companies I've worked for and consulted with, and my OPINION is that they have violated the license thus it falls under contract/license law, not criminal law.
I'm sure your solicitor knows much more than I do about such matters, particularly in the UK, since my dealings have been in the US.
Good luck - regardless, it appears you have a fine product. I would hate to see your reputation tarnished over a license issue, particularly since the public appears to be "up in arms" over these matters.
cheers,
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:02 pm
by dracflamloc
Dare2 wrote:dracflamloc wrote:I enjoy arguing on the internet. Makes a slow day at work go by faster.
It would be really ironic if your work sprung you using SpyMon
Considering I'm the IT Director.... not gonna happen
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:12 pm
by rsts
dracflamloc wrote:Dare2 wrote:dracflamloc wrote:I enjoy arguing on the internet. Makes a slow day at work go by faster.
It would be really ironic if your work sprung you using SpyMon
Considering I'm the IT Director.... not gonna happen
Maybe one of your employees wants to blackmail you?
cheers
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:19 pm
by dracflamloc
Haha, how is that gonna happen? I'm the only person with admin rights on the network. Everyone else is a dummy terminal with a web browser and thats it, they cant even access the HDs =)
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:06 pm
by Kale
This is very interesting. Where does remote admin systems (vnc, spymon etc.) and spyware seperate? I dunno, do you?
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:56 pm
by DoubleDutch
Good luck - regardless, it appears you have a fine product. I would hate to see your reputation tarnished over a license issue, particularly since the public appears to be "up in arms" over these matters.
We (myself and SunBelt) have come to an agreement - because they will have it always default set to "don't delete" for my type of program - I will explain a method to them of safely uninstalling the client for people who really don't want it.
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:39 pm
by LuCiFeR[SD]
The action will be that we may be (in our opinion) forced to get the UK police authorities involved with Sunbelt over copyright theft. This is a criminal offence, not a civil one I believe
I'd like to know how you have linked anti-spyware tools, "flagging" (or even USING) your software as copyright theft?
they aren't trying to distribute your software or steal any portion of it. So I don't see how this could be a matter for the UK police authorities.
Seems a bit like "Clutching at straws" to me.
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:53 pm
by rsts
DoubleDutch wrote:
We (myself and SunBelt) have come to an agreement - because they will have it always default set to "don't delete" for my type of program - I will explain a method to them of safely uninstalling the client for people who really don't want it.
Hey, that's great. Always happy to see these things worked out amicably.
cheers
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:23 pm
by GedB
dracflamloc,
So glad I don't work for you
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:32 pm
by Fred
Now there is another problem, as someone sent me than a program which used the PB command 'RunProgram' will be detected as spyware due to very poor signature dectection which should be in the PB command... If it's confirmed, i will really start a thread about it, as it will be a problem for most of PB programs. For the completeness, here is another mail i got about this problem:
Code: Select all
Hello Purebasic Team!
I got this kind of warning from F-secure AntiVirus telling about virus:
"Backdoor.Win32.LiteBot.f" (look at the message.jpg).
This happened using this sample code when debugger was on:
;*** CODE ***
If CreateFile(0,"c:\Text.txt")
For a=1 To 10
WriteStringN("Line "+Str(a))
Next
For a=1 To 10
WriteString("String"+Str(a))
Next
CloseFile(0)
Else
MessageRequester("Information","Can't create the file!")
EndIf
;*** ENDCODE ***
When debugger was off no warning was given.
Seems that it has got something to do with "WriteStringN" function.
It would be nice if you could give me some info about this as soon as
possible...
There is of course no troyan or such in the PB commandset/debugger..
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:15 pm
by Trond
I could test it tomorrow?
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:26 am
by GeoTrail
Hmm that's weird Fred.
Have you gotten any confirmation about that?
