Lui Yiu Hang wrote:
Hi,
I'm a newbie to VNC and I'm using a VNC 4.0 free on both of my
computer. Both of my computers have no firewall, I don't know why
everytime i install and use the vnc, there is a virus called
Backdoor.Evivinc infect my computer. I formatted the computer a few
time, but it
Hello Everyone,
I have a problem that I can't seem to overcome and would greatly appreciate
some assistance. Some background, all of the computers I mention are running
VNC 4.1, Windows 2000 Professional, and ZoneAlarm Pro 5 (latest edition).
Here's the story. I have three computers conn
Hi,
I'm a newbie to VNC and I'm using a VNC 4.0 free on both of my computer.
Both of my computers have no firewall, I don't know why everytime i install
and use the vnc, there is a virus called Backdoor.Evivinc infect my
computer. I formatted the computer a few time, but it is still there when
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Rex Dieter wrote:
Until now, I've never encountered a vendor who provided rpms who didn't
either offer the src.rpm and/or specfile.
If you had asked them for those files, maybe they would have given them to
you. I think you told them that they *had* to give the file(s) to yo
Is there a command line way to generate a new RSA key for the enterprise
version of VNC server?
Thanks!
Steve Bostedor
http://www.vncscan.com
___
VNC-List mailing list
VNC-List@realvnc.com
To remove yourself from the list visit:
http://www.realvnc.com/m
For the "remote location"
Please answer the following, it will help to narrow down a lot of
causes quickly:
Connection Type: DSL/Cable/56k/isdn/etc
Router/Firewall info: Is there a Hardware router? Brand? Model?
Antivirus Software: Brand/Version?
Software Firewall: Brand/Version
Rex Dieter wrote:
If the GPL doesn't cover this case, then I have to say that the GPL is
weaker than I thought... and could be abused.
Abuse is what the GPL is supposed to prevent, I aggree.
The thing to remember here is that the original copyright holder is a
special case.
The wording we're d
Kyle McDonald wrote:
>> This is what it boils down to surely, and I humbly disagree.
>>
> Have you ever heard of anyone else making this claim?
> How was it resolved?
AFAIK, it's never been an issue. Until now, I've never encountered a vendor
who provided rpms who didn't either offer the src.rpm
Steve Bostedor wrote:
> According to his interpretation of the GPL, RealVNC should have included
> a fully configured C++ compiler, too!
I've only ever asked for the scripts used to generate the rpm.
-- Rex
___
VNC-List mailing list
VNC-List@realvnc.c
Kyle McDonald wrote:
> A specfile is a convience. Not a requirement. Automating the RPM
> building also is a convience and a bonus, Not a requirement.
If one distributes GPL binary rpms, then the sources and scripts used to
generate it should be provided too. I considered that a requirement of t
Rex Dieter wrote:
"The" script used to generate the (GPL) rpm on the VNC website is in
the sources? Really? If so, I'll shut up and go away.
Promise? ;) Just kidding.
I haven't looked, but from what others have said there is a sscript or
Makefile that will build the binaries from the sources.
According to his interpretation of the GPL, RealVNC should have included
a fully configured C++ compiler, too! This is getting rediculous.
Over the last few months, this list has turned more into a GPL
compliance discussion list for various reasons than dealing with VNC
troubleshooting and develop
Rex Dieter wrote:
James Weatherall wrote:
The source code we supply is exactly the code
used to create the binaries contained in the downloadable RPM.
Except for the specfile used to actually generate the downloadable RPM, of
course.
Why are you so resistant to releasing the specfile?
Yo
Rex Dieter wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Kyle McDonald wrote:
If they were *only* providing tarball binaries, this would be true.
However, in the case of binary rpms, the "preferred" form the Source
Code (as defined by the GPL) is clearly either a src.rpm or the
(already-provided) tar-file + rpm s
Hello there, I just installed the free version of VNC on three computers. Two
at home and the other at a remote location. I can use the viewer to connect
both of the home computers using (I don't know type of IP address it is so I'll
just type it out and all of you will know what it is) 192.16
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rex Dieter
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:27 AM
> To: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: RE: src.rpm/specfile, GPL violation
>
> Steve Bostedor wrote:
>
> > The format that the source is to be delivered
James Weatherall wrote:
> The source code we supply is exactly the code
> used to create the binaries contained in the downloadable RPM.
Except for the specfile used to actually generate the downloadable RPM, of
course.
Why are you so resistant to releasing the specfile?
-- Rex
Rex Dieter wrote:
In this case, a *binary rpm* is what is being distributed... the
"preferred
form of the work" and "scripts used to control compilation and
installation" is rpm specfile and/or src.rpm.
No, It doesn't have to be a specfile. It can be any script or config
files that successful
Rex Dieter wrote:
and theirs to distribute how they see fit.
True, provided it complies with their (own) licensing terms.
Any copyright holder of any work can relicense it at anytime with new
terms. So the copyright holder doesn't have to live by anything they've
done in the past.
Of course the
James Weatherall wrote:
Kyle,
If we release binaries under the GPL then we have to honour the license's
requirements to make the source code to those binaries available, in the
same way as anyone else does, which we do. If we didn't do that, we'd be
failing to honour the license under which we'd d
Rex,
I have responded to you several times on this today, so I'm not sure why you
think I haven't. I haven't responded earlier because other list users were
answering your questions (correctly :) ).
You build the binaries from the source as supplied in the tarball that you
can download from our
Rex:
The developers of RealVNC make the source code available to everyone in the
same form: A tarball. That, to my reading at least, fits the description of
"Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code". It's machine readable, and it's source code. To me, "The
source c
Harshad,
You ask us, describing what it's for, and we allocate one appropriately. :)
Cheers,
Wez @ RealVNC Ltd.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harshad Sovani
> Sent: 16 May 2005 15:39
> To: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: Regis
Rex,
I'm afraid I don't understand: You have described problems building the
vnc.so module against XFree86 and Xorg, and yet you are also complaining
that we haven't made the source code available! If we haven't made the
source code (which you can get from
http://www.realvnc.com/cgi-bin/download
Rex Dieter wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by failing to
provide the (preferred) source to the binary they distribute.
On top of that, it's trechnically impossible for Real-VNC to violate the
GPL.
I suggest you
Kyle,
If we release binaries under the GPL then we have to honour the license's
requirements to make the source code to those binaries available, in the
same way as anyone else does, which we do. If we didn't do that, we'd be
failing to honour the license under which we'd distributed the software
Rex,
No, I'm afraid you are wrong. The RPM specfile has absolutely nothing to do
with building the VNC binaries. Have you downloaded the source archive and
read and followed the instructions for building on Unix platforms?
We already provide binaries for the platforms you list below - is there
Steve Bostedor wrote:
> They are the authors and the GPL license is in
> place to protect them and not us.
> The GPL isn't in place to give us the
> right to their code but rather to protect their rights while graciously
> giving us their code.
IMO, the GPL is intended to protect *both* author
Rex:
What part of "tarball of the source" do you think means they're not
including the source code? The GPL, as I read it, doesn't say they have to
provide it in a "ready-to-compile" form. Heck, they *could*, as I understand
it, refuse to give the source unless you purchased RealVNC. There are othe
Before you paste it, read it yourself.
It says "ONE OF THE FOLLOWING", not "ALL OF THE FOLLOWING"
Rex Dieter wrote:
>Kyle McDonald wrote:
>
>
>
>>Rex Dieter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by failing to
>>>provide the (preferred) source to the binary th
Steve Bostedor wrote:
> The format that the source is to be delivered in is not covered by the
> GPL.
Yes it does:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all mo
James Weatherall wrote:
> Please do not spread libellous rumours regarding the RealVNC Ltd. and the
> GPL!
Sigh, I had hoped it wouldn't deteriorate into something like this.
I'm not spreading rumors, and don't intend to.
I simply had hoped to receive some sort of reply from RealVNC regarding
so
Kyle McDonald wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>>
>> RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by failing to
>> provide the (preferred) source to the binary they distribute.
> On top of that, it's trechnically impossible for Real-VNC to violate the
> GPL.
I suggest you read the GPL then (
Rex,
The format that the source is to be delivered in is not covered by the
GPL. They do supply the source to VNC and anyone can get it at any
time. It's a very simple download. Just because it's not packaged in
the archive format that you prefer doesn't meant that it's not easily
available to
You are correct, Kyle. They are the authors and the GPL license is in
place to protect them and not us. The GPL isn't in place to give us the
right to their code but rather to protect their rights while graciously
giving us their code. Let's not be greedy, ok? They've worked hard and
released a
Rex,
Please do not spread libellous rumours regarding the RealVNC Ltd. and the
GPL!
The full source code to VNC 4 is available for download from
http://www.realvnc.com/download.html, so I'm not sure how you've missed it.
The source is provided as a tarball rather than a source RPM - this is
entir
Rex Dieter wrote:
RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by failing to
provide the (preferred) source to the binary they distribute.
Given other conversations on here about GPL issues, I'd be surprised if
there was really anything underhanded going on here.
On top of that, it's trec
Hi folks,
I could see in the RFB protocol spec that a few additional
authentication schemes like the following have been registered:
RA2 (5)
RA2ne (6)
Tight (16)
Ultra (17)
TLS (18)
Could somebody tell me what's the procedure to register a new
authenticati
I've been patiently waiting for a response from RealVNC regarding the
(un)availability of an rpm specfile and/or src.rpm for linux, since my
originally post here on April 29. I only wanted to see how it was
built, as I've issues with a home-brewed rpm version of mine(1) which
are apparently n
Hi folks.
I don't know whether this is a common problem still, but I didn't find anything
much of use on the interweb.
We were suffering from the
/usr/dt/bin/dthello: display unix:3.0 doesn't know font fixed
error while trying to use VNC with CDE on Solaris 5.8 after a rebuild.
Happily, we'd
Hmm... wonder if maybe you've got something in your TCP Wrappers blocking
your Windoze box from accessing your Debian box? I'm not sure how to
configure that in Debian, but in RedHat/Fedora, there's an /etc/hosts.allow
and /etc/hosts.deny. Check to make sure you don't have something like "ALL:
ALL"
Richard,
Make sure that you have the latest network and graphics drivers for your
server computer.
Regards,
Wez @ RealVNC Ltd.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lui Yiu Hang
> Sent: 15 May 2005 09:54
> To: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Su
Renato,
The pattern that you've specified allows connections from any address
starting with 192.168.0, so accepting from 192.168.0.40 is correct. Perhaps
you meant:
192.168.0.1/255.255.255.255,-
Regards,
Wez @ RealVNC Ltd.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[E
At 9:14 on 16 May 2005, Renato Rolando wrote:
> I tried personal version 4.1
> Added password access
> Added access control 192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0,-,
> (I checked the right ip address on registry section because the
> interface have some problems to save correctly ip)
> Restarted service
>
> N
I tried personal version 4.1
Added password access
Added access control 192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0,-,
(I checked the right ip address on registry section because the
interface have some problems to save correctly ip)
Restarted service
Now I try to connect from a pc like 192.168.0.40
I'm able to put
45 matches
Mail list logo
