Branches
Comments
[»]
Very disappointed over the commercialisation of mindterm
by dazdaz - Jul 1st 2002 11:33:02
We're all *very disappointed* this has become
commercial.
This is a modified version of MindTerm 1.2.1 which is GPL'ed.
http://www.isnetworks.com/ssh/
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Very disappointed over the commercialisation of mindterm
by David Becks - Sep 11th 2003 09:54:48
Don't be disappointed, just use a free client! This thing is dated and
archaic anyway. Try SSHTerm, it's free (GPL), supports SSH2 and has a
funky interface, unlike the sloppy, amateur effort published here. Check it
out:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/sshtools-sshterm/?topic_id=156%2C44%2C43
> We're all *very disappointed* this has
> become
> commercial.
>
> This is a modified version of MindTerm
> 1.2.1 which is GPL'ed.
>
> http://www.isnetworks.com/ssh/
>
[reply]
[top]
[»]
MindTerm for Private Use?
by Darin B. Many - Mar 12th 2002 16:32:13
I can't seem to find MindTerm (for personal use) on the website anymore?
Has something happened? Is it no longer available?
--
Darin B. Many
dbm1175@yahoo.com
[reply]
[top]
[»]
The license of MindTerm v1.99
by Mats Andersson - Dec 8th 2000 11:07:23
Since many have asked (and with right) about the license of this software I
wanted to clarify this (the confusion comes in part from the fact that the
website has not been updated, we're working on that). MindTerm has been
around for over 2 years it has been GPL almost from the beginning. However
the license of the SSH2 package has not been decided and hence the license
of MindTerm v1.99 can't be GPL (or anything else for that matter) until
this is decided. The license will be decided before the end of this year,
until then the v1.99 will be a demo with a restricted license and no source
code will be made available. All code up to and including v1.2.1 is and
will of course be GPL.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: The license of MindTerm v1.99
by Patrick Michael Kane - Feb 2nd 2001 12:54:24
This raises an interesting issue. I assume v1.99 is not a complete
rewrite. So, if any GPL code from v1.2.1 was contained in it, it would be
in violation of the GPL. But, since Mindterm is the company that has the
rights to enforce the license and is unlikely to sue themselves, it's a
defacto acceptable violation.
Interesting situation to think about for other commercial, GPL projects.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: The license of MindTerm v1.99
by jasonjayr - Feb 2nd 2001 20:04:33
Since these guys are the original creators, (i assume) Can't they change
the license as they see fit? After all, they are the owners of the
original source code. Anyone else after them would be prohibited from
distributing it.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: The license of MindTerm v1.99
by aldem - Feb 2nd 2001 21:34:23
> Since these guys are the original creators, (i assume) Can't they
change the license as they see fit
True. They can change license as they want and when they want,
regardless of original license or changes in code.
BTW, concerning GPL, if you read it carefully:
---snip---
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
---snip---
(Terms and conditions, Article 0, paragraph 2).
So, even GPL may not restrict _use_ of some product (so I still may sell
it without any distribution, for instance :).
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: The license of MindTerm v1.99
by Paul L Daniels - Feb 3rd 2001 01:03:10
> unlikely to sue themselves, it's a
> defacto acceptable violation.
>
Glad to hear this, now I can put my lawers away,
as I am selling as a commercial package code which
I wrote (released under GPL originally, but now BSD).
What however, about the code that was contributed
by others into your own project? ie, such as
patches, fixes, features?
--
Paul L Daniels http://www.pldaniels.com
Linux/Unix systems Internet Development
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Author contacted
by Steve Killen - Nov 30th 2000 14:33:22
The author has been contacted regarding the previous post.
--
Defending innocent grammar from harm since 1979.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Where is the source code? The license is NOT GPL.
by Erik de Castro Lopo - Nov 30th 2000 14:24:03
The license on this is supposed to be GPL but the source is
nowhere to be found. In addition the LICENSE file in the
binary distribution contains restrictions in addition to the
GPL. One of these is as follows:
'You may freely use the program provided that you fall into one
of the categories "Private use", "In Non-profit
organizations", "For system administration" and
"For evaluation purposes".
This rules out the use of the program for commercial purposes
and therefore contravenes the GPL.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Awesome!
by WesMo - Mar 9th 2000 15:09:39
This little (187k) Java Archive gives just about everyone an easy to use
SSH interface. If you get the source, and manage to figure out how to sign
it yourself, it has the capability to do full tunnelling.
Haven't tried anything but the most basic functionality, and, I have
to admit, it works well, and is SOLID.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Does it tunnel back through 443?
by Mitch Wyle - Feb 2nd 2001 13:33:09
What I want is to get a vt102 ssh shell open back to my server via SSL
(443). mindterm appears to launch a java applet terminal emulator that
tries to open port 22 (ssh) back. 22 is blocked from the public places
where I would normally need mindterm.
Does this release let you tunnel back via 443 to the web server whence the
ssh port (22) can be opened to whichever machine you want the shell?
Thanks.
--
It is smarter to be lucky than it's lucky to be smart.
[reply]
[top]
|
