Slashdot Mirror
Does Shareware X-Chat for Windows Violate the GPL?
pc486 writes "The popular IRC client X-Chat has recently come under criticism as to whether or not the new shareware Windows version of the IRC client violates the GPL. All sorts of points are being persued, such as pure GPL Gettext linking, gtk translation worries, copyright issues, who's code is what and more." This is a complicated tale of GPL licensing, so beware.
And of course, no google cache yet. Good times.
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Gee. I'd think that those programers who worked on the project for free would REALLY care!
I'd also think that anyone working for any GPL would care.
I'd also think that all of the individuals, corporations, and governments using and working with GPL software would care.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
No I didn't read the article, but I can already tell that this is going to stir up alot of hatred towards GPL software.
The only other nice IRC client in windows that I can think of is Mirc, but its not free like Xchat. Why can't the developers of Xchat for Windows get it right the first time before turning people off to a good alternative to Mirc.
why do witches burn?
because they're made of wood
how do we know if the x-chat authors are made of wood?
SEE IF THEY BURN!
x-chat mirror!
Just because there ain't no posts don't mean nobody gonna read it first.
Probably means they're actually reading first, which is a big step forward, in some eyes.
Me, I'll just have to wait for the AC text-only mirror.
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
The forum is slashdotted, but I would think that xchat could release thier program under whatever license they wanted to. Even multiple ones.
I'm going off of memory, which may not be correct at all. But here are my assumptions:
X-Chat is free
X-Chat may or may not be open source
X-Chat borrows off of other GPL code
What's the big deal? Its a free project that no one is getting money from. Now if it was a big corporation, trying to make a profit off of GPL'ed code, I'd see a problem, but this is just silly.
The thing I notice most about GPL and open source in general is how many internal flame wars ensue. Just be happy things are being passed around for free. No need to worry about how lawyerly the coders can understand the lawyerspeak in the GPL license.
I'm requalifying my statement to only be valid if my assumptions are true.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
The equivalent access clause says they can't charge more for the source than for the binaries.
Once someone has a copy of the source, they can easily fork it.
But as far as i can tell, they are only selling the "binary' version of X-chat for windows.
On the page it says that you are free to download the source code.
So how is this any different from RedHat and others?
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
The link is dead, but the GPL is pretty clear on this.
As long as they own the copyright they can license it however they want. They can even dual license it, GPL and/or Firstborn.
If they incorporate GPL code it must be GPL, if they don't, it doesn't need to be. If it uses GPL libraries and the authors didn't license it, it might be a violation, but it does take the copyright owner to complain about infringement.
The GPL says nothing about price, the GPL does not forbid you to sell your software commercially. It only stipulates that the source code should be available, and anyone should be able to use and copy, and modify it... And that's all still the case, even for the shareware version...
Now move on people, nothing to see here...
Sure, They can release their own code however they like, but not other people's code they use. That's exactly what the GPL is for: to prevent community work to be taken into a proprietary product and thus depriving the community from the enhancements made to its own code.
Hi! Typical Slashdotter here!
I haven't read the article, in fact I haven't even read the GPL, but I can say with authority that I don't like RMS.
So rather than address the issues presented, I thought I'd make some ad hominen attack on RMS instead, because I know I'll get modded up with little effort! And I'll throw in a GNU/Joke as well, because it's easier to attack small things than big things.
Oh, and I thought I'd mention some FUD as well: the GPL is more restrictive than any other license out there, and the fact that there are so many disputes (three this year alone!) proves what a badly-written and unfree license it is. I prefer the BSD license (which I haven't read either) but the BSD has no restrictions so it's better.
Also, I'm going to 1) claim that RMS demands things of other people, and then 2) demand that this product use the BSD license instead.
Thanks for your time! GNU/RMS GNU/sucks!
A) If its shareware and linking to pure GPL libs, its in violation.
B) If its shareware and linking only to LGPL libs, it is NOT in violation.
C) In ANY case, the code that is their sole intelectual property or property of the FSF but sublicenced back to them (standard gig for FSF software), they have the right to make it as closed proprietary stuff as they want.
NO SIG
Precisely.
If XChat incorporates any GPL-licensed code that they don't get relicensed appropriately by the original authors, then they are in violation.
Why bother releasing it as shareware anyway? Why not release it as freeware?
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
I know nothing of any shareware XChat. I just download the Windows binaries straight from Xchat.org and use them. Anybody who buys a shareware variant is obviously wrong in the head.
:)
BTW, any mIRC lovers should try XChat, it kicks ass and is my favourite IRC client
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Given that it's shareware with a 30 day binary license, does this mean that since it's sourcecode is GPLd, they must provide the source to the code which enforces the 30 day trial? Strictly udner the GPL this should happen, but it would be suicide if someone could just come along, request the source and use it to break the crippleware timer.
I don't see any way how one could lock a user out after 30 days without it being breakable from seeing the sourcecode.
GPL was written by alawyer in fact where have you been lately say the past 15 years?
ever here of the lawyer for EFF?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
It says on the site that the windows version of Xchat is "free for 30 days", after which you must pay the guy 20 bucks. Since the GPL places no restrictions on use (aside from redistribution, of course) this can only mean one of two things:
1. He owns the copyright to all the xchat code (unlikely) and is dual-licensing xchat in a similar way that QT is dual licensed by trolltech.
2. He doesn't own all the code the and he's infringing on the copyright of the other xchat contributors (unless they all agreed to this dual-licensing too)
propz to gnaa
What would worry me more is the distribution of MySQL under a commercial license using 3rd party code which is owned by the Free Software Foundation. Untar the source code (mysql-4.0.x.tar.gz) and look in the pstack/ directory.
Granted they distribute it under the GPL license too, but it does not give them the right to distribute 3rd party GPL code under a GPL incompatible license.
Banu
After all, the violators can easily re-structure the source code, use a different compiler with distinct compiling option than the default GCC settings, and encrypt the code with some executable packers to make sure any violation claims will never hold up in court. Given they operate in the dark, there is no way for (not so) average detectives to find out any evidence of GPL violations within the executables.
It's not in violation provided they let you have the sourcecode - which they do, conveniently for download next to the binaries. I don't see the issue here. If people want the sourcecode they can have it , in compliance with the GPL.
So, they cant release thier own code under whatever different licenses they want and they just package the other necessary pieces with it and make the source for like gtk or whatever availible? It doesnt seem to me like they are changing a bunch of other GPL stuff and then "stealing" it. But rather simply not making their source code availible.
I guess I could be wrong though.
Caught in another lie, Darl :D
Does the binary shut off after 30 days??, otherwise it s just the xchat folks cashin in on the fact that windows users are used to paying for things, and wasnt xchat on a gnu/windows cd before to promote free software on windows, but i just downloaded xchat for windows before this and was thinking the same thing, seeing it on slashdot shortly after - wierd
... is/was the best IRC client for windows ever - do whatever you need in it. Still closed source, mind... but good closed source - whatever I mean by that.
The site is slashdotted. Can anyone quote the accusation text within the site before the traffic jam?
I knew it was just a matter of time before the forums became slashdotted. For those of you who are locked out:
Basically, Zed (the author of Xchat) decided to stop release free Windows binaries of Xchat. He is still releasing the linux binaries and, of course, the source, for free. Zed will continue to produce binaries for windows, but now it's shareware. Use it for 30 days, then pay a one time $20 fee, or stop using it (I'm sure it's complete with Regiser today! spam).
The major arguments:
Xchat claims to abide by the GPL. If Zed is going to continue to use that license, then he needs to keep the windows binaries free because he can't possibly contact all of the contributing authors and get their permission to charge a fee for their GPL contributions.
If he wants to charge money for the windows binaries, then he needs to drop the GPL licensing because his shareware violates the GPL on multiple counts (not being able to conveniently contact the contributing GPL authors doesn't immunize him from having to do so before he can charge money).
Zed initially indicated that he was now charging for windows binaries because of all of the work involved when compiling for windows. He said it took too long, was frustrating, and he wouldn't do it anymore for free. I started a thread that suggested he slow down the windows binary release cycle, to half pace. Release windows binaries every other major release, and you have half the work. It seems his real reason for going shareware is money, not time spent (although they are related, of course).
imo tbh you can't be GPL compliant, use and compile 3rd party GPL code, and charge people money for it without the expressed consent of the contributing authors.
Too bad, too. I'll spin "another one bites the dust" for Zed and Xchat as a viable alternative to mIRC in windows.
Sembrate una manica di imbecilli!
(you may use Babelfish to translate the above comment)
Why this is being released as shareware in the first place? Surely anything released under the GPL is full, free to download, with the source code available to change. Yes, it may be Microsoft Windows, a closed source operating system, but it is good to introduce open source alternatives (and the GPL as a whole) to the Windows environment and its users, to let them know of what open source feels like.
That post was clearly too entertaining for this crowd. Post instead some ambiguous statement that contains an obscure reference to something remotely related to linux. They will laugh out loud, and applaud a post that recognizes their sheer superiority to the rest of the world.
Friends at one well-known software developer have told me that everybody gets a lecture on keeping a firewall between free software and their work, even to the point of being discouraged from peeking at GPLed code. It's not worth losing a job over especially since they're paid by the hour to come up with code of their own.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
This is Slashdot. Slashdot doesn't operate on any sort of intelligent, driving logic, it operates on heated misunderstanding, ideological warfare, and name calling. On Slashdot, the same people who will vocally and vehemently denounce the RIAA for suing infringers (that is: for legally enforcing their rights on their content) will hop on over to a story like this and cry for the heads of anyone who "violates" the GPL (that is: they'll demand that the developers enforce their rights on their content).
If you haven't figured it out yet, the overall setting of Slashdot is akin to a preschool playground when it comes to any sort of intelligent discussion or critical thought. The nerds that hang out here (they're not "geeks" - most of these buffoons know nothing about the technology they yelp about, they're just trying to look "cool". Most of the "geeks" abandoned this crapfest long ago) feel such an overwhelming sense of entitlement that I'd be surprised if they don't think it's unfair that random people don't stop and blow them on the sidewalk. Frankly, I don't think you could possibly find a website with a stupider, more childish "it's all mine" attitude and userbase than Slashdot. So, why bother? Join in the fun and flame/troll away. The S/N ratio is already so poor that nobody could possibly notice anyway.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
" 23-Aug-2004
Due to the large amount of time and expense expended in creating X-Chat for Windows, it will only be available to registered users from now on. However, you can download and try 2.4.0 right now."
If its gpl how can he bar access to gpl software? Is it really gpl anyway? I know your supposed to allow for a reasonable fee but come on. I guess he could just release a semi-proprietary version in 2.4.1 but even then there are restrictions and he would have to provide the source.
I can see this happening more and more. Companies using GPL software but having no intentions of living up to its goals and trying to bar anyone from redistributing what by all rights should be free. Hopefully enough of the code is written soley by him so he can just go closed source which really seems like the best solution all around.
Well its simple enough really in the end I guess. Don't use or support X-chat. There are plently of other Free chatting clients available. And if you are a software author who doesn't like what the gpl community is about stick with BSD licensed software or write your own from the ground up. Save us all the hassle.
It is absolutely true. The ONLY reason you would want to use the GPL is if someone else uses your software and makes something useful out of it your name is still on the credits.
Everyone thinks its ok to take music from musicians without anything in exchange but none of you are willing to do the same with your own work.
If people are looking for a nice alternative client for mIRC for their Win32 systems i would highly suggest you give HydraIRC a try.
They have a full right not to make their source code available. They don't have a right to distribute their code commingled with GPLed code to the degree that the code is non-functional without the GPL code, unless they distribute the whole under the terms of the GPL.
If the guy wanted to take a GPL'ed product, mix his own code with it, and use it privately, no problem. The GPL doesn't control use, just distribution.
Alternatively, the guy could get permission from all of the X-Chat authors to use their code under an alternative license.. but if those authors haven't consented to licensing terms other than the GPL, this guy doesn't have legal permission to distribute copies of the GPL'ed code under any other terms than the GPL.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
His release of it implies ownership. If I 'bought' a copy of his X-Chat program, and then turned around and gave it to you, Would I be in violation of his copyright? But then is it his copyright to enforce?
See the problems?
I hope that if X-Chat is going to have troubles with the GPL it will encourage more developers to help with Mozilla's ChatZilla.
With Mozilla Calendar (Sunbird), Browser (Firefox) and Mail (Thunderbird) already spun off into interesting projects in various stages of development, how long can it be until we have a trule OSS IRC client from them as well?
I've been using iChat for a year and its fine for IRC use already.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Hey, freedom isn't always free. The GPL has to restrict people who would take away other software users' freedoms. Is this so hard to understand?
You don't need anyone's permission to sell GPL software. That's what all the commercial distro makers do. The question is only whether the source code is made available or not (bundled with the app or on demand). Producing and selling binaries of GPL'd software is a perfectly legitimate business.
peterz
...
... Um... No.. The only thing he would be "required" to release would be any modifications to gettext, any derivatives work are his sole property and he can license them under whatever terms he wants. Not that I agree with this, but it's his choice.. [edit.. GAH! For some reason I saw this, read it, and thought LGPL through the whole thing. My bad! Okay. If gettext had an LGPL version then my argument is current, otherwise, I am mistaken]
Post subject: About Windows release licensing. Reply with quote Hi All, I'd just like to make a few short points, so I don't have to repeat them to those who have asked.
1) A GPL source code will continue to be available. 2.4.1, 2.4.2... will have a GPL source for *nix on this web page.
2) My particular Windows release is not released under GPL. Since people's source (patch) contributions have not stated any terms, I have decided to release this under Shareware, to protect the extra work I have done to make a good Windows release. However, I'll always respect peoples wishes. If someone has contributed some code and want it removed, you only have to ask (mail me personally), and it will be done. If this happens, I'll just rewrite the code myself, AND release it under GPL for your pleasure.
3) You can download and use 3rd party builds (like SilvereX's). It's also worth noting that alot of the knowledge needed to create SilvereX's build comes directly from me.
-- Peter.
graspee
Post subject: Reply with quote "Since people's source (patch) contributions have not stated any terms, I have decided to release this under Shareware"
It doesn't matter that people's contributions did not state any terms, they were contributing to a GPLd program.
kev^
Post subject: Reply with quote Quote: It's also worth noting that alot of the knowledge needed to create SilvereX's build comes directly from me. So basically you're saying you could kill the "competition" to make your release of the windows port exclusive. That's fine. Nothing's stopping me from keeping these old versions that I got and work. I refuse to get a program which shifted from a GPL-licensed program to Shareware. This shows the sole purpose of the writer changed from a personal project to something to help you financially. I'm sure you work as hard on the linux ports as on the windows. Surely not the same things are demanded but both got your equal effort but you're asking for profit from ONE of them.
Ganf
Post subject: Reply with quote Quote: My particular Windows release is not released under GPL Isn't it based on gettext ? gettext is GPL, every software wich depends on gettext *HAVE* to respect GPL. Question is : does your Windows build use gettext ? If you answer "yes" you *can't* release your build on another licence than GPL. When I download source I have a INSTALL.w32 which let me think you *are* depending on GPL code you don't own (eg. gettext). So
tresni
Post subject: Reply with quote Ganf wrote: Quote: My particular Windows release is not released under GPL Isn't it based on gettext ? gettext is GPL, every software wich depends on gettext *HAVE* to respect GPL. Question is : does your Windows build use gettext ? If you answer "yes" you *can't* release your build on another licence than GPL. When I download source I have a INSTALL.w32 which let me think you *are* depending on GPL code you don't own (eg. gettext). So
Ganf
Post subject: Reply with quote http://directory.fsf.org/localization/gettext.html : gettext is GPL only (not LGPL). [edit 30/08/04 : seems I'm wrong : the global gettext project is GPL but the tiny lib wich is linked is LGPL] Last edited by Ganf on Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:20 am; edited 1 time in total
RonaldHummelink
Post subject: Re: About Windows release licensing. Reply with quote peterz wrote: Hi All, I'd just like to make a few short points, so I don't have to repeat them to those who have asked. 1) A GPL source code will continue to be available. 2.4.1, 2.4.2..
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Hi All,
I'd just like to make a few short points, so I don't have to repeat them to those who have asked.
1) A GPL source code will continue to be available. 2.4.1, 2.4.2... will have a GPL source for *nix on this web page.
2) My particular Windows release is not released under GPL. Since people's source (patch) contributions have not stated any terms, I have decided to release this under Shareware, to protect the extra work I have done to make a good Windows release. However, I'll always respect peoples wishes. If someone has contributed some code and want it removed, you only have to ask (mail me personally), and it will be done. If this happens, I'll just rewrite the code myself, AND release it under GPL for your pleasure.
3) You can download and use 3rd party builds (like SilvereX's). It's also worth noting that alot of the knowledge needed to create SilvereX's build comes directly from me. -- Peter.
The rest of the thread seems to point out that he's using GPL libraries and thus has no grounds whatsoever for changing the license.
The idea that a contributor who doesn't specify a license is agreeing to whatever license the authors wants is idiotic. When the contributor doesn't specify a license, it should be obvious that they are implicitly agreeing to the license terms they recieved the software under (IE: GPL.) Assuming otherwise is just asking for a lawsuit.
The old, "my work is soo much more important than everyone else's" line of reasoning is laughable. Everyone thinks their own contribution is the most important one. Everyone thinks their package or program is the most important one. Free software works because the GPL requires you to put ego aside and work with the community.
I'll be OK with it as long as you can't slap anyone with a large brown trout.
For trule read true
For iChat read ChatZilla
memo to self. Proofread it first next time
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Or if you really want restrictive, under anyone's commercial EULA.
If the author wants to double-license XChat, that's great, he just needs to get consent from those people who wrote the software. Lots of products are dual-licensed under the GPL and other licenses.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
But is he refusing to provide the source code for the additions which make it work well for Windows? If not, what GPLed software is pulled in by his builds (LGPL doesn't matter, unless the modifications are to that code)?
Why do you need to hear it? It's pronounced: woot. What's there not to get? I can only think of one way to pronounce it.
"Hey, freedom isn't always free. The GPL has to restrict people who would take away other software users' freedoms. Is this so hard to understand? "
Absolutely it's hard to understand. Those users still have the freedom to use the original source if they want. But you have now forced the person who enhanced the original source to give away their freedom to keep their work private.
TRUE Freedom is giving away the source without attaching communistic idealogy to that freedom.
If he really hates shipping Windows binaries, he could:
1) Add source code to shut off XChat after 30 days with an --enable-thirty-day-shutoff configure flag.
2) Compile with above flag for Windows and offer for free download off of the site.
3) Compile w/o the above flag for Windows and offer for a $20 service fee.
The key, of course, is that the same code must be available upon request from a person downloading either binary. Certainly, this would result in someone compiling the binary without the flag and distributing it on a mirror site.
I imagine though that the license shift is more about greed though. I expect the FSF will step in soon enough.
Keep in mind, IANAL
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
It's not right: you shouldn't violate the terms of the GPL and promise to fix things when people complain. Maybe he can get away with it because he's too small to bother with, but think about what would happen if that became an accepted way of dealing with GPL'ed code: what if Microsoft or Sun did this? What about SCO?
http://www.kvirc.net
I unistalled mirc in favor of it.. it's a great IRC client! Everyone using mirc casually that is looking for a good Free alternative should look at KVirc
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
You cannot put the GPL portion of your application into a library and then create your own proprietary code that uses that library ... only if the other code is LGPL, which in this case XChat isn't (AFAIK).
The whole point is that this person has taken GPL code, added in more code, and not given the changes back to the community. Which is the whole point of the GPL.
Now if the GPL code was done by a people that all had relicensed their code to the new application under a different license, then there would be no problem at all. There is nothing preventing the copyright holder of GPL code from relicensing under a different license.
People don't like seeing other people profit off their own hard work that they've done for free. The GPL prevents this.
The GPL is very clear on how it works. You can decide: I'll release very soon and use this GPL software, and deal with having to release my sourcecode alongside, OR I can spend a long time recreating the functionality before releasing without any issues, OR I can pay money/beer/sex to license the functionality from someone and release without issues.
imo tbh you can't be GPL compliant, use and compile 3rd party GPL code, and charge people money for it without the expressed consent of the contributing authors.
Go read the GPL again.
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
There's nothing there with regard to pricing. You can take GPL'd code and sell it to your hearts content, as long as you include the source code with it. Note that it must be the compilable source code including makefiles or anything else that is needed to build the thing (section 3, GPL).
Furthermore, anybody who obtains said copy that way then gets all the abilities as you, and you can't really prevent them from giving the thing away to the world for free, if they so choose.
So he's fine to sell the thing. I'm not certain about the "shareware" model, but if he wanted to sell it boxed, for example, he'd be more than able to do so. As would anybody else who obtained a copy, really.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Unless I'm mistaken - and as far as I know I am not - the GPL does not state that you can't charge for the software, but you do need to make the source available which is still the case.
:
So if 100 people contribute to a GPL 'product' for "free" (as in beer) and another group of people take that project, compile it, and sell it, making the source still available, then those 100 people don't really have a right to complain. The moment they decided to put their code under GPL is the moment that they gave other people permission to take their contribution and make money off of it.
If that irks those contributors, rather than attacking those making money off of the contributions, they should either
A. Not contribute under the GPL license
B. Work towards making it known (to the world*) that one shouldn't pay for a product*** that is simply a compile of an otherwisely freely-available product.
C. Sell the product themselves**
* this is gonna be tough - there's plenty of people overpaying for so many products that can be gotten cheaper or even for free elsewhere.
** I think this is mostly the gist of it. These contributors are irked that somebody is making money off of their contributions (in part) and they're not seeing a penny of it.
*** Of course when it concerns a 'polished' product - e.g. offering support, a boxed version, maybe a 'GUI', I think that charging money for it, even though it incorporates free (as in beer) elements, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Just my 0.02
The question is if the source they distribute is enough to produce the same binaries. If so, I see no problem, even if they charge for the binaries. They would not have to contact the other copyright holders. If it is not enough source, then they would seem to be in violation of the copyrights of every GPLed piece of code incorporated into the binary. If they own all of those copyrights (doubtful according to the other posts here) then they would be ok... who would sue themselves? If they do not own them all, then the other copyright holders will need to do something to enforce the licensing terms. End users can bitch and complain but not much else.
Are you certain? w00t and woot are spelled differently.
Yes, compiling stuff for Windows is a lot of work and I see nothing intrinsically wrong with charging for the Windows version of an program that is open source on Linux. But, sorry, if he uses other people's GPL'ed source code, he can't do that retroactively. Those are not the terms under which people contributed code to XChat, and changing the license after the fact without consent from contributors is a violation of trust. Such behavior is bad for the entire open source movement. If you want to do any kind of dual-license work, you have to make sure that you don't put other people's code into your code under the GPL. The solution? If there is an old version of XChat to which he holds sole copyright, he can start with that. Otherwise, he has to start from scratch.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can download and use 3rd party builds (like SilvereX's). It's also worth noting that alot of the knowledge needed to create SilvereX's build comes directly from me. -- Peter.
Humility is the first sign of greatness. it is obvious that Peter is neither great nor humble. Wishing him every success in Future.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
If they didn't want to use the GPL, they should not have used GPLed code to write their product. There is no reason that you wouldn't be able to change the license of your product from the GPL to something else if you own all the code... it's other people's code that make it difficult to change. That's just how copyright works: the author of the code gets to determine who can copy it.
Doesn't matter, we already know all we need to know from the writeup, and Taco's hilarious ad-hominem attack in the "dept" line. when-script-kiddies-get-kranky dept
Haha this guys just a dumb script kiddy! He compiles for windoze so he must be teh ghey!
Last thing you need to do is hear his side of it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It might be a GPL violation, it might not be. The shareware distribution system seems suspicious. Let's say someone buys a copy and puts it on his server for all to distribute. This must be allowed under the terms of the GPL. He can charge for the binaries, but he can't stop anyone from redistributing the binaries to everyone in the world.
I'd check out the exact terms of sale, but the site is slashdotted at the moment.
This isn't a finger check. It's stupid. Doesn't anyone check their posts before they submit them?
So Zed selling binaries of x-chat is no problem. Just as long as he is also providing the source to it.
The examples of this are very easy to find. Every single distro of linux that sells binarie installations.
So zed has two options. Keep doing the windows binaries and charge for the fact that he is doing the compiling, exactly like suse and redhat do, but also make sure the code is available, excactly like suse and redhat do.
His other option is to just stop doing the windows crap. I can understand that he doesn't want to do it. If others want to do it for free then let them do it.
But him charging for x-chat binaries is no problem. Just as long as he doesn't restrict access to the source.
All this is based on what I understand of the GPL. I am not a lawyer but this discussion is nothing new. Just because most windows users are to braindead to do their own compiles doesn't mean they have the right to expect someone else to do it for free for them.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This sounds like one of those arguments between those who think that the "free" part of the GPL refers to cost ("free beer") and those who realize that it has nothing at all to do with cost and everything to do with freedom ("free speech"). This isn't at all going into a grey area or even into any of the remotely confusing parts of the GPL.
Simply put, the GPL does not prohibit charging for binaries. It doesn't even prohibit charging for source (and in fact, I believe RMS has said in the past that he favors charging for the source since it adds perceived value.. I could be very wrong on that, though). What the GPL prohibits is the recipient of the binary or source from redistributing for free later.
I first came across this style of distributing binaries with the QCad program. QCad is GPLed and is based off of Qt. You can freely download the source and build it yourself if you like. However, if you want a pre-built binary for your platform, then it'll cost you (roughly) $30. I think that's a great idea. What you are paying for, then, is the convenience of not having to build it yourself. Plus, in this case, it gives you a bit of a support contract which is not given for those that build it themselves.
Now say for the sake of argument that I thought that the QCad author was ripping people off (I don't). I could download his source, compile some binaries for at least Linux and OSX (QtWindows complicates matters so we'll leave that out) and sell them for $5. That would be totally legal and probably even ethical. It would also mean that I was being a jerk.. but the GPL says nothing about that.
So this entire XChat thing is all a bunch of hair pulling over nothing. They don't need any "okay" from ANY of the code contributors unless they change the license.. and they aren't in this case. If any of the (misguided) contributors insist that their code was meant to be used only in the "free beer" sense as well, then they have every right to create their own XChat windows binaries and distribute them on their own.
You can find Silverex's new .org domain (no link included, this is /.). And I think I speak for many of us when I say to Zed, ":(){ :|:& };: you!". You might as well remove that "Donate" button from your official X-Chat page: there's no risk of anyone using *that* anymore.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I know this is slightly off topic, but free X-Chat for Windows builds are still available, as one guy is and has been making them. I'm no expert on this sort of topic, but because X-Chat's page declared that anybody could make their own Windows builds freely available, I can't see it as a violation of the GPL.
Audioscrobbler
as someone else has said before me, this isssue isn't quite that easy to "brush aside", and has to be scrutinized a little bit more *IMHO*.
How is the GPL going to be interpreted?
As you point out "if they provide the source, too, then they ought to be fine", BUT, as 'parrent' pointed out, they don't provide the source for the resp. binaries they sell, the source for the win32 version; only the source for the *nix-platform(s).
so... how is the GPL going to be interpreted?
*) it suffices if one only provides source for one of the platforms <software> is ported to/supports?
IANAL .... but I'd say this area seems kinda like a 'grey area' someone hasn't shone a (bright enough) light on.
So I'd say, "no, this is still a (fairly) interesting topic to follow..."
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
About Windows release licensing.
peterz Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 125 Location: Australia PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:44 am Post subject: About Windows release licensing.
graspee Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 2 PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:58 pm Post subject Reply with quote
kev^ Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 6 Location: Montreal QC CA PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
It's also worth noting that alot of the knowledge needed to create SilvereX's build comes directly from me.
Ganf Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 3 PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Quote :
tresni Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 1 PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:39 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Ganf wrote:
Quote: ...
My particular Windows release is not released under GPL Isn't it based on gettext ? gettext is GPL, every software wich depends on gettext *HAVE* to respect GPL. Question is : does your Windows build use gettext ? If you answer yes you *can't* release your build on another licence than GPL. When I download source I have a INSTALL.w32 which let me think you *are* depending on GPL code you don't own (eg. gettext). So
"who's code is what"
you REALLY mean:
"who is code is what"
???
Read a book for god's sake.
Zed got tired of spending time and money on providing windows binaries. So he deciced to ask that in exchange for the binaries he be compensated. The code for xchat is there. Nobody is being stopped from doing their own compiling.
GPL is free as in freedom not free as in a free lunch. Zed is perfectly in his right to charge for his time. Just as long as he doesn't restrict access to the source he can demand your soul for the binaries if he wants too.
The intresting bit is wether he has restrictd access to the windows code. Providing only paid for windows binaries would be a violation of the GPL. If however the windows source code can be downloaded without restriction there is no problem. Anymore then Suse or Redhat charging you for their binaries x-chat (wich they do through their distro sales).
Anyway smartest thing for zed to do is simply to stop doing windows. Let a windows user worry about it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I am now charging $20 for copies of the Linux version of X-Chat! How about that? Its not wrong. It doesn't violate the GPL. You people need to actually RTFGPL before you go spouting off about some guy charging for binaries. Sheesh...
Keeping proprietary code secret isn't one of the "freedoms" that the free software movement is about defending. Free software is about the freedom to copy, modify, and have access to software source code. To guarantee those freedoms and to encourage the creation of more free software, the GPL has to place certain restrictions on distribution. In that sense, the GPL is better at defending freedom than more permissive licenses.
...let's review this just one more time: gettext is LGPL, not GPL, ok? He can use it in whatever commercial venture he likes.
I have written an open letter to Zed on this subject. Too bad it wasn't put in the original story, as I strongly believe anyone who comments on this shuld first read my open letter.
It can be found here.
-Devin Torres
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
Sounds a bit like the SCO case, but with the GPL folks as the litigators this time.
Makes it a bit more difficult to criticize SCO...
The thing about copyright licenses, is that if you break them you leave yourself open to be sued - but nobody's forcing the copyright-holder to sue. If they choose to let it slide, then the whole question is academic.
Are the coders of X-Chat (and associated GPL libraries) hostile to it being shareware? Are they willing to sue?
down with copyrights!! huh? wrong topic.. sorry i thought we were talking about copyright violation...
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
$5-$25 out of the blue for a good utility is not a lot and adds up, so the developer can even make a living (or a part-time job) do continue development of the product.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
RMS, when he started writing about the notion of what he calls "Copyleft", did so on the basis that Copyright is in fact, wrong, at least in what comes to software, and something needed to be done against its harmful effects.
The idea is that a community without copyrights would be better, but given the fact that they exist, the GPL can be used against its more problematic consequences.
Copyrights go against your freedom to share software, modify it, or help others by distributing your modifications. The GPL protects you by ensuring noone can deprive you of those freedoms. Its whole essence goes against Copyright.
So, no doubt the same people who value the respect for the GPL, and will use every legal tool to protect freedom, will be against the RIAA, and every other Copyright enforcer.
IRC-Junkie article on Xchat shareware Read more here, FreeNode #xchat is interesting too..
When the contributor doesn't specify a license, it should be obvious that they are implicitly agreeing to the license terms they recieved the software under (IE: GPL.)
Actually, in absence of a specific license, the code would simply fall under copyright laws, meaning that no one would have any rights to use it (except the original author, of course).
The author of the shareware seems to equate distribution of code with donation of code into the public domain, which is totally incorrect.
- Tony
Troll, troll, troll your post...
gently down the page....
rambling, rambling, rambling, rambling....
your post is just the same!
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Just like Stalin.. To keep communism working "certain" restrictions had to be in place to keep the population in line.
Sounds like you really aren't for freedom after all.
So all those who are ticked at him, ask the other devs to REMOVE THEIR CODE, or fork the project. Seems simple enough.
mirror of xchat windows binary.
404219: dc ab ab b7 15 61 fsubrl 0x6115b7ab(%ebx)
40421f: a3 5f 3c 68 03 mov %eax,0x3683c5f
404224: fb sti
404225: 48 dec %eax
404226: 54 push %esp
404227: 59 pop %ecx
404228: 58 pop %eax
404229: 63 d7 arpl %dx,%di
40422b: 9b fwait
Yes. Thats what leet speek is... They just replace the "o"s with "0"s because they think it looks cooler. Its stands for: We owned the other team.
1337 and leet are spelled differently also. What's your point?
I didn't say anything about licenses MORE restrictive than the GPL you illiterate tool. Nor did I say that it isn't wrong to use someone else's work without permission. Are you recommending the GPL only because it isn't commercial? There are other choices, your statements are a false dilemma.
I'm just not into the passive-aggressive S&M ideals of forcing other people to do things that the GPL is founded upon.
Absolutely it's hard to understand. Those users still have the freedom to use the original source if they want. But you have now forced the person who enhanced the original source to give away their freedom to keep their work private.
TRUE Freedom is giving away the source without attaching communistic idealogy to that freedom.
It is actually pretty funny when those who are unwilling to pay the price to distribute GPL'd code with their own resort to calling what is really a pure capitalistic license communistic. You want code? You pay code. How much simpler could a barter system be?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
It depends on who owns the code (ie. who owns the copyright). If its multiple contributors, then you may be right -- it may not be possible to ask all of the authors to release their code under a different license. However, if all the code is owned by one person or org. then he/she/it can definitely release the same source under any license they want.
My life is an open book ... up to a point.
Ahhhh!
This new learning amazes me Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes!
I think that'd be "chronological"... autobiographical is the meaning you'd get out of the result of chronological ordering. Just to be pedantic.
He'll give you the original Unix code, but not the modifications written by him (and others!). That's what makes this a problem. He tries to avoid by saying that the other people can "opt out" of the deal and he will rewrite their code. Too bad for him that's just not how copyright works.
You are entirely correct that the GPL allows charging any amount for binaries. The non-compliance isn't that they are charging money, it's that they won't provide the source code so that you can make your own binary because they would rather be the only source of Windows binaries (i.e. step 4, profit!).
My take on this is that it is ok for him to charge for Windows binaries, provided that he makes the changes that he does to the Win version available to the world with the rest of XChat.
He also has to make available to the world the source code for every library he links with thats covered under the GPL.
This means that he can't build in hidden/extra features to the XChat for Windows client without giving them to everyone. That, would be a violation of the GPL.
Based on how I've read the GPL and how I've personally used it, he hasn't violated the license provided he compiles with the source requirements.
I'll also note that this does not stop anyone from building a completely free and uncrippled version for Windows and releasing it to the public (since you have the same code he used to build his version, this shouldn't be too hard for someone with experience building highly portable UNIX/Linux GUI apps under Windows).
If you don't like how XChat is being done, may I suggest using my port of ircII EPIC4 For Windows at http://www.sosdg.org/epic4-win32. Source is of course, available to anyone and everyone, and its completely uncrippled.
Brielle
That's because the Hundred Years War began in 1337, while "leet" is the imperative of "let". See, two completely different things.
Why would programmers who work for free care? If you work for free you by definition don't care.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
All this blather from a troll with a uid > 640,000 who has made in excess of 2400 comments. I'll stoop to your level and observe that "it takes one to know one".
Just a thought on all the inevitable "free vs. free" threads here: what gets him in trouble is that he gave away binaries gratis. If he just wanted to say "if you want x-chat for Windows, pay me $20" (or whatever) and he sends the buyer the binaries and source if requested. This would be fine, since the GPL doesn't require you to distribute binaries and source to anyone in particular if you don't want to.
This is only a problem because he released binaries without charging for them. So, this might be an example of how distributing free (beer) actually gets in the way of distributing free (speech).
All's true that is mistrusted
why doesn't just allow CVS (like winex) and charge for the binaries? That way hardly anyone could compile it and it wouldn't violate the GPL. I'm not saying I'm in favour of this, but I'm fairly certain it would be legal
The issue is that they provide source for the last release, but the binary shareware version is different in several crucial ways.
It seems that Zed has been informed of his GPL violations and pointed to the specific clauses in the GPL but is toughing it out. I think, either he does not/cannot to believe he's in the wrong or he doesn't care.
Can you spell bloat? mirc install is less than 3mb, but look at kvirc at 17mb. The kvirc download is around 4 times as large.
Don't the terms of the GPL license in fact explicitly state that modifications to GPL code must be licensed under the GPL?
And doesn't the GPL only state that the source must be freely available with a binary distribution, not that the binary itself be distributed freely?
My understanding is this: he can't relicense someone else's code without their explicit permission but he is free to sell the binary Windows release however he sees fit so long as he *also* gives the complete source code along, under GPL, with the binary release.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
I'm just not into the passive-aggressive S&M ideals of forcing other people to do things that the GPL is founded upon.
Forcing people.. like forcing people to pay you to use your software? Why do you care about one forcing more than another?
I mean, come on.. everything in the world has a price, it's all a question of how that price is assesed and what it winds up costing you. GPLed software is cheap along many axis, but it has a cost and you are expected to pay it if you want to take advantage of it. BSD licensed software has its costs as well, in that anything you contribute under a BSD license may be used to compete against you asymmetrically. Some people are fine with that price, others aren't.
Claiming offense at the GPL's price in barter as if it were some peculiarly special burden seems odd, to me.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Yes, and they're both pronounced "woot". Like the other AC said about 1337 and leet, they're "spelled differently" but r pr0n0unc3d the same.
Wha wha wha...Someone abusing the copywrite system for individual gain??? (notoriety/press, shareware fees), it's standard practice.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
That's released under the Mozilla Public License, plus the GPL and LGPL, just like Mozilla itself.
One good reason for going with full-blown Mozilla vs. Firefox. Although from what I see here on mozilla.org it can be loaded in as a plugin to Firefox. I've just never done it...I just go with the Big Moz.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
1. Write post.
2. Insert typos.
3. Correct typos in another post.
4. Karma!
I can't get to the site to read what's really on myself, but it sounds like he is simply charging for the service of building a windows binary which, as I understand it, is completely allowed under the GPL. The GPL requires you to provide source code for any binaries you distribute, but it does allow you to sell the binaries. Therefore, the code is free, this guy's services of compiling the windows build are not.
That is legal as I understand the GPL.
Washing away everyone elses argument, the author states that no licence was provided with the patches, and asumes them to be licence-free, thus he can re-licence the whole package and put it out as shareware.
This is totally and utterly false, these patches are derivitive works of a GPL source, ergo they must be covered by the GPL and thus all patches ever made to the X-Chat project are GPL, and all patches ever made by anyone else to the project without written persmission otherwise must not be used.
Isn't copyright infringement a criminal matter these days? Can't you go to jail for it?
If so, the police could step in and arrest upon learning the details even if the copyright holders don't care.
Could someone who knows more please comment and enlighten us here?
AC
The only real issue seems to be that they are not providing the appropriate GPL licensed source that the binaries were built from.
If I want to write a binary that has a time delay in it, and then asks you to pay me money or it will disable itself... I don't believe I'm actually violating the GPL. Hear me out here....
The shareware like features are part of the program itself... they are NOT contractual obligations or other stipulations. They are part of the derived work that is created... just another one of it's functions.
The problem is that the source is not adequately provided.. if it were, we could just build up a new version without this feature, if we were so inclined.
The carefully-chosen, weaselly wording of the FAQ answer leaves little doubt that this is the case (although I can't tell for sure because their site is slashdotted into the ground at the moment).
It's very simple: the whole point of the GPL is to give users the right to learn about and modify the program they are using. If the source code they are making available can't be used to compile a Win32 binary with identical behavior to the binary they are distributing, including any nag screens and 30 day timeouts, then assuming they have linked with third-party GPL code, they are violating the GPL.
(Of course, if they wrote all the GPL'ed code themselves -- and were unusually scrupulous about requiring outside contributors to sign over the copyright on their contributions -- then the code is theirs and there is no issue. But I gather from elsewhere in the thread that this is not the case.)
No way, man, it's not stealing! Don't you read anything here? We've been all over this with music. It's not stealing to copy and share music...how is this different? Hey! It's not!
By golly, if we can copy and share music in violation of the licenses that we get with our CDs, then why can't Zed do the same thing? He's just hip to the new non-stealing idea of expropriating intellectual property! Get over it!
Since the source is still available for free, I fail to see how Zed is in violation.
The Windows source is not available for free, only the *nix source. The Windows version is binary only shareware built from GPL code, and thus in violation.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
Simply put, X-Chat is in violation of the GPL if it uses GPLed code without providing the source code for said Windows binary. However, it's reasonable to assume that a free Windows client can be produced using the source tarball + a Windows version of GTK+, and thus any violation that might arise is probably minor.
Ie he is the creator He can change the licence if he likes. But if anyone wants their code out he will ie it's speek now or lose it.
This is perfectly all right but he sould have removed other people code and then asked if he could use it.(A lot less upset people this way.)
The headline is highly misleading. You cannot violate the GPL. By not following its terms you violate the copyright law. It might be subtle but it is actually extremely important, because:
I hope it makes things a little bit more clear.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
He is distributing a binary, the source he provides does not produce the binary. He is violating the GPL. Period.
It definately is a violation of the GPL, as he's releasing a binary of a modified GPLed source code without actually releasing the source. We know this, as:
* People released additions on the original GPL code, and it's safe to presume he's already used them. Even if no license was specifically stated, as the patch was for GPL code it is already GPLed otherwise THAT code would be in violation of the GPL license. Allowing people to remove the code in question by e-mailing him isn't good enough - that exception obviously isn't in the GPL. He's legally allowed to relicense his own code as much as he likes, but he's not allowed to relicense others.
* The binary expires after 30 days. I can safely assume that some code would have to be added to do that to the basic *nix source which contains other peoples GPLed code contained.
* There are no "easy to compile" Windows source. We can assume that he must alter the code to allow it to compile. He hasn't released the code changes, while used other peoples GPLed code.
Clearly in violation, unless he's compiling the shareware binary and not releasing the source based on a version which only contains his own code (which the author has already admitted isn't true).
But either way, it gives people even more reason to use mIRC - a closed source shareware app that's fast, efficient and doesn't expire even after 30 days. And, whatsmore, it's much, much better than Xchat - I've used it for 8 years now and I'm as happy as ever.
Does anyone really care about shareware XChat for Windows? Surely the majority of Windows IRCers are using mIRC anyway, and it's not like XChat was the ONLY free (as in zero-cost) Windows IRC client out there anyway - check out leafChat and Visual IRC for a couple of examples. Or if you absolutely MUST have an Open Source IRC client, there's always ChatZilla.
Totally off topic, but...
The most accepted origin of "w00t" is that it is short for "wonderful loot", taken from an online rpg (Everquest), expressed at times of slaying other players and then looting their remains.
Other possible origins are:
1 The one you mentioned.
2 "Wohoo, I got root!"
3 Some expression used in a 30's movie.
4 "Waste of our time"
I think the generally accepted explanation is right. Imho it has a true ring to it.
No 1 feels like something some CS kid thought up when he read W00t after he was pwned, and then frew his own conclusions.
No 2 might be true, hacker lingo tends to cling on. But I guess then we would be quickly told that our explanations of w00t were very wrong from the beginning.
No 3 was probably thought up by someone who heard something that sounded like w00t in some old movie and thought he found the origin in an unexpected place.
No 4 doesn't fit the (triumphant) context where w00t is commonly used. But, it is the explanation that is best fit to describe this utterly meaningless post.
w00t!
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
Just like the right to live.. to keep the right to life working "certain" restrictions had to be in place to keep the population from murdering one another.
Sounds like you really aren't for freedom after all.
Nah, we should fork the project instead.. X-Chat is too good to be killed. It is a very good, clean, usable client you can teach anyone to use in a few minutes. I personally want to be able to contact people by IRC, and I want to be able to provide them with a good, clean, easy-to-use client with a decent graphical interface. And of the clients available, X-Chat is IMHO far better than the rest.
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
It is possible to use cygwin and the GPL Linux version of X-Chat in Windows, thereby avoiding the shareware license (which I personally find violates the GPL because X-Chat uses GPL libraries).
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
You'd think some of these idiots would check the damn facts before writing this crap. From The Xchat Homepage Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed? A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still download the source code, released under the G.P.L.
Whats wrong about this? WinGIMP.org does the same thing, so I get my GIMP for Windows from somewhere else.
Whether or not he can do this depends on the licence he has for other peoples code. Just because you're contributing to a GPL project doesn't automatically mean you have to licence your code under the GPL. It's the person distributing the code that is bound by the GPL, not the contributer.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I cannot believe that the author is willing to risk his good name with the F/OSS community for such a small amount of money. I mean, what are we talking about here: $1000, $2000...over the course of the next two years? I am sure that if divided his potential earnings by the time making the installers, re-writing any source code in question, marketing, processing registrations, etc. it would not come out to much more than you'd make working a part time job somewhere. If he does not want to do the Windows installers anymore, that is fine...somebody else will step up to the plate, but don't sacrafice a reputation this is so hard earned in the F/OSS community.
I remember vidomi trying this and according to FSF it was a valid option. you have your main program that doesn't do much and then you have all the GPL in a dll file which the program itself referenced. without the GPL portion it only played video (i think). If i am correct most/all of the code of vidomi is GPL'd
If stealing music.... If duplicating music has taught as anything, it's that source code wants to be free. If the GPL authors don't want their code copied, they shouldn't release it in such an easy to copy form.
-- You're too stupid to be an atheist.
yes I believe he has the right to do this for the most part.. It still doesn't stop me from calling him a dumbass for doing it...to release the same program on two different platforms one shareware one GPL seems like a breach of the spirit of OSS
Yes, but if someone sends you some code and says, "here ya go, I fixed a bug in your program", that must confer some sort of implicit license to distribute it as part of a new version, right? Otherwise why bother to send it in if you didn't want it distributed? Of course IANAL but that's how it looks to me.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
I was able to build xchat 2.4.0 on windows, just now. I would like to be able to up a binary of it (perhaps on xchat-win32.berlios.de) but sadly, the binary crashes when you try to connect to a server so it's useless right now. The thing compiled with no errors or warnings, and the gui starts right up with no problems. In the hopes that someone can get past the seg fault that's stopping me, here are the build instructions. They are a slightly modifed version of the INSTALL.w32 inside the xchat sources. That file, alas, is somewhat out of date. Also, I've read here that there are mysterious secret patches required on win32. I didn't apply any such patches. If anyone has them, do post them. I'm interested in setting up an xchat-win32 site somewhere.
.NET SDK, since only
l downloaded:r ent.zips -0.13.1.zip
g tk+-2.4.7.zip. bin.woe32.zip (labeled "GNU libiconv for Win32")g config-0.15.zip
Scroll down to the bottom for the details of the crash.
---------------
0. Installed MSVC.NET 2003 from CDROM. This would probably work with freevc++ and
vc7/bin/, vc7/lib and vc7/include/ are necessary (not MSIDE).
1. from http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/downloads.htm
atk-1.6.0.zip
atk-dev-1.6.0.zip
di
gettext-runtime-0.13.1.zip
gettext-tool
glib-2.4.5.zip
glib-dev-2.4.5.zip
gtk+-dev-2.4.7.zip
libiconv-1.9.1
pango-1.4.1.zip
pango-dev-1.4.1.zip
pk
zlib121-dll.zip (labeled "Zlib 1.2., official Windows DLL distribution")
2. from http://gnuwin32.sf.net/packages/libpng.htm downloaded:
libpng-1.2.5-1-bin.zip (Binaries link)
libpng-1.2.5-1-lib.zip (Developer files link)
3. Unzipped all this crap as-is into c:/xchat-devtools
Directories bin, contrib, src, include, share, test, man, manifest should have been created. Also,
zlib1.dll will be here, and a few text files.
4. Fixed the placement of 2 header files:
mv c:/xchat-devtools/include/libintl.h c:/xchat-devtools/include/dirent.h c:/xchat-devtools/include/glib-2.0
(This is Cygwin's mv. Drag and drop would work fine too..)
5. Added several things to path:
C:\xchat-devtools;c:\xchat-devtools\bin
6. run vcvars32.bat or visual studio command prompt
7. Do these:
cd xchat-2.4.0/src
nmake -f makefile.msc clean
nmake -f makefile.msc
Output is in fe-gtk/xchat.exe
--------------------
Crash occurs when you try to connect to any server. It breaks at:
vc7\crt\src\open.c line 181 in _tsopen().
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Otherwise we will see a new trend, any slack jawed yokal can just.. 1) set up a domain www.elitesoftware.org 2) garner people to write the new OS, elinux! 3) change licensing 4) ???? 5) $$$$$$PROFIT$$$$$
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Actually that wasn't what I was arguing.
He's not allowed to do as he is doing. He is trying to take GPL code which isn't his, break the terms of the GPL by re-licensing it incompatibly with the GPL and then selling it in a binary distribution.
He is allowed to do something *similar* to what he is doing. If he hadn't tried to monkey with the licensing he could go ahead and sell a binary version so long as he provided the source code.
With or without source code, the only thing shady about what he's doing is the re-licensing part.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
My only objection to X-Chat is the cluttered interface; it wastes too much screenspace on menus, buttons and toolbars. I just want a big history window, a text entry box and a small nickname list in a normal window border. That is all.
That is why I use mIRC and have paid for a licence.
They're timing out right now, but if we use these instead of the real links, maybe they're start working eventually.
X-Chat.org
The Forum Post
I think the problem is that this guy took contributions for years to a piece of software that was GPLed, and then claimed that the people contributing didn't think that their patches were "GPL", as they didn't explicitly specify them. Instead, he is using their code unless they explicitly tell him to remove it.
I would be very, very angry if someone did this to my code. There is a very clear and well-understood principle that when you are contributing code to a single-license GPLed codebase, that you expect your patch to be GPL. You don't have to slap a license on each patch -- it would be a huge hassle otherwise.
Zed needs to go back to CVS, eliminate every line of code that he cannot personally verify that he wrote, and start from *there*. If he wanted to relicense, he needed to either (a) ask each new contributor to explicitly give him copyright and/or license their code under a non-GPL license, as the FSF does, or (b) ask *all* contributors *ahead of time* whether they would like to relicense.
Frankly, this is bullshit. It is an abuse of the work and effort that others put into that piece of software. If XChat wasn't going to be GPL, it would, quite frankly, not be the official GNOME IRC client and people would have spent time working on other clients.
May we never see th
But he isn't releasing the source code to the *Windows* version, which *is* a requirement of the GPL, if he's going to sell that version.
May we never see th
I thought borland released some compilers for WinDOS that are quite free and have easily redistributed libs/binaries.
I'd swear I've seen a Qt book that has the Borland stuff on it, all you need is a WinDOS cdrom, and some stuff off cygwin.com and you're basically done, without giving an extra penny the the Great Satan. Source code on either side (DOS or Linux) uses Qmake project files and once it's setup it just works. I know this isn't Qt based project, it's a lot of Gtk and gnome, but shouldn't the whole process be similar?
Sorry for asking but wouldn't an XChat build for WinDOS XP and 2000 be the same? And once his build platform is set up why does he have to keep changing it?
Seriously...I've been building the same project with the same Makefile hierarchy for two years and three distro upgrades and zero code or makefile changes...under linux. It's usually a few hours to set up the build on WinDOS (when someone asks for it) but that's just cuz I build up the WinDOS build environment from scratch everytime (I haven't been keeping a prepped drive around).
Soemthing seems screwy whn he says it's so difficult on WinDOS.
Simply put, the GPL does not prohibit charging for binaries. It doesn't even prohibit charging for source (and in fact, I believe RMS has said in the past that he favors charging for the source since it adds perceived value.. I could be very wrong on that, though). What the GPL prohibits is the recipient of the binary or source from redistributing for free later.
"Shareware" with a payment requirement means that the software is not freely distributable, either in source or binary form (see here). That is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL. Therefore, you cannot distribute GPL'ed software as "shareware".
So this entire XChat thing is all a bunch of hair pulling over nothing. They don't need any "okay" from ANY of the code contributors unless they change the license.
If it's distributed as "shareware", the guy did change the license in a way that is incompatible.
of windows popularity.
.. hmm Perhaps the point is that more people use windows, and this is just an attempt to profit off them while stepping all over the idea of GPL for the sake of personal profit.
If its GPL, its GPL.
Simply dont make it for windows. Why do it? Whats the point?
wingimp doesn't provide a crippled shareware version and then not provide source code for that version.
It looks like wingimp charges for getting a copy of the software, and you can email for instructions on how to get full source code (look at the faq under distributing on a magazine cd)
5. Profit!
AC text-only mirror?
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
God knows we've gotten enough slang from EQ, but I've been saying "woot" since long before EQ was around.
Yes, I've been known to actually say it aloud when in nerdy company who will understand it.
Long live Corel! Corel Cache.
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
i have a four box home LAN. they all run debian in some form (zebian, woody and sid). my kernel for three of the boxes has been custom compiled by myself with the source freely available from a kernel mirror. duh, just what RMS says i should be able to do.
i could pay for this or do it myself. either way, i still get the code. i dunno, i like doing it myself better. plus my two ancient pentiums don't get tossed out and take up landfill space.
change source code!? jeeze, i have my hands full setting up an NFS server or network media streaming...and imma joe six pack user...oh yeah, thankyou LDP for all those howtos. i am damn near non windows dependant cepfer my mustik scanner and waynize sony cdburner interface. yes i can burn cds with linux, but sometimes the sony cdextreme windoze software is just way faster or (gasp!) easier to deal with even with my dualboot winme redheaded stepchild. the scanner is just an albatross that i need once inna blue moon.
ok, back on topic, er, what windows edition comes standard with a compiler anyway? non that i ever got with my big box bought pcs. jeeze, maybe i shoulda made more of a fuss when my sid desktop's compiler was effed up and wouldn't play nice. i kinda think the windows play area is not the best place to go playing in the gpl playground. wah, it won't compile for windows. step back to the end of the line, asshole. jeeze, use mozzilla chat if your that hard up.
Serenity now, insanity later.
"Most accepted origin" ?
n00b.
Actually, it's clear to me that that right is assumed (with, of course, an acknowledgement of the source) unless the patch author indicates otherwise.
A similar protocol is used for doing manuscripts. If you send me revisions on my text that I sent to you, you must assume I may use your suggestions, verbatim or in spirit.
If you didn't want the revisions included, you'd just write _about_ what changes needed to be made, but not actually make them (which is what a patch is, right?).
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I am not sure if it is indeed too much risk for potential offenders. AFAIK there aren't many studies done on such fields. Different compilers and executable compressors can mangle binaries in such a way that the 'original code' is almost irrecoverable. For 'easter eggs' stuffs (eg: copyright notices in source), encryptions probably take care of last trace of GPL evidence that programmers failed to cover up.
If you can't understand working for anything except monetary gain, then I pity you.
"1) A GPL source code will continue to be available. 2.4.1, 2.4.2... will have a GPL source for *nix on this web page.
Er, no, you do not get to choose to release *some* of the source code. If you distribute software which contains GPL code, you MUST make the source available to those who receive the binaries. Unless the Windows build is a complete re-write of the application, all of the code therein is bound by the GPL.
"2) My particular Windows release is not released under GPL."
While he's welcome to license his own software any way he likes, all GPL'ed software MUST remain GPL'ed, unless the original authors agree to the license change.
Again, unless the binary that he's releasing contains NO GPL code, or ONLY code which he has written, he must distribute according to the terms of the GPL.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Quoting some random snippits (which are misleading) from the xchat website doesn't prove anything. Storm in a tea cup indeed.
Let's write a more accurate FAQ for them:
Q. If I give you some money now, will you give me binaries from now until the end of time?
A. That's what we are saying currently, though we have been known to break promises in the past with respect to licensing terms. There's only one way to find out for sure: send us a check!
Q. Why isn't the Windows version free?
A. We got tired of updating it and compiling it for free, so we changed it to a shareware license without asking all of the copyright holders. We assume they think it's a great idea even though all the money goes to us.
Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed?
A. Yes. And the version you can download the source for isn't the same as the shareware binary, but we will try to confuse you about that whenever possible.
Q. What if I compile my own version from the source code?
A. We aren't going to pretend we can stop you, although we would really like to.
Q. What about the LGPL libraries you link with?
A. I'm glad you didn't ask about the GPLed libraries we link with. That's because it's copyright infringement. But as for the LGPLed ones, those are ok. We even contribute patches for them back to the community as required by the license (see, we don't always infringe other people's copyrights).
Hum I think you stupid GPL zealots are the fucking crooks. This guy busts his ass making some software that he gives for free, and then
next thing, a pack of bloodthirsty, threatening, insulting GPL subhumans are after him cause he wants to charge for the service of building Win32 binaries.
Ballmer Stallman
Capitalist Communist
Exploiter Exploiter
I read it as a jab at the people complaining, not the developer, actually. It's vague, anyway.
Relevant?
http://forum.xchat.org/viewtopic.php?t=484/
So, they cant release thier own code under whatever different licenses they want and they just package the other necessary pieces with it and make the source for like gtk or whatever availible?
Since GTK (and libintl, the other lib they use) are under the LGPL, they can. If they were under the full GPL, they couldn't.
But this isn't about GTK or libintl, or the author's original code; it's about contributions made to the main source tree. The author says that those are implicitly his to do with as he pleases. Those on the other side say that they are not his, and that they were implicitly under the GPL.
... but it seems that it also the OpenSSL licence
Xchat for win32 isn't even all that great.
It doesn't do a 1/4 of the things mIRC does and now they want to charge for it?
If I was a strict windows user and someone said "here, take this 30 dollars and go buy a IRC client"
I would definately spend that money on mIRC
Don't get me wrong, Xchat is a nice IRC client but its not worth the money.
Maybe this is a good way to get people to start using linux, but its really not fair to charge for a windows version when the linux version is free.
I don't see how they can justify taking GPL code that has been worked on by many different people who donated their free time and decide to start charging for it.
Did you write all original code for Windows or did you recompile Linux GPL code? If you wrote all original code for Windows you are fine. If you began with GPL code, all code that was added is automatically GPL, including any code you wrote yourself. You cannot simply remove code from GPL software and be ok. You have to go back to the point before the GPL liscense and start there if you want to have software that you can liscense under different conditions than those stated in the GPL. Not only that, because a big deal has been made of this, and because a lot of us care a great deal about the GPL, you will have to prove that the code you use was not GPL code but actually predated the GPL code. My suggested solution is for you to GPL all the Windows code and charge what you care to for the software. (That is the least you will have to do anyway.) Windows users are used to paying money for the software they use and will anti-up. Send them a CD or make them pay before your site allows them to download. Someone else may provide the software for free, but you will likely get most of the traffic since the software has your name associated with it. The GPL neither prevents you from selling the code nor someone else from giving it away for free. Furthermore, you can charge for consulting, and a lot of folks in your position make their living doing consulting about the software they have GPLed and continue to lead the development of.
First of all, there is a valid issue with what he's doing with XChat, but it has nothing to do with money.
I've seen a lot of posts here that appear to mostly have issues with his selling copies of XChat. As many people have pointed out, there is nothing in the GPL that prohibits selling Free Software; a number of companies make their living this way (Redhat, for one).
All the GPL requires is that you provide the source when you provide the binary. Because said source is under the GPL, it can still be modified, redistributed, given away for free, etc. This tends to drive the cost of GPL'd software to zero, which is why we're used to GPL'd software being free: if I provide a free program to someone for money, he can then redistribute it for free; he is completely within his rights.
The issue people are having stems from the fact that while the Linux source is available, the Windows source (or at least, the complete Windows source) is not. Now, if he were the author of the entire suite, or at least the legal copyright holder, he would be within his rights to relicense XChat at his discretion. The issue is that he probably isn't. Many people have contributed to XChat over the years.
Now, I say "probably" because we're on murky legal ground here. When you contribute a patch to a program, and don't provide a license to go with said patch, are you simply licensing your copyrighted modifications under the then-license of the program, or are you actually transfering the copyright of your work to the program's author?
Smart groups that care about this (the Linux kernel, MySQL, etc) force the issue one way or the other by making it explicit. The Linux kernel requires that all submissions be licensed under a GPL compatible license, and do not mandate (or even encourage) transfer of copyright. MySQL, on the other hand, requires that developers transfer copyright to MySQL AB.
In XChat's case, nothing was ever concretely specified. Now, in terms of "intent", one could make a convincing emotional argument that the developers who contributed to XChat over the years and didn't include a license with their patch (likely all or nearly all of them) would not have wanted their code relicensed. The question is, in a court of law, would they be able to make a legal argument? I agree with them. Peter is in the wrong in a karma kind of way. But from a lawyer's perspective, patches made to a program, fixes, that sort of thing, stuff donated without an explicit license: how is that dealt with?
If they decide that patches contributed without a license are "gifts" that Peter can use with impunity, then he is not in violation of the GPL: as the sole copyright holder, he can change the license, nothing illegal is being done.
If they decide that patches are implicitly licensed under the same license as the program to which they were donated (in this case, the GPL), but that they retain copyright, Peter is in violation.
As you can see, this is not as cut and dry as we would hope it would be.
As an aside, I think that Peter can make money and make everyone happy. Linux is easy to develop for, but Windows is not. Building a windows program is often difficult. Peter doesn't have to make building it easy. In fact, he could probably license the build scripts and project files he personally uses to build the windows version under some restrictive license; no one says he needs to distribute those. He could provide the code, allowing anyone who really, really cared to build the windows version themselves.
But because building stuff on Windows is a pain, dev tools cost money and don't come with the OS, etc, etc, I would bet that a lot of people would be willing to fork a bit of cash out for a built copy of Windows.
It's like with OpenBSD; Theo retains a non-BSD copyright on the layout of the OpenBSD CDs; therefore, copying the CD is a violation of his copyright. You can make your own ISO if you're really so cheap (many people do) or you can buy his
so long as he *also* gives the complete source code along, under GPL, with the binary release.
My understanding is that the source must be made available, even if it's by download later. Granting access by a paid Username/pass combination... also the GPL allows you to sell, the GPL doesn't state that the software has to be free, only that the source code HAS to be made available.
DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
how about this: provide source code for free, but charge windows users a nominal fee to download a .exe -- most of 'em wont know how to compmile it, and will pay. :-P
But he isn't releasing the source code to the *Windows* version, which *is* a requirement of the GPL, if he's going to sell that version.
I'm well aware of that, and I didn't say he was actually in the clear here... I was addressing the post above mine, which stated, more or less, that you can't sell GPL software at all. That's not true, and I was just pointing that out.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The source code has to be made available to anyone to whom you have provided the binary at no additional charge.
It doesn't have to be given to just anybody who wants it, but it *does* have to be available to anyone who buys the binary program and it *does* still have to be under GPL.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
My read on the second question (emphasized above) is that this sort of 30 day shareware timer is in fact an attempt "to require anyone who receives the software to pay a fee" and is therefore in violation of the GPL.
Well, 1337 might be an exception because it is all numbers, though it can still be pronounced leet. You generally pronounce all leet-speek words normally. Thus, w00t is pronounced woot.
Not that I encourage violating shareware agreements, but... ... since 30 days haven't passed since this is invoked, no one really knows what's going to happen at the end of the trial period! Perhaps there will be a small blinkenlight saying "this is a trial", maybe nothing at all. However, what would happen to future versions? I really like X-Chat, but I might have to move to the unofficial build...
- Code Dark
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the GPL it should be possible to do this:
One person pays for the Windows version and downloads the code for it, which he is entitled to according to the GPL. This is published, and we then have a fork. Any new code from the public GPL code is included in the forked code. Normally there shouldn't be any code changed only for the Windows version so we only need the Windows source once. Of course, unless the Windows source contains code that is not under the GPL.
Would this work?
This whole thing is a shame, since an important thing for more wide-spread desktop Linux usage is that you can use the same software (preferably free) as you're used to using in Windows. But that's another discussion!
*raises hand in objection*
I've been using "w00t" since before PCs could display 256 colors, mine as well connect to graphical MMORPGs
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
We dudes in the (some channel) on (some irc server) decided to to keep it free for all our friends out there.
Get your free copy of X-Chat 2.4.0 for Windows
http://www.jory.info/xchat/
"Oh, no! X-Chat has got to go! Go, go, ChatZilla!"
I don't understand any instructions that don't include ???, could you re-post your instructions in a more easy to understand manner?
1. He is not distributing the source code of his version, so legally it is as if distributed no source code at all. He does not comply with the GPL.
2. If there was no terms for submissions given, all rights by default belong to the copyright holder. There is no question of this. I imagine any larger work would have their own header specifying this licence to be GPL.
3. He admits the following, and he admits to distributing it for financial gain (To recover costs is a commercial gain, that is why you in many licences find a "distribution cost" exception). Sorry, but that's not it the domain of "If someone complains, I'll take out their code."
You know what that is? Criminal copyright infringement. [Title 17, Sec. 506(a)(1)]. No minimum limit. Punishable by $150,000 in damages [Title 17, Sec. 504(c)(2)] and up to 5 years in federal prison [Title 18, Sec. 2319(b)(1)].
He seems to think that there's some provision in the GPL that says "if you just comply if someone complains, all is forgotten". It is a common settlement offer, but it is not in any way required.
Personally, I would be inclined to file a suit with the DA if I found that my code was infringed in this way. The hardest point is to prove the "willful" part, here he's stuck his head in the noose and is kicking away the chair under him...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Where the GPL has a weak point in my opinion is over the linking arguments
In this case there is the gettext library which is released under the GPL, not the LGPL. As the (L)GPL relies entirely on copyright anything which can be done without a license, can be done regardless of the intentions of the (L)GPL.
I would guess that to distribute the library, you must do so under the GPL as you have no other license to do so, but if you ask the end user to download the library you need not accept the GPL for that library.
The act then of dynamically linking to that library is then the other question, but I would say that that does not require a license either. Libraries by their definition are intended to be linked to, and thus dynamic linking is simply using the library and not copying it in any way.
Consider a scientific book. You may write a paper that "links" to the book to explain in more detail the background behind something. That is not copying the books contents, merely using them. I would say that is akin to dynamic linking of software. You need no license to say "See this book for details"
If dynamic linking was to be clearly seen as requiring a license, consider all the operating system libraries. In order to write a program for windows, you would need a license. In order to write one for the Mac you would need a license etc.In fact, you could even consider the act of running a program to require a license, as it depends on the operating system itself. In order to prevent the GPL collapsing into very nearly the LGPL, then such a ruling would be needed. The additional fallout from such is unthinkable
This of course opens up a loophole for anyone wishing to mis-use GPL'd code. You release all the code you need as a library under the GPL. You then release your closed source program, which links to the GPL'd library.
Anyone wishing to use your program must download both, yet you have managed to bend the GPL so that it is ineffective to a certain extent. The GPL code is still availible under the GPL, except you can get away with using it and not releasing your code, only the original code. In order for you to distribute the GPL'd code you must accept the GPL for that code. For that acceptance to have any binding on any other code you distribute would be too far reaching for the GPL to stand up in court, as you would be entering in to the realms of contract law, and not just simply copyright licenses. The GPL states quite clearly it is not a EULA, and unless that were to change, it cannot be reasonable for it to have any binding effect over other code you distribute.
Someone abusing the copywrite system for individual gain??? (notoriety/press, shareware fees), it's standard practice.
So might makes right? Just cuz something is 'standard practice' doesn't make it right.
It's plain wrong to just assume that everybody who contributed to this project will agree with the license-change (I've yet to see any shred of evidence that he actually asked all of the contributors if they would let him use their code with the new license, only evidence of the opposite). Whether this is 'standard practice' or not is irrelevant.
chatzilla chatzilla chatzilla
or
is there something wrong
with chatzilla??
Thank you for being the first person to make this point. If only I had mod points right now...
This isn't messy. Messy would be if there was a case of Person A distributing Person B's GPL code as shareware, Person B protestingagainst this, Person C encouraging people not to pay Person A on the basis that A has no right to profit from B's work without B's approval, and Person D who is not obviously affiliated with Person A, B or C, taking some sort of direct action against Person C.
.....
..... it would have been delightful to see all those things done to the XChat developers, who are *at least* as bad.
The source code is sort-of available, as it says on the site. So what is now needed is for the copyright holders of any material used in the Win32 version of XChat (gettext for one) to come together and demand what is rightfully theirs, i.e. that the XChat distributors stop using their copyrighted code in ways of which they do not approve. Unfortunately, nobody else but the holders of the infringed rights can do this. The XChat developers will be up on a simple charge of copyright violation. Their only defence will be that they had some licence to distribute the copyrighted code in question. The GPL is conditional, and gives permission only if they have complied with its terms. They haven't. Oops. Like porridge?
Once that is successful, then anyone who paid a shareware fee should be able to try to sue to get it back, unless going to court for copyright violation bankrupted XChat
I didn't see any notices on the XChat site about what sorts of things they would like to do to "copyright violators" who don't pay their $25. Shame really
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"If you began with GPL code, all code that was added is automatically GPL, including any code you wrote yourself."
That is bullocks. An author ALWAYS has (and remains) copyright of hiw own work. He can decide to bring it out under whatever licence he choses, including dual (or more) licences. If he makes his licence available under GPL AND a proprietary licence, he can do so.
The only thing he can't do, is using other peoples' patches that were provided to him under the GPL-licence and use that in his proprietary licence-sheme.
If he removed all those patches and wrote them from scratch himself (or got the permission of the authors), he could and can easily sell his product as a proprietary tool (too). The GPL'ed version would remain under the GPL, however.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Well, maybe with the exeption of the universe itself. ;-)
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
In this case there is the gettext library which is released under the GPL, not the LGPL.
The tools (such as xgettext) are under the GPL, but the library is under the LGPL. That's why I was careful to refer only to libintl, not gettext as a whole.
I'll respond to the remainder without taking that into account.
The act then of dynamically linking to that library is then the other question, but I would say that that does not require a license either. Libraries by their definition are intended to be linked to, and thus dynamic linking is simply using the library and not copying it in any way.
To address the particular case: although the binary was dynamically linked to libiconv, it was statically linked to glib and gtk. Since you have to provide a way to relink the LGPL'd libraries, then that's a problem.
To address the general case: the issue of dynamic linking and the GPL has been debated at some length for several years. Here's my take on it, which is fairly similar to what GNU seems to feel.
The GPL doesn't discuss "executable files", it talks about "programs". It doesn't matter that the program is separated among multiple files, any more than it matters that it may have multiple code segments in an executable. You have to discuss the program as a whole.
If the libraries are intertwined with the program, so as to make them effectively a single unit, then it's a single program that happens to be in multiple files. To use your book analogy, consider a story that's in three volumes. The beginning of each sentence is in the first volume, the middle is in the second volume, and the end is in the third volume. To read the story, you have to switch between the volumes constantly. This is effectively a single book, despite being in three volumes; no volume is useful by itself.
On the other hand, a book which mentions another book is not the same story. I frequently am able to read and understand books without even looking at the bibliography. In this case, the book stands on its own.
This differs from your example of a proprietary program using a GPL'd library: the executable won't stand on its own without the library.
There's the alternate example of using a proprietary library with a GPL's executable. This is not very different, from a technical standpoint: the only difference between an executable and a dynamic library is where the _start symbol is, and whether the file can be stripped. From a higher perspective, they're still part of the same program.
If dynamic linking was to be clearly seen as requiring a license, consider all the operating system libraries.
That is specifically covered by the GPL:
In fact, you could even consider the act of running a program to require a license, as it depends on the operating system itself.
There's a similar issue in some case law. (Note: I'm not a lawyer.) Since the act of running a program requires making a copy (from disk to memory), it requires a license from the manufacturer. This is the legal basis on which EULAs were once formed, more or less. However, it's quite shaky, and I believe the current copyright law has a particular exception: copying that happens as a necessary part of the work being used in its normal way is exempt. But that's not really relevant to this issue anyway.
Of course, the library issue is fairly irrelevant to this case. The main issue is, who owns the copyrights to the contributed code? XChat's author feels that he can do what he wishes with that code (in particular, release a binary of it without offering source), while others disagree. They feel that the contributions are necessarily under the GPL, since they were modifications to GPL'd code, and the contributors never assigned copyright to the XChat author.
We all agree that selling the binaries does not violate the GPL, if the source code is still available (at least upon request). I found that the current *nix source includes a build instruction for win. So has anybody tried to build it that way? If the only patch not included would be the 30 day trial count, I think we all could live with it! If it is not that way, maybe someone should simply ask him to provide the source code of the windows version! Maybe he is just and will send you the source-code he used to build the win binaries from!
"Mine as well"? I believe what you meant to say is "let alone." HTH.
Legal or not, i'm sure there are not many peoples who like to buy it. Windows Users have much better IRC Clients than Xchat. The Shareware Release is shame and not the trouble worth. He possibly receive the same money with a Paypal donation Button :)
The Berne Convention applies in this case. The Convention states that the copyright with all rights reserved is assigned by default to the original creator of a creative work. If some people contributed code to X-Chat without stating terms, they have the default copyright. Because of the act of contributing to a GPL project (You cannot combine GPLed with non-GPLed code), it is understood that they agreed to release their code under GPL or a GPL-compatible license, which is one of the two possible ways to have their code included in the project. The second way is to release their code in the public domain, but it would be wrong and risky to make such an assumption. So, Zed should remove all code written by other people or ask all of them for permission if he intends to release X-Chat under a license incompatible with GPL. I am not a lawyer (IANAL).
someone else cannot assume that a licensee of copyright work can just... relicense that code under an alternative license.
.... or proprietary code.
end of story.
otherwise we would have microsoft relicensing the BSD TCP/IP stack as shareware
If anybody wants to distribute the binaries
Zed can take a flying F&*% on a rolling doughnut.
I encourage others to do just that (distribute
his binaries!) The GPL says you can do this.
He can charge for his binaries, but must give
out the source, and can't stop others from
distributing his binaries.
QED.
The Problem is the following:
a.) Developer A writes a programm and release it under the terms of the GPL. That means, all modifications and works based on this released source, must be also GPL. There is no exception possible.
b.) Developer B downloads the programm, discover a bug, and write a patch against it. Now comes the GPL rule: The patch ist GPL code too! Because it is based on a GPL source, the Programm released by developer A, Developer B can only choose the GPL as the license for his patch. There are no exceptions possible.
c.) Developer A receives the patch from developer B and incorporates it his copy. He is allowed to do this, because his copy is GPLed and the patch is GPL too. But now comes the trick: At this point, developer A can't choose another license for this copy because he used the GPLed patch. At this point there is no way to return.
If a developer would like to dual license a programm using GPL and a commercial license, he is not allowed to accept any patch! The reason is simple: The patches are based on GPL code and are itself GPL protected and can't be incorporated in a non GPL copy.
That's the whole point. But the auther of this xchat tool made a lot of other violations too. I think, he just didn't understand the GPL. IMHO, if he isn't willing to learn and accept the rules of the GPL, he should learn the rules on a court.
Disclaimer: it's late, IANAL, I'm hungry, yadda yadda yadda...
Maybe I'm reading into this wrong (and you have my apologies if I am), but maybe this is just a misunderstanding of the GPL by the author.
Let's face it, there are some issues the GPL isn't crystal clear on. What a derived work is is one of them.
Since the only person who is Zed is Zed himself, we can't be 100% sure he's doing this because he's an evil source code-stealing demon, or he just wants some compensation for compiling the program for Windows and got a bit confused.
Instead of writing letters telling him he is an immoral and villanous bastard, someone who knows the GPL inside and out could just politely lay out why what he's doing is wrong, and suggest alternatives. AFAIK (but IANAL) it basically boils down to: he can charge if he wants, but he MUST provide the modified Windows source code.
As someone who wants to contribute to OSS projects, but still be able to make a living off programming, I can understand why this might arise. Let's try educating him before we burn him alive.
We're geeks... We're the sorcerers of the modern-day world. --
I get everyone and their father off of using Mirc and onto xchat because "it's free and it's available for windows AND linux" and this jackass pulls this shit.
Thanks alot for making me look like a retarded monkey.
if he wants to pull this crap, say you're leaving the xchat team, get the other authors to relicense their code to you under a more restrictive license, then call it WinChatX.
No losers in that scenario- you don't disgrace the xchat name, and you don't have 600000000000000 people pissed off at you for spitting in the face of the GPL (which is what I feel he's doing).
What, afraid people wouldn't use your product anymore if it doesn't have the xchat name on it? guess what- they're just gonna switch back to mirc when they see yours costs money, meaning the rest of us are gonna get slammed with the business end of the next mirc worm that decides to spam us.
/me debates switching back to epic
/me wonders WTF this wasn't on the front page
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
I don't deny that the program won't stand on its own, but distributing a program that relies on a library does not infringe the library's copyright.
Distributing the library itself does, but not a executable that depends on it. Without it infringing the copyright there is no need to accept the GPL, and so the argument is moot.
Depending on the provisions under which the library is made availible, the end user may or may not infringe on the copyright, but the developer will not. I am being careful here to talk in terms of copyright and not GPL, as it is irrelevant what licenses the library may be under, if you don't need a license in the first place.
Taking your example of the three books where all the sentances were split across the books. Assuming they are by different authors and ignoring the question of why 3 authors would write such an abomination, there is no infringement by author 1 referencing author 2's book or author 2 referencing author 3's book etc. Without infringement there is no need for a license, GPL or otherwise.
Dynamically linking to a library does not, in my opinion, constitute making a derivative work of that library, thus knocking the GPL down to the LGPL.
This has been a problem before. If I make modifications to GPL code to get it to compile on my hardware AND then distribute the compiled binary I need to also release the code I added. However if all I did was alter some script or add script that helps with the compile then this is not needed.
It is a very unclear area as what happens when to compile GPL code on platform X I write a script that converst all variables from long to short? Is that a modification to the code or just a setting I used when compiling? Code modifications I need to give back, compiler settings I do not.
So does the bit that is different fall under the GPL? As I pointed out, unclearly, this does not have to be the case.
But if it is then he is in the wrong. Simplest solution. Stop doing windows. It is not like he is some evil outsider who is making hard money with others work. He is just an opensouce author of a nice piece of software who got tired of windows. Doesn't excuse him from breaking the GPL but no need to lynch him either on /.
Hopefully the situation will be sorted out and we will have come one step closer to making the GPL a clearly understood license.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The problem only creeps in when the author accepts code submissions from others; what is the licence regarding that additional code?
This is exactly why the FSF insists that when you contribute to a FSF project that you give the original author/maintainer full rights to your contributed code. That way they never need to contact you to should issues surrounding licencing arise. (in other words, you gave them the code, no strings attached)
Of course none of this applies if the original author is linking/using preexisting GPL'd code in his new project. Then, the whole thing must be released.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
I think you have it backwards, whether it's morally or even legally wrong or right is irrelevant. It's business and everything is weighed, nothing is forbidden.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Thanks very much for those instructions; if you need hosting of that binary, I might be able to assist; E-mail me at the above address without slashdot in it.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
So basically what yer saying is that licenses are really meaningless and as long as it's 'business' it's a free-for-all?
there are no IFs about it
he doesn't provide the full sourcecode
he's in violation
before you bitch about lusers complaining
about a free lunch, try and get the facts
that matter
sorry if I need to feed myself. Not all of us can work at 7-eleven and write free software.
Also you can safely ignore those conditions set, seeing as it's not enforcable.
My next software project will require you to sacrifice three virgins to redistribute.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
That's how capitalism works, and as an American citizen, every other economic system appears to me to be an attempt to regulate people's natural tendency to engage in it. In American it's ok to take what you can, unless you're posting to /. evidently (a common criticism).
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.