Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Does Shareware X-Chat for Windows Violate the GPL?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the when-script-kiddies-get-kranky dept.

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.

2 of 594 comments (clear)

  1. SCO by stevedekorte · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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...

  2. Their FAQ only adds to the suspicion by Saucepan · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    I prefer the BSD license myself, in part because the GPL is so prone to producing so much of this kind of tedious drama. But the fact is that if you include third-party GPL code in your product you must be willing to pay the price, and the FAQ you quoted all but comes right out and announces that GPL violation is taking place:
    Q. What about the LGPL libraries you link with?
    A. The source code is here if you wish to download it. The bugs I've fixed have already been submitted to the relevant bugzillas with patches.
    Unless the source code they are making available includes the patches that were used to build the exact versions of these third-party GPL libraries that are linked with the binary they are distributing, this is a GPL violation.

    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.)