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.
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.
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...
(I'm getting really annoyed that Slashdot keeps double-spacing my lists...)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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. --
The article is deader than a doorknob run over by a Mack truck, so I'll just say this:
If the author provides the source code with every copy of the program, he's fine.
If you have to pay to access the program, but source code is provided when you pay for the program, the author is well within his right.
If the author provides a "time limited" or "evaluation" version, but only provides source code upon purchase, then he's in a gray area.
If the author provides no source code, period, and expects the existing code base to be sufficient (assuming he's made changes), then he's in violation.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If I remember what I read, it's just the one guy who's chosen to make his (the "official") win32 build of X-Chat shareware.
He also says that the other guy making a w32 build (SilverX) is doing it with his know-how. (And, according to another poster in the forum, is basically saying he can shut SilverX's releasing down.)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
As long as they own the copyright they can license it however they want. They can even dual license it, GPL and/or Firstborn.
GNU argues that when someone contributes code into the code, the original code can no longer relicense it.
personally, i don't think this is ethically acceptable, and probably wouldn't hold up in court, unless the amount of code is substantial
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
Nope, it's door number 3. He admits he doesn't own all the code, but merely promises to remove and rewrite himself any code he didn't write if the programer asks.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I read the article...though I accidentally closed the tab, so I'm doing this from memory.
If the author provides the source code with every copy of the program, he's fine.
He is not. He's adding his own work to the base X-Chat code. And is using that to release a closed application (the win32 X-Chat build).
If you have to pay to access the program, but source code is provided when you pay for the program, the author is well within his right.
Don't know, but I don't think that's the case.
If the author provides a "time limited" or "evaluation" version, but only provides source code upon purchase, then he's in a gray area.
Not sure...My copy of X-Chat for win32 is pre-close.
If the author provides no source code, period, and expects the existing code base to be sufficient (assuming he's made changes), then he's in violation.
That appears to be his situation, based on the article.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Actually if you have cygwin installed (including gcc), you can just compile the source yourself, and start distributing the prog out free of charge. With the source code being GPL'd, the crippleware timer is basically there to get people to pay who are too ignorant to build the software themselves.
GNU is absolutely correct, and is _really_ correct in other countries. This is why many large OSS projects have a single copyright holder and require copyright assignments to the copyright holder. Every signifigant contributor of code (for example, code which would be copyrightable on it's own) needs to agree to a global relicensing. What isn't "ethically acceptable" about this?
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
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
It's not closed. He's providing the source as per the GPL.
Free = freedom, not price. I can charge you "1 meeeelion!" dollars for a copy of X-Chat, right now, as long as in my installer, I include the GPL, and a notice that the source is available at the X-Chat site (oh, and of course, any modifications I've made to said code as well, if any).
He hasn't changed the license. He's changed the method of distribution. He's still 100% GPL-compliant.
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.
You're missing a critical element. It appears that he's distributing the source as well as the binary. The GPL does allow for reasonable charges for distribution, and as long as the recipients of the code can use it per the GPL, he isn't in violation of the GPL.
The interesting thing is that if he's distributing the application as shareware, he needs to be distributing the time limited code to anyone who receives the time limited binary, and the non-limited code to people who buy the unlimited binary.
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
The win32 binary you can download is NOT reproducible from the source download. IE, he's providing a binary from his own, modified, private sources. That's a GPL violation.
If I'm required to give the source code out, can I conveniently withhold any makefiles / antscripts, or does that fall under the realm of "source code"?
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
The source code you can download cannot be used to produce the binary. The binary is apparently produced using unpublished modifications of the GPL code - a clear violation of the GPL. The guy releasing it claims copyright to 'the good bulk of the source code' and as copyright holder he clearly has the right to modify that code and release it under a different license. However, there are also very significant portions of other peoples work in it, as there have been several other developers contributing to it as a GPL project. This guy does NOT have any right to use their contributions in a non-GPL project, and that appears to be the main issue here, because he somehow seems to think he does, that he can just assume that all of the patches and contributions he's recevied to his GPL project can now be treated as if they were his personal property. They can't, and I have a feeling he's about to get a very quick and somewhat brutal education on that point.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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
The distribution of source code must include everything reasonably necessary to build the code as a binary. So, that includes makefiles. See the following from the GPL:
" The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
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
FYI, gettext is GPLv2 only. The library it appears he's linking it, however, is LGPL.
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.
No he's not. If he's distributing a binary containing GPL'd code he needs to make the source available to anyone to whom he distributes that binary. Period, end of story.
(Yes, the GPL does allow one to charge for the service of distributing source, but "no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution", which in this day and age is $0.)
That's irrelevant.
It's not about selling GPL software, it's about distributing GPL software under terms which are NOT in accordance with the GPL. For example, as far as I can tell from reading here, the Windows version source is not made available to anyone.
That is a violation of the GPL. And that would require the permission of all contributing authors, since they submitted their copyrighted work under the GPL license.
(Just in the same way as anyone else distributing GPL:ed software may not distribute it under any other terms than those of the GPL. It doesn't matter if you wrote 0% or 99% of it, as long as you are not the sole copyright owner, you will need license from those who are.)
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!).
The question isn't about removing the code, that you must do if you don't otherwise have permission. The question was about "offering to remove the code", "offering" to do something isn't the same as actually doing it. Furthermore, it is totally unnecessary for the copyright holders to respond to this "offer" in order to reject it. The rejection is implied(see my first sentence).
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
Erm, I think the possessive relative pronoun your searching for is "whose".
This is getting a bit off-topic, but there is actually a case where the GPL can "infect" another program.
The scenario is this: Anne writes a bit of software, and releases it under a BSD-style license. Bob takes Anne's program and links it with his GPL'd software, causing that copy of Anne's program to come under the GPL.
Now, at that stage it doesn't make any difference - Anne still has her program under the BSD license, and anyone else who wants it can get it from her.
But suppose when Bob adapts her program, he makes some big improvements to it in the process? Those improvements are GPL'd, so Anne can't just put them into her BSD'd copy. If Bob refuses to contribute them back, she just can't use them.
And now Bob's version is clearly better, so the people who were using Anne's version start using Bob's version, and contributing their bug fixes and changes to that version. Oh dear... all those changes are GPL'd, too! And if Anne wants to keep her BSD-licensed version up to date, she'll have to go to every single one of those people and ask them for permission. Some of them might not even know her version wasn't GPL'd in the first place.
In essence, in fact, Anne no longer has control of her program. The GPL has infected it, and she can't benefit from any of the contributions that people are making any more.
Yawn - much ado about nothing.
If people actually bothered to read the info regarding the Win32 port on the xchat website, instead of making assumptions, you'd see that it's a storm in a tea cup.
Taken from the Win32 download page of xchat.org
As you can see, there's absolutely no GPL infringement taking place (or anything close to an infringement). The source code for the Win32 port is still available for downloading. All the author /builder is charging for, is the time and effort required to compile the Win32 binary - nothing else.
Hmm, what if you generate a hardware ID based on system configuration stuff that would be kind of a pain to change, and then you check with a server on the net each time to see how many days are left (since you're on the net anyhow) I suppose you could throw some PKI in there too.
The problem is he's not just providing a compiling service.
The version that he's providing is *modified* and no source is provided for the modified version.
Transgaming uses X11-licenced Wine source, not the GPLed branch; they aren't required to fork over code even though they do provide CVS access for most of what they ship commercially.
Codeweavers uses GPLed Wine source and adds helper programs that are not GPLed.
Overall, I like Codeweavers take on it since it compells them to share the critical code with a larger group. Transgaming doesn't have to and can be selective if they want (ex: no safedisc support in the public CVS repository code).
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
As long as he provides the source to everyone who downloads the shareware version...
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
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.
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
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.
From section 3 of the GPL (with emphasis added):
It's more than that, if they distributed binaries linked against GPL'd programs, or statically linked against LGPL'd programs, (as is apparently the case), then the corresponding source code must be distributed under the GPL or LGPL, respectively.
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 think your use of the passive voice ("was GPLed") is misleading. He wrote a program, and helicensed it to others under the GPL. Some people sent him patches, apparently without any explicit license statement.
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.
You're saying that because he had licensed his code under the GPL, all contributions were licensed to him under the GPL: even though none of them followed the basic GPL requirement of including the GPL notice. I just don't think that's going to fly in court.
It seems to me that Zed may make contributors angry, but they don't really have a legal leg to stand on.
One way to get back at him for his mistreatment of contributors is for them to explicitly GPL all new contributions. Then he can't incorporate them into his shareware release.
If nobody contributes anything that he wants to use, he'll get away with it.
"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.
The source code has no mention of 30 day evaluation or registration - thus the published source doesn't create the published binary.
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Relevant?
http://forum.xchat.org/viewtopic.php?t=484/
... but it seems that it also the OpenSSL licence
Right, no free tools. The first link is the same compiler/linker included with VS.NET 2003, so I'd hardly call it stripped down.
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
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!
"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." ---