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.
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 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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
According to the article, "gettext tools" is GPL. The "tiny library" he links to is LGPL.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
My understanding of the GPL says you can't just release the Linux version of the source if you release a Windows binary: You have to release the Windows source and the make files to build it or you are in violation.
Releasing the Linux only version is no different than taking Open Office 1.1, modifying it to "Bob's Office 1.2" and selling the binary but only releasing the source to Open Office 1.1. This is NOT complying with the GPL, since you are not releasing YOUR changes to someone else's GPL code.
As to the contributers, they contributed to a GPL project. If they did not state what license they are contributing under, then he has illegally distributed their code without any license from them. This is copyright infringement against the contributers. He could assume that they were contributing under the GPL if it was a GPL project (not smart, but reasonable) but he can't assume it was simply given to him as PD. Unless he has a statement saying the contributions were in the public domain, he MUST assume they are copyrighted.
If I contributed to this project, and someone did this, I would be very pissed off.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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!!!!
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.
This is no good. This is copyright not trademark. If I write GPL code I don't have to enforce the terms at all. If you break the terms you are breaking the law, whether or not I raise a stink about it.
This guy's pretty savvy...he's betting that most of the code contributors won't care (or pay attention) enough to demand that he remove their code from his binary.
That would be like me releasing some ultra-cool media player based on the stolen Win 2K source code (haven't seen it - no idea if it actually contains media player). Then justifying it by stating that you'll take out any source if the original author complains.
MS would sue you in a heartbeat and clean you out. They could show that you willfully infringed and you'd be up the creek for triple-damages.
Copyright isn't opt-out - you have to have a license to redistribute. In this case, the original authors did provide a license - the GPL. Which of course only lets you redistribute if you include the source of any changes you make to it, which he is not doing...
A saffy code contributor has 5 years to register his copyright from when it was released. (S)he can then sue the bastard for statutory damages. This is a wilful copyright violation for money. Judges really don't take a shine to things like that.
Neither does the law.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
If you add onto a GPL application, the entire thing has to be GPL.
Thus the claims of GPL being viral.
While this is "potentially" funny, it only really is if you actually believe something like the GPL isn't clear. Since I believe the GPL is very clear on what you can do with software licensed under it I personally don't find this particularly funny.
The only people who don't find the GPL clear are people who are trying to get around it. Such people than attempt to delve into every nook & cranny claiming they've found a loop hole, or such-and-such a situation isn't covered.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
The source code to the base application is still GPL, it's the additions to make it work will for Windows that aren't.
The shareware-type time-limitation, on the other hand, certainly is not GPL compatible.
blah
he's offering people the oppertunity to have their code removed.
I'm offering artists the opportunity to have their songs removed from my P2P MP3 colelction too, just contact me!
There's minor differences because of things like padding. That's not whats happening here - there are (or so I gather from the mirrored posts available) patches and modifications to the xchat source to allow compilation under windows. Certainly the 30 day timer is a modification.
You're close, and in this case it might not matter because he's distributing a binary that everyone is a potential recipient of. Who the distributor and recipient are matters alot, though. First, the more obvious ground rules;
Yet...it gets more complex. The GPL is an unusual licence because it has built-in to it the ability of the recipient to distribute to others. Optionally, the licence also grants the ability to also make changes and distribute that changed version to a limited set of recipients.
The GPL grants distribution rights; it does not impose any obligation on the recipient unless the recipient exercises those distribution rights. Specifically, the GPL does not require that the recipient return any changes back to the distributor (though for practical reasons that is commonly done).
For example...
In this case, the Windows binary could be sold by anyone to anyone as long as the recipients were given the source for the GPLed parts when they ask for it. Hard to keep your list of recipients limited if it's offered as shareware!
The sticky details:
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Why didn't they go after Sveasoft then for charging $20 for the binaries and $49 for the source?
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.
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
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
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.
that's more like a property of the BSD license.. the same happens if bob makes his version closed source and manages to build a large community around it.
but somehow bsd-l fans seem to be happy about that, but unhappy about gpl.. kinda weird
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).
If they contributed to a GPL project, they DID state licensing terms: They specified the GNU Public License.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are three distinct issues you bring up.
First, is the broad brush. You classify all of Slashdot readership / posters as a single entity. While you ignore the fact that as Slashdot has grown, it's collective voice has become considerably schizophrenic as different individuals step forward to express different views on different subjects. If you want to make a case of hypocrisy, you're going to have to track individuals (and their many guises). Not lash out at a fictitious single voice of a random crowd.
Secondly, the unique opinion. You act as if this general theme of "we only honor what is ours" is unique to Slashdot. The world is full of this attitude. And it is certainly reflected within industry. That doesn't make it right. But don't try to pin this on some kind of unique Slashdot group think.
Finally, share and share alike. The argument that you're making... the basis of your general point on hypocrisy... is that the Slashdot mind think sees nothing wrong with copying intellectual property. Yet when "their" intellectual property dragged off behind closed doors, they scream. You'll note that there's a common theme there - share and they're happy. Granted, the merits of this "information wants to be free" mentality is certainly up for debate. But it IS much more consistent than you'd make it sound.
The key point is, what would a judge think? And in this case there would be no shortage of expert witnesses willing to testify that patches with no explicit license have an implicit license identical to the original codebase as a matter of course (being derived works).
The other key point is that Zed has pissed off pretty much every contributor with this move, as well as almost certainly breaking the law. I don't understand why - if he hated doing Windows binaries, he could just stop and let somebody else do them. If nobody else could do them satisfactorily, pull Windows support entirely. Screwing over contributors like this is totally bogus.
Q. What if I compile my own version from the source code?
A. You are quite welcome to do so, and redistribute it under the terms of the G.P.L. license.
this doesn't make any sense: if, according to the GPL, he would be free to redistribute the windows binary under a shareware license why I'm not?