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
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
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.
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.
Why didn't they go after Sveasoft then for charging $20 for the binaries and $49 for the source?
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