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
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.
We weigh them against a duck!
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
(I'm getting really annoyed that Slashdot keeps double-spacing my lists...)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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
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
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.
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 know nothing of any shareware XChat. I just download the Windows binaries straight from Xchat.org and use them."
well if you download 2.4 from there and set your clock 30 days into the future you will see the problem.
graspee the modded down one
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)
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.
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)
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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
You need to reead and gain an understanding of the GPL obviosuly you've missed some very important points.
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.
No, no, no. You jumped to the right conclusion in the wrong order.
How do we know if they're made of wood?
They burn!!!
No, no, no. We see if they float. How do we know if they float?
Toss them in the river!!!
No. Think. What else floats?
*various suggestions, then finally*A duck!
That's right, a duck. And how do we test that?
Weigh them against a duck!!!
I know it's not totally accurate, but I haven't seen the movie in soooo long.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
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.
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.
According to the article, "gettext tools" is GPL. The "tiny library" he links to is LGPL.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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.
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
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.
"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.
- <li> it'd be a lot easier if you didn't put <br>s before your <li>s.
- <li> If this guy's work in portng the X-Chat is worth so much money, what about the people who contributed the original code that he's porting?
<br>
</ol>They contributed their code in the understanding that it'd remain free. Now they've got someone holding it randsom; offering them the choice of letting him sell it while keeping the full fee or pulling it out piecemeal.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
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.
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
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.
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'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.)
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?
Except it's not.
The GPL doesn't go around infecting other code. It's not contageous, other unrelated code doesn't suddenly become GPLed. Only derivative works are affected.
If you want a genetic metaphor, it's more like a dominant gene - a "child" (derivative work) of a GPLed work must also be GPLed.
Of course, unlike a dominant gene, all the descendants of the child will necessarily have it too. But it's still a better metaphor than "viral".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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
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.
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.
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
1. Write post.
2. Insert typos.
3. Correct typos in another post.
4. Karma!
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
In short... probably. For several reasons.
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 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.
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).
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
... 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
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.
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!
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.
"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." ---
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?