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 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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));
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.
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.
"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.
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
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
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
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.
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.