Slashdot Mirror
Does Shareware X-Chat for Windows Violate the GPL?
pc486 writes "The popular IRC client X-Chat has recently come under criticism as to whether or not the new shareware Windows version of the IRC client violates the GPL. All sorts of points are being persued, such as pure GPL Gettext linking, gtk translation worries, copyright issues, who's code is what and more." This is a complicated tale of GPL licensing, so beware.
The equivalent access clause says they can't charge more for the source than for the binaries.
Once someone has a copy of the source, they can easily fork it.
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.
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)
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
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.
When I write software and release it under the GPL license, I choose that particular license to ensure that the source code can be improved upon by anybody, and that those improvements can be used by anybody. That is the reason I chose the GPL. If I didn't care about this particular issue I would have chosen a different license.
Just because an application is distributed free - as in price - does not mean it is a less serious violation than when the software is distributed for a fee.
--
I'm not the author of any of the code used by X-Chat. However, when somebody did use my code in a closed source application I would definately object to it.
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.
If a principle is only a principle when "big business does it" then what is the point of the original principle?
More to the point, the drafters of the GPL utterly rejected that proposition, violation of the GPL is violation of the GPL, regardless of how many employees you do or don't have.
Lastly pally, you seem to think that everyone should just pipe down and be happy they are getting something for nothing. They aren't, this free software doesn't spontaneously code itself, real people do that. When real people contribute their time and effort with no financial compensation and little formal recognition, perhaps their motives are worth examining. When you begin this examination, you start to realize that only certain projects seem to collect these voluntary laborers, and the vast majority of these are GPL. The sophisticated observer at this point will stop, ignore the fact that the software is free, and maybe begin to wonder why this is, and how come there is so much of it. I'll submit to you that maybe, just maybe, it is BECAUSE of the GPL that all that free software is available.
So perhaps we should look a little deeper before making crass observations about just being happy things are free, and maybe look at some of the why's and wherefore's and maybe developing a more sophisticated view of F/OSS than "something for nothing" (Which it most certainly is not, ask some-one who writes code...)
As for X-chat, every individual who has contributed code needs to step up and demand the code be removed. The rest of us should remove the program, cease any participation in the development thereof, and make clear to the developer that we cannot accept his interpretation of the GPL, and that no OSS project can survive in an environment of apathy, which his current actions are virtually guaranteed to create.
In summation, lock both the developer and the original poster in a small closet with RMS.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
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.
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