About Windows release licensing.

[peterz]

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]

"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^]

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]

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]

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 ...

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]

[Ganf]

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]

[RonaldHummelink]

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.

Good, but its not relevant.

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.

Contributers are /still/ copyright holders of that code, which means you must have a licence to use their code in xchat. This license is logically GPL, sicne Xchat is normally GPL. Nothing else grants you the rigth to use contributers code in xchat. You /must/ have all contributers agree on a license change. I doubt you have that permission.

You Link Gettext and GTK statically.
Gettext is Pure GPL-2. This fact demands you release the linking code as GPL which you do not. (the fact you also offer a gpl source release is not relevant, the shareware release is simply illegal)

As for the LGPL gtk, read point 5 of the lgpl, i already made clear xchat shareware is a violation so not going to try and truly understand these paragraphs.

By not respecting the GPL like you do, you have lost the right to distribute /any/ code that is licenced to you under the GPL (The contributions to xchat, and gettext, and gtk, and thus xchat for linux as well) -- The GPL auto terminates once you violate it.

Be lucky i don't find the dutch translation of gtk in your release, else I would cease and decist you, I contributed to the gtk dutch translate and thus hold copyright on parts of the nl.po file in the gtk releases; And that contribution is definetly not relicensable to shareware.

Include it and get cease&decisted. For now you don't violate /my/ copyright so nothing to fear from me, you do have to fear others.

3) You can download and use 3rd party builds (like SilvereX's).

Totally irrelevant

It's also worth noting that alot of the knowledge needed to create SilvereX's build comes directly from me.

Noble, but irrelavant.

--
Peter.

Off course you don't have to believe anything I say in this post, but take this advise: Write to the FSF and ask them if your shareware release is allowed, you are linking gettext which is copyrighted in full by the FSF.

[xeon]

I have an open letter I sent to Zed at http://xeon.get-linux.org/open-letter.php.

You may want to read it.

[peterz]

Off course you don't have to believe anything I say in this post, but take this advise: Write to the FSF and ask them if your shareware release is allowed, you are linking gettext which is copyrighted in full by the FSF.

It is only linked with LGPL libintl. Only the gettext _tools_ are GPL.

[RonaldHummelink]

Off course you don't have to believe anything I say in this post, but take this advise: Write to the FSF and ask them if your shareware release is allowed, you are linking gettext which is copyrighted in full by the FSF.

It is only linked with LGPL libintl. Only the gettext _tools_ are GPL.

Very well, but in the whole picture it doesn't matter, your rights under the GPL are still terminated by relicencing your contributers code. (IE not accepting the GPL)

Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting:

You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:

I don't see a mention of gettext in your executable.

[Ganf]

It is only linked with LGPL libintl. Only the gettext _tools_ are GPL.

verified, it seems you are right. Sorry for this wrong request.

[berarma]

I don't think the problem with windows development will get away relicensing it. If that's the real problem you should just let others do it. If your goal is getting money then there are other ways to do it that don't take away freedom from the source. I think the relicensing is a step in the wrong direction.

XChat is already a great well known program that is used by many to show off free software to windows users. It would be a pity to see it walk the non-free path. Anyway it's your decission, I hope you get it right.

Good luck and thanks for XChat.

[Xipher]

The source for the program is still being released UNDER THE GPL and is being made avalible(sic). This means you can go, download the source, and build it yourself. He is not violating the GPL really, just saying that when he makes a installer, he will charge for that paticular one. I don't see the complaint, Slackware, Red Hat, etc all have ways of BUYING a copy if the distro, but you can still get every thing off there servers for free, and make the iso yourself. sometimes one is provided. This is no different then that to me.

the only tiny problem I could see, is with the reg system. but since he programed that himself, I guess he could hold out on putting that in with the original source some how?

[NoMercy]

I have used X-Chat for a long time, and I would like to make one point.

Pathces are derivitive works from the publicly released sources, those sources are covered by the GPL, thus all pathces are derivitive works of a GPL work, and are thus licenced de-facto under the GPL.

Distribuing a binary build without source, with any of those patches in even with the permission of the authors may be dubious (there still derived from a GPL source), but probably allowable.

[Xipher]

As long as the source is still avalible, especially via the web, there isn't any problem that I can see where it violates the GPL. He can charge for the binary, but since the source is still free, and even includes some instructions on building it for win32, it sounds fine to me.