FAO Everyone complaining about charge for Windows binary

Discussion about the official XChat for Windows.

FAO Everyone complai

Postby Athon Solo » 25 Aug 2004 11:00

From the horses mouth...
irc.freenode.net #xchat
12:04:20 | zed> anyway... there's really no alternative, it's either contrib a few bucks, or there wouldnt be any windows builds

12:13:12 | Inner> zed: I know, needed to ask it to get to a point, so what is the point in charging money for something that someone else somewhere will compile and update and upload a binary for in the end, there for stands to logic no one is going to buy it for $20 anyway if they can get a precompiled version somewhere else.
12:14:17 | zed> right, the convinience, the extra bug fixes i put, the subtle improvements... noone knows the code better than i do, so it makes that easy


Athon Solo
User avatar
Athon Solo
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 04 Aug 2004 09:46
Location: Kent, UK

Postby farib » 25 Aug 2004 11:39

The only convenience other build cannot have is to be hosted on xchat.org with clear link download.
farib
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 24 Aug 2004 13:38

Re: FAO Everyone com

Postby pas_moi » 25 Aug 2004 12:26

Athon Solo wrote:the convinience, the extra bug fixes i put, the subtle improvements...


Errr, the sources are GPL. If you ditribute a binary version of a modified GPL software, your clients must have a free (as in free beer) way to get the sources.
pas_moi
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 25 Aug 2004 11:44

Re: FAO Everyone com

Postby laca » 25 Aug 2004 16:25

pas_moi wrote:
Athon Solo wrote:the convinience, the extra bug fixes i put, the subtle improvements...


Errr, the sources are GPL. If you ditribute a binary version of a modified GPL software, your clients must have a free (as in free beer) way to get the sources.


very good point. the sources ARE (supposed to be) GPLd. this would mean that if there's a binary release for windows, everybody should be able to have access to its source code. INCLUDING the "extra" bug fixes, and subtle improvements. why dont u just say that its not GPL anymore? then we (at least I) would go away and leave u alone.

as i see it, there are several choices:
    u could comply to the GPL, but then u would have to drop this shareware BS
    u could change the licensing (this would basically mean a complete rewrite of xchat)
    u could drop the windows version altogether, then all the problems would go away. noone can force u anyway to support a specific platform


i have read thru long posts about this issue, but didnt consider there was any issue to be discussed. u did a great job with xchat, u deserve something for your efforts with the windows version. as far as i'm concerned, u may demand any amount of money for the windows build.

however, when i read this post i got troubled. what the hell does "extra bugfixes and subtle improvements" mean??! EXTRA?! all those extra bugfixes and subtle improvements HAVE TO BE accessible to all. period. there's no way around this if u want to keep the GPL licensing.

why don't u just say u have no time to develop the windows version anymore? everyone would understand that. hell i'm sure there would be lots of people who would offer help in development.

thats all i had to say for now... i just hope this issue will get solved. either way. drop the windows version or release the source u use to build it. simple as that.
laca
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 Aug 2004 15:52

Re: FAO Everyone com

Postby Khisanth » 26 Aug 2004 16:44

laca wrote:however, when i read this post i got troubled. what the hell does "extra bugfixes and subtle improvements" mean??! EXTRA?! all those extra bugfixes and subtle improvements HAVE TO BE accessible to all. period. there's no way around this if u want to keep the GPL licensing.


Any windows specific bug fix would be extra as it is only required for this ONE
platform. Subtle improvements as in he is adding more things to xchat and
not just fixing bugs. Got problems caused by gtk/glib libraries? Need to fix
those too. This is why simply having someone else do the compiles as people
suggested is not a workable solution. zed would still be stuck with those. This
isn't really ever going to end until zed drops all of xchat. As in
completely abandon it. Sure someone else might take over but I for one
definitely won't continue using it in that case.

Note: Using 'u' to mean 'you' is a quick way to make people lose respect
for you and lets not forget the whiny little kid appearence it adds.
Khisanth
 
Posts: 1724
Joined: 10 Jun 2004 05:23

Re: FAO Everyone com

Postby laca » 26 Aug 2004 18:11

Khisanth wrote:Any windows specific bug fix would be extra as it is only required for this ONE
platform. Subtle improvements as in he is adding more things to xchat and
not just fixing bugs. Got problems caused by gtk/glib libraries? Need to fix
those too. This is why simply having someone else do the compiles as people
suggested is not a workable solution. zed would still be stuck with those. This
isn't really ever going to end until zed drops all of xchat. As in
completely abandon it. Sure someone else might take over but I for one
definitely won't continue using it in that case.

I know that those bugfixes are for that ONE platform only. However, they still need to be released with the source. As for the abandoning of xchat, I agree to some extent. He might just drop the windows platform as that seems to cause him most of the headaches.
Khisanth wrote:Note: Using 'u' to mean 'you' is a quick way to make people lose respect
for you and lets not forget the whiny little kid appearence it adds.

Thank YOU for pointing this out, I have never thought of it like this ;)
laca
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 Aug 2004 15:52

Postby Malnilion » 27 Aug 2004 16:51

Ummmm, guys, stop bitching now about not being able to have the "official" build for free. If you really cared at all, (or knew what you were talking about) you would quickly realize the miracle of cvs. All those little bug fixes and improvements are included in the sources in cvs. If you care so much about those bugfixes and improvements, compile the damned cvs sources yourself. Otherwise, pay to get the official build with the bugfixes and improvements, or find another place to get your binaries (i.e. from SilvereX since he's been gracious enough to host a binary that he's compiled). Btw, SilvereX has good documentation on his site for how the sources can be compiled in windows; thanks again, SilvereX :) .

Personally, zed, I have no qualms with charging people for official builds if it helps keep xchat going at all. Thanks for a great multi-platform IRC client.

EDIT: [rant] To put it blunt, YES, FOR GOD'S SAKE YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE SOURCES. NOTHING IS BEING KEPT FROM YOU. THERE HAS BEEN NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE GPL.[/rant]
Malnilion
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 22 Aug 2004 22:02

Postby laca » 27 Aug 2004 17:48

Malnilion wrote:Ummmm, guys, stop bitching now about not being able to have the "official" build for free. If you really cared at all, (or knew what you were talking about) you would quickly realize the miracle of cvs. All those little bug fixes and improvements are included in the sources in cvs. If you care so much about those bugfixes and improvements, compile the damned cvs sources yourself.

Yes, I know about the CVS. Thanks for pointing it out, though.

Malnilion wrote:Personally, zed, I have no qualms with charging people for official builds if it helps keep xchat going at all. Thanks for a great multi-platform IRC client.

Agreed.
Malnilion wrote:EDIT: [rant] To put it blunt, YES, FOR GOD'S SAKE YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE SOURCES. NOTHING IS BEING KEPT FROM YOU. THERE HAS BEEN NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE GPL.[/rant]

However, I doubt this. SilvereX is compiling from CVS sources. Is there any shareware code left in those sources? I guess not. So actually we DON'T have access to the sources. Who knows what else is missing from those sources? A few "extra" bugfixes maybe? Some subtle improvements? So IMHO there IS an infringement of GPL. I would like to hear the optinion on this from zed or someone from the development team. There is certainly some confusion here that needs to be cleared.
laca
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 25 Aug 2004 15:52

Postby Malnilion » 27 Aug 2004 21:05

Alright, this is what the situation boils down to. If, indeed, zed used a different version of the source code to compile his binary, he should provide the source somewhere. However, if he used available source and simply knows how to compile it in the most optimal manner for windows, I think he's still okay. Now that I look at what zed actually said, it makes me nervous that he mentioned bug fixes and subtle improvements that might not be available to the public in source form.
Malnilion
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 22 Aug 2004 22:02


Return to XChat for Windows

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests