xchat.org

[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^]

[Ganf]

[tresni]

[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]

[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]

[RonaldHummelink]

[Ganf]

[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.