About Windows release licensing.

[Nigel]

Well yes what zed has done is as i described it. He didn't ask patch committers about changing the license. Yes i agree he should have just quit windows builds altogether or "outsourced" the job to someone else that is responsible to do it for him (to make offical builds).

[dismentor]

He is not distributing the shareware version under the GPL. The contributors' works/code is only available to him under the GPL (the way copyright law now works, is that a work is copyrighted until the owner says otherwise). So, he cannot use them not under the GPL. Therefore he is violating copyright. Also, XChat uses GTK. GTK is under the LGPL. He is not following the LGPL, so he is violating copyright.

[suepahfly]

SOw howlong do you think it will take foor a crak to be released?
My point being, it won't help a lot charging people for xchat.

[Mike]

SOw howlong do you think it will take foor a crak to be released?
My point being, it won't help a lot charging people for xchat.

I really don't get the point in illegally cracking software that you
can get legally for free... Please, tell my why you would break the
law when you don't have to?

[malaka]

Well, windows version is not free anymore?
It only concerns new 2.4+ versions, so lets keep on using the old good versions
Innovations in irc clients are not that important and i guess the new xchat version hasnt brought any revolution (and i guess the future ones wont either). Xchat client is already GREAT as it is.
And anyway, if some true innovations comes, i guess some realy free clients will handle them too.

And for the ones that dont want to use old versions of softwares, i do guess other IRC clients with GUI are to be found on the web. Google is our friend;)

Thx to the xchat developers, was a good time and great pleasure to use it!

[Mike]

Well, windows version is not free anymore?
It only concerns new 2.4+ versions, so lets keep on using the old good versions

Zeds compile isn't but there are plenty of versions compiled by others out there as the source is still freely available to all.

[malaka]

yeah, but they look harder to install, with 3rdParty needing to be installed...
The "official" one had this advantage not to require anything else than the install executable to run (no manual GTK installation, no cygwin like for other clients, just simple and straight).

Well, I'm confident I'll end finding back the quality of xchat somewhere. But it'll take some time;)

Oh btw, I have a question. Why not to find and put an alternative windows binary link on the download page of xchat.org? It would waranty the "quality" and relative ease of use/install of some alternative free build.

[dismentor]

I really don't get the point in illegally cracking software that you
can get legally for free... Please, tell my why you would break the
law when you don't have to?

Yes, illegally cracking illegal software...quite ironic.

[Nigel]

He is not distributing the shareware version under the GPL. The contributors' works/code is only available to him under the GPL (the way copyright law now works, is that a work is copyrighted until the owner says otherwise). So, he cannot use them not under the GPL. Therefore he is violating copyright. Also, XChat uses GTK. GTK is under the LGPL. He is not following the LGPL, so he is violating copyright.

He is distributing the shareware version unless i'm mistaken with gpl code (unless he can do a bloody good similarity) so yes he is distributing it as GPL(well should be anyway).

Also: I was searching around and he's deleted all the old windows builds that he USED to keep... but he's kept old linux builds... looks more like a money making scheme than anything else. He'd be better off making this forum pay-per post.

[ap]

You are free to not release your code under gpl, and i am free to claim you don't understand GPL, like most people in this world.

Hehe, if so many people don't understand it, maybe it's not clear enough on some point

[pas_moi]

For all of you GPL nutters out there: Few have ever maintained a huge project. You need to Shut the Fuck up and have one of your main projects be forked to hell by people who find it easier to copy your code, openly flame you in public, and generally contribute to driving you to a mental hospital than actually talking about why they want to fork in the first place.

For all of you shitting on the GPL, just remember that nobody ever forced you to use GPL for your developments or to use GPLed programs... this licence is written so that GPL softwares can't get stollen (legally) from the Free Software community, and a lot of developpers agree with this point.

Damn, are developpers so lazy that they don't even think about implications of the licence they use for their developments?

[najmi]

From GNU Public License Preamble, 2nd Paragraph

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

The paragraph says the "free" part is about freedom not free as in "free beer". I think you can stick to GPL even with the Windows version. You can still charge for the download service. There is no need to change the license to shareware or any other "unfree" license.

And btw, you are giving out the source code for the *NIX version, not the Windows version. This is not fair for the Windows users. Since your original *NIX version is GPL'd, you must release the Windows source code too for free and "charge for the download service" as you wish.

You cannot change a GPL'd source code or its modifications into other incompatible licenses. As this phrase from GPL says

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

But, hey, you can still charge for the documentations, download service and support. There is no paraphrase that denies your right to charge for services that you offer (binary, documentation, support and download, etc...)

GPL legal implications are huge, why did you release your code under GPL anyway? Most *NIX programmers use BSD/MIT/OSI styled license btw. Why? So they could change the licensing later. Even GNU released the new LGPL, so modifications of the LGPL'd code could be proprietary.

I am not going to condem you like the other GNU nutters did. I am not a GNU nutter, btw

[BAF]

But he isn't charging for the download service. He is releasing a binary not aligned with the source code with the shareware stuff in it. It is a derivative of GPL based works, so the source code to this shareware release mus be released.

I also have the 2.0.10c installer, ill upload that to my website if anyone wishes.

[najmi]

Yes, he isn't charging the service. Clearly he (Peter) distribute X-Chat for Windows in shareware scheme, which defies the GPL term charging for distribution for gratis/fee. He also must provide the source code to anyone who is willing to get it or at least offer the access to the source code.

Clearly, he DID NOT DO THAT! He also put the so-called nag/registration/trial day limit, which a usual scheme used in shareware program (again denying the term free as in freedom in GPL).

I am asking him to change this shareware distribution into the distribution that is allowed by GPL. He must provide the source or the access to it! Yet he CAN and STILL CAN charge for a fee (the so-called download service, not the source code itself, which is licensed but not sold and should not be sold) without losing the GNU spirit of freedom.

This applies to both the initial *NIX version AND the Windows version (the derived work), or stop the Windows version development for good. Why bother releasing Windows version anyways if you think it wasted your time and money?

But he may release a new version of IRC client written from scratch without using the code from *NIX or Windows version of X-Chat if he wishes to release a shareware and wanna make money out of it.

Clearly, he DID NOT DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS!

[baafie]

Come on people, it's not that hard to understand.

The author of xchat changed the license for his binary version of xchat. He is allowed to do that just as MySQL AB is allowed to sell MySQL under a proprietary license. Why? Because it's his code. Mostly.

Of course, the project incorporates code written by various other people who have (AFAIK) not agreed to this license change. So, these other people may sue the xchat author for royalties - or to halt the distribution of the shareware xchat.

And that's all there is to it. This is not a GPL violation. It is a generic license violation. In other words, changing a project's distribution license without permission from all the authors would be illegal under virtually any license - the Apache license, the PHP license and probably under quite a few proprietary licenses.