X-Chat For Windows

[anphanax]

quote:Due to the large amount of time and expense expended in creating X-Chat for Windows, it will only be available to registered users from now on. However, you can download and try 2.4.0 right now.

You may use X-Chat for Windows for free for 30 days. If, after this time, you would like to continue using the product, you are required to register. Registration is a one time fee of $20 USD (United States Dollars) or $25 AUD (Australian Dollars). You may pay using the Paymate service below, which accepts credit cards in both currencies.

It's nice when free things suddenly cost money. It would be nice if I could at least get the bug fixes for free. :\

[WMD]

How the hell is this legal?  Isn't X-Chat a GPL product?  :confused:

[Canadian Lover]

http://www.xchat.org/about/

[WMD]

Hmmm...the Windows binary is shareware, but the rest is GPL...didn't know they could do that.

[Orethrius]

Hmmm...the Windows binary is shareware, but the rest is GPL...didn't know they could do that.

Apparently they can. I don't mean to sound like the asshole here, but if people don't like the shareware fee, why not just download the source and compile it yourself? It's perfectly open on that front, and I don't see any part of the site that prohibits the redistribution of a one-off free product (call it kchat and spread it around); in fact, the site apparently APPROVES that conduct. Too bad they decided to charge for the Windows frontend though.

  :cool:

[flap]

I don't think what they're doing is legal. If they're charging for the build process, that's one thing, but if the software's licenced under the GPL they can't possibly impose a shareware licence fee.

[Orethrius]

I don't think what they're doing is legal. If they're charging for the build process, that's one thing, but if the software's licenced under the GPL they can't possibly impose a shareware licence fee.

Technically, yes they can, it's pretty much covered under distribution. I've read the GPL, I don't see any language that prohibits such behaviour, in fact:

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.

--Preamble, Paragraph 2 of the GNU General Public License (emphasis added)

The only thing I've seen the GPL prohibit is closing up the source, charging for anything REMOTELY related, and imposing royalties on knockoffs. The source is still open, and if you don't like the vendor's Windows solution, you can always build your own and distribute it for free (in fact, it oftentimes looks like they're IN FAVOR of that). I think people forget that it's not exactly an easy process to develop stable software for Windows (given the slipshod OS) and neglect to consider that the LAST thing these guys want to do is develop and maintain a Win port for Windroids that'll never touch any other OSS.

EDIT: Agreed, putting this under a shareware licence / semi-mandatory registration basis is right bullshit, but the GPL doesn't impose any restrictions on HOW the vendor goes about collecting their fees.

EDIT 2: I believe the misunderstanding lies in the way they chose to distribute the Windows port. They are free to charge for individual ports what they wish, but the source MUST REMAIN OPEN. I see no effort on their part to close the source, so the GPL still applies on a technicality. I'm not saying that what they're doing is ethical, but unfortunately, it's their perogative if they want to charge for a specific port.

[flap]

No, I didn't say they're not allowed to charge for it, I said they can't impose a shareware licence restriction. So as I say, they might charge people for downloads, or for obtaining a CD with the software on, but they can't demand licence fees for using it.

Actually, though...

 

quote:Hmmm...the Windows binary is shareware, but the rest is GPL...didn't know they could do that.

As they hold the copyright on the software then (presuming they haven't used any code from other GPL programs in xchat) they can release it under as many licences as they want. I'm guessing they're just releasing the Windows binary separately under a different (shareware) licence.

[ August 30, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]

[anphanax]

For those of you who don't know about this, you can get a free windows binary of 2.4.0 from http://www.silverex.org/download/. I don't know if this is legal though, partially because of the comments below.

EDIT: I thought anybody said nobody :\.

Quote from Slashdot Article <http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/30/1859210&tid=117&tid=218>
   

quote: I know this is slightly off topic, but free X-Chat for Windows builds are still available, as one guy [silverex.org] is and has been making them. I'm no expert on this sort of topic, but because X-Chat's page declared that anybody could make their own Windows builds freely available, I can't see it as a violation of the GPL.

[ August 30, 2004: Message edited by: anphanax ]

[ August 30, 2004: Message edited by: anphanax ]

[flap]

That is legal.

[skyman8081]

If I wanted to, I could have a gpl peice of software that is sold in a binary only box-set,  with an insert telling people that they can get the source from a page, and that page would need a cd-key from the box-set.  Alternatively, you could have them mail it in and send it in and get the source code on CD/DVD.