Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> You're not considering all the cases. It is true that Debian's >> license to the original works persists. But we won't have a license >> to the derivative work, because the upstream author didn't have the >> right to prepare that work, much less license it. > > Are you arguing that the GPL fails the Tentacles of Evil test? I wouldn't bring up the Tentacles of Evil test, since I think it's overbroad and a bit silly. That said... > Your position seems to be that anyone who has derived some GPL'ed > software B from other people's GPL'ed work A can retrospectively > revoke the GPL license for B by offering a shareware version of it (in > breach of the license terms for A). No, only that the authors of A will revoke their license to make and distribute B on some actions on the part of B's author. That is, the GPL: 2b says that the modified work is licensed *as a whole* to third parties under the terms of this license. (emphasis mine) 4: However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. 6: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. Most importantly, notice that in 6 the original licensor grants rights regarding the Program, not works based on it. The rights to the modified program come only from 2b. So when the current maintainer loses his rights in 2b because of 4, we continue to have the rights granted in 6, and... hm. You know, I'm reading 4 again and realizing that it says "from you," speaking to the current maintainer. You're right. The only way Debian can get in trouble is if it distributes a modified version created *after* the current maintainer lost his rights. > If that is true we will have to remove from main all GPL'ed programs > whose current maintainer is not their sole author. No, this is no different from the case where the current maintainer does anything else to illegally use material written by others in his work. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like > the shareware is a distribution charge, which is allowed under the > GPL. There is still the point that the shareware binaries presumably contain some code to check their time limit. Under the GPL, the time-limit-checking code then has to be available in source form. The comments in this thread indicate that this is not the case. Now, why anyone would *want* time-limit-checking source code if unencumbered source is available is beyond me. But our inability to figure out why people might want to do this or that has never been a valid argument on this list. -- Henning Makholm"Nu kommer han. Kan du ikke høre knallerten?"
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:07:00PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > > Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required* > > a registration. > > After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like > the shareware is a distribution charge, which is allowed under the GPL. If what the original author wanted to do was use the distribution-charge allowances to recoup costs for sending out Windows copies, he can add a front end to his webpage: "paypal me $5 and I'll let you download the binary and complete source under the GPL (and you can distribute it all you want from there, since it doesn't cost me money)". I think this is what you're describing, and is perfectly valid under the GPL--but it isn't shareware. What he appears to actually be doing is: "here's the binary and partial source; if you want to keep using it after a while, send me $5 and I'll unlock it for you". This is shareware; "partial source" is the GPL violation. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You're not considering all the cases. It is true that Debian's > license to the original works persists. But we won't have a license > to the derivative work, because the upstream author didn't have the > right to prepare that work, much less license it. Are you arguing that the GPL fails the Tentacles of Evil test? Your position seems to be that anyone who has derived some GPL'ed software B from other people's GPL'ed work A can retrospectively revoke the GPL license for B by offering a shareware version of it (in breach of the license terms for A). If that is true we will have to remove from main all GPL'ed programs whose current maintainer is not their sole author. Or am I misunderstanding you? -- Henning Makholm"They want to be natural, the anti-social little beasts. They just don't realize that everyone's good depends on everyone's cooperation."
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
> Raul Miller writes: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > > > Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required* > > > a registration. > > > > After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like > > the shareware is a distribution charge, which is allowed under the GPL. On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:16:38PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > It is not a distribution charge; it is a charge on continued use, > which is not allowed under the GPL. He seems to be giving away the source, and has no problem with people using it. If that were the case, this would be a charge on continued use of that distribution, not on continued use of the Program. > The shareware version does not provide source code for things like the > key checker (required by the GPL), does not provide a script or > directions for linking against a different version of gtk+ (required > by the LGPL), and apparently omits copyright notices (required by the > GPL, LGPL and the OpenSSL libraries used). Unless the license texts > are embedded in a prominent part of the "shareware" xchat.exe > executable, they are not included in the shareware version, so users > do not know what the licenses really are. If the key checker is a part of the program, this is a rather serious problem. Of course, combining GPLed code and OpenSSL code was also a problem, last time I checked. > > Note that this has some implications about the rights of users of xchat, > > whether or not they register their shareware. [Users who wish to > > redistribute are allowed to, as long as they satsify GPL's requirements.] > > Users cannot satisfy the GPL's requirements for redistribution, since > they do not have the source code to rebuild the key-checking code, and > they do not have scripts or directions to build minigtk.dll. Which means he's not satisfying GPL's requirements either, for the stuff other people hold copyrights on. Ouch. -- Raul
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Raul Miller writes: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > > Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required* > > a registration. > > After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like > the shareware is a distribution charge, which is allowed under the GPL. It is not a distribution charge; it is a charge on continued use, which is not allowed under the GPL. The shareware version does not provide source code for things like the key checker (required by the GPL), does not provide a script or directions for linking against a different version of gtk+ (required by the LGPL), and apparently omits copyright notices (required by the GPL, LGPL and the OpenSSL libraries used). Unless the license texts are embedded in a prominent part of the "shareware" xchat.exe executable, they are not included in the shareware version, so users do not know what the licenses really are. > Note that this has some implications about the rights of users of xchat, > whether or not they register their shareware. [Users who wish to > redistribute are allowed to, as long as they satsify GPL's requirements.] Users cannot satisfy the GPL's requirements for redistribution, since they do not have the source code to rebuild the key-checking code, and they do not have scripts or directions to build minigtk.dll. Michael Poole
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required* > a registration. After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like the shareware is a distribution charge, which is allowed under the GPL. Note that this has some implications about the rights of users of xchat, whether or not they register their shareware. [Users who wish to redistribute are allowed to, as long as they satsify GPL's requirements.] However, given the general ignorance of windows users about development issues, it might not be that many of them will care. -- Raul
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases -- > >> including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the > >> original work from the original author, and to the derivative work > >> from the upstream. But the original author also has a copyright on > >> the derivative work, and we have no license to it from him. > > > > The original author has a copyright on his work that is included in > > the derivative work, not a copyright on the derivative work itself. > > I believe you are mistaken about this. The original author has a > copyright which allows him to control the production and > distribution of derivative works. Any grants he makes regarding the > original work are irrelevant to the derivative works. That depends what grants are made regarding the original work. For example, the GPL (a grant regarding the original work) grants specific rights regarding derivative works. What I was attempting to indicate is that the protection on the derivative work comes from the presence of copyrighted material from (or derived from) the original work within the derivative work. That is, the copyrightable part of the derivative work not stemming from the original work is owned by the person making the derivative work, not the copyright holder of the original work. Don Armstrong -- I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back. -- Compactable Dave http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases -- >> including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the >> original work from the original author, and to the derivative work >> from the upstream. But the original author also has a copyright on >> the derivative work, and we have no license to it from him. > > The original author has a copyright on his work that is included in > the derivative work, not a copyright on the derivative work itself. I believe you are mistaken about this. The original author has a copyright which allows him to control the production and distribution of derivative works. Any grants he makes regarding the original work are irrelevant to the derivative works. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's > > contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so > > long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is an argument > > that the upstream author can't actually distribute upstream's > > contributions under the GPL, but I'd suggest that even if this is the > > case, if we can comply with the GPL, we should be able to distribute > > it ourselves.] > > This is very confusing. Can you please distinguish between the two > upstream authors in a way other than calling one "upstream" and the > other "upstream author"? Sorry about that. There's only one thing here: "upstream's contributions" (ie, those things written by the upstream author that form a derivative work in combination with other GPLed works.) [In retrospect, I should have worded this better to avoid confusion between contributions to upstream, and the work(s) that upstream has written.] Don Armstrong -- Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. -- Mark Twain http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases -- > including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the > original work from the original author, and to the derivative work > from the upstream. But the original author also has a copyright on > the derivative work, and we have no license to it from him. The original author has a copyright on his work that is included in the derivative work, not a copyright on the derivative work itself. Because of the way GPL §6 is worded, our license always stems from the original licensor, not the person who is doing the distribution or modification. If this is still a problem, perhaps try asking [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm fairly certain that I'm interpreting this reasonably, but they are the ones who interpret the GPL on a daily basis. Don Armstrong -- Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved. Craig Dickson in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:38:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Let us call them the package maintainer and patch contributor. It's a bit more complicated than that. We have seven people listed in the AUTHORS file for xchat 1.2.0, with "many others" mentioned in a footnote. Most of the sources there are copyright 1988 Peter Zelezny, and explicitly distributed under the terms of the GPL. > The package maintainer includes GPL-only code from the patch > contributor. Contributors, but yes. > The package maintainer continues to release that under the GPL, but > also releases a shareware version in violation of the GPL. Debian > would package the GPL version. If the package maintainer is Peter Zelezny (which it appears to be), then it's "only" the contributions which he's lost rights to. And, there, only if they have not (and will not) assigned copyright to him. > It is not clear to me that releasing the shareware(-only) version > terminates the package maintainer's rights to release the GPL version. If he hasn't been [and won't be] granted non-GPL rights then he's lost all rights to distribute those elements [and would not be getting replacement rights]. That's GPL section 4. > I do not think any reasonable patch contributor would sue over the GPL > releases made by the package maintainer, although they might easily > sue over the shareware version. I think that before any lawsuit actions (if any) happened, the people involved would need to talk things over to make it clear what they plan to do about this situation. That said, until this is sorted out, people receiving the shareware version should have every right to expect GPLed rights. > Whether there are grounds to sue the Debian packager or a mirror > operator is, of course, a different question from whether one really > wants to package software when its maintainer seems to willfully > violate copyrights (not just the copyrights on the patches, but also > those on libraries such as gtk+). I don't think there are good grounds here for anyone to sue any Debian packager or mirror maintainer. I do agree that promoting the work of someone who knowingly violates the GPL in an ongoing fashion would not be good for the free software community. -- Raul
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Glenn Maynard writes: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's > > contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so > > long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is an argument > > that the upstream author can't actually distribute upstream's > > contributions under the GPL, but I'd suggest that even if this is the > > case, if we can comply with the GPL, we should be able to distribute > > it ourselves.] > > This is very confusing. Can you please distinguish between the two upstream > authors in a way other than calling one "upstream" and the other "upstream > author"? Let us call them the package maintainer and patch contributor. The package maintainer includes GPL-only code from the patch contributor. The package maintainer continues to release that under the GPL, but also releases a shareware version in violation of the GPL. Debian would package the GPL version. It is not clear to me that releasing the shareware(-only) version terminates the package maintainer's rights to release the GPL version. I do not think any reasonable patch contributor would sue over the GPL releases made by the package maintainer, although they might easily sue over the shareware version. More to the point, I do not think *any* patch contributor, reasonable or not, would have grounds to sue someone who always distributes the package according to the GPL -- even if this distributor includes contributed GPL-only patches and later GPL-licensed changes made by the package maintainer but which depend on those patches. Whether there are grounds to sue the Debian packager or a mirror operator is, of course, a different question from whether one really wants to package software when its maintainer seems to willfully violate copyrights (not just the copyrights on the patches, but also those on libraries such as gtk+). Michael Poole
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's > contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so > long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is an argument > that the upstream author can't actually distribute upstream's > contributions under the GPL, but I'd suggest that even if this is the > case, if we can comply with the GPL, we should be able to distribute > it ourselves.] This is very confusing. Can you please distinguish between the two upstream authors in a way other than calling one "upstream" and the other "upstream author"? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> It is true that Debian's license to the original works persists. >> But we won't have a license to the derivative work, because the >> upstream author didn't have the right to prepare that work, much >> less license it. > > Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's > contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so > long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is an argument > that the upstream author can't actually distribute upstream's > contributions under the GPL, but I'd suggest that even if this is the > case, if we can comply with the GPL, we should be able to distribute > it ourselves.] > > The other licenses that are granted under GPL §6 come directly from > the original licensor, not via the intermediate(s) (in this case, > upstream.) Thus, we have valid GPL licenses for all parts of the > derivative work. If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases -- including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the original work from the original author, and to the derivative work from the upstream. But the original author also has a copyright on the derivative work, and we have no license to it from him. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > It is true that Debian's license to the original works persists. > But we won't have a license to the derivative work, because the > upstream author didn't have the right to prepare that work, much > less license it. Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is an argument that the upstream author can't actually distribute upstream's contributions under the GPL, but I'd suggest that even if this is the case, if we can comply with the GPL, we should be able to distribute it ourselves.] The other licenses that are granted under GPL §6 come directly from the original licensor, not via the intermediate(s) (in this case, upstream.) Thus, we have valid GPL licenses for all parts of the derivative work. That the original author has lost his license to prepare a derivative work is immaterial to us, because we retain it. This assumes that the windows version of xchat is a separate derived work from the version of xchat that we are distributing, of course. Don Armstrong -- why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common? It... Doesn't? good point http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid >> GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL >> may have been revoked. > > GPL §4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the > Program except as expressly provided under this License. [...] > parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this > License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such > parties remain in full compliance. > > And: > > GPL §6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on > the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from > the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program > subject to these terms and conditions. > > As you can see, the grant comes from the original licensor to Debian, > and actions taken by the upstream do not affect our license, so long > as we remain in full compliance. > > So while upstream is likely violating the GPL for works which upstream > does not hold the copyright for, that violation doesn't pose a risk > for Debian so long as Debian isn't violating the GPL. You're not considering all the cases. It is true that Debian's license to the original works persists. But we won't have a license to the derivative work, because the upstream author didn't have the right to prepare that work, much less license it. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid > GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL > may have been revoked. GPL §4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. [...] parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. And: GPL §6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. As you can see, the grant comes from the original licensor to Debian, and actions taken by the upstream do not affect our license, so long as we remain in full compliance. So while upstream is likely violating the GPL for works which upstream does not hold the copyright for, that violation doesn't pose a risk for Debian so long as Debian isn't violating the GPL. Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!" The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL may have been revoked. -Brian Am I correct in my reading of the GPL that the upstream losing his license is only a problem for people receiving the software from him after the revocation occurs? As I understand it, any existing copies distributed to others before the revocation receive a license from the original author, that is only revocable should the recipient do something to violate the GPL. Therefore (if my reading is correct), this is not a pressing problem, until/unless Debian starts distributing code that was distributed by the upstream after his infringing action? -- Lewis Jardine IANAL IANADD
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL may have been revoked. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
John Goerzen writes: > On Wednesday 20 October 2004 08:19 am, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > > Hello. > > > > Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat), > > > > I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences: > > > Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed? > > > A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still > > > download the source code, released under the G.P.L. > > > > Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required* > > a registration. > > This may be perfectly acceptable. > > Assuming that the sources for the Windows version include all the > registration/validation logic, and are distributed under the GPL, > providing a compiled binary of them is completely kosher. Of course, > anybody with a compiler could hack out the time limit. > > Now, if the registration/validation logic is not part of those GPL'd > sources, then we have a problem. Briefly perusing the CVS repository on SourceForge, there does not appear to be any logic for checking the license keys. The Win32 executable also seems to be linked against a modified version of a gtk+ library, with no source provided for that (it definitely includes "minigtk.dll" wand a "gtkrc" file with no explanation of the license for that). It also seems to be linked against OpenSSL (it includes "libeay32.dll and libssl32.dll) without including the copyright notices required by those licenses. I know several contributors to X-Chat have complained about the shareware release and feel that it infringes their copyrights. In short, the Windows version seems to blatantly and willfully violate a number of copyrights. The maintainer makes it clear he will continue to redistribute code contributed under the GPL as shareware (at http://forum.xchat.org/viewtopic.php?t=533). This does not pose a direct problem for Debian, since Debian would not be distributing the Windows shareware version, but Debian may not want to support software whose authors do things like X-Chat's maintainer has done. Michael Poole
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 20.10.2004, 16:36 -0500 schrieb John Goerzen: > Now, if the registration/validation logic is not part of those GPL'd > sources, then we have a problem. If it only applies to the windows sources/binary, we don't have a problem. If anybody has a problem, then those who contributed GPLed code or whose GPLed code somehow else made their way into the windows sources, but did not agree with that licencing. Or is there anything that actually and legally should worry debian, besides a possible different view on free software from some upstream author? thx, nomeata -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Re: xchat is now shareware in windoze
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 08:19 am, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > Hello. > > Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat), > > I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences: > > Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed? > > A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still > > download the source code, released under the G.P.L. > > Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required* > a registration. This may be perfectly acceptable. Assuming that the sources for the Windows version include all the registration/validation logic, and are distributed under the GPL, providing a compiled binary of them is completely kosher. Of course, anybody with a compiler could hack out the time limit. Now, if the registration/validation logic is not part of those GPL'd sources, then we have a problem. -- John
xchat is now shareware in windoze
Hello. Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat), I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences: > Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed? > A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still > download the source code, released under the G.P.L. > 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. Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required* a registration. So I propose to the debian maintainer, not to send patch to upstream, without an explicit declaration that the patches are licensed GPL-only and thus not available in non GPL code. legal team: do you think it is good such requirement? What do you think about such mix free/shareware in debian? [note that I don't think all patch authors relicensed the code] ciao cate
