GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
That is the point I don't get. How can it be a symbol for freedom to forbid something?
I see this symbol as "It is (or should be) forbidden to make money out of Linux". But what is then with Red Hat, the Suse Linux Enterprise Editions or Elive? They make money out of Linux.
Yes, but with those distros you only pay for technical support, you don't pay license fees like you have to with Windoze.
Yes, but with those distros you only pay for technical support, you don't pay license fees like you have to with Windoze.
In Elive I have to pay for the installer if I want to install their OS to harddisk, instead of using it from live-medium. I would consider that a license fee. They don't even sell support.
In Elive I have to pay for the installer if I want to install their OS to harddisk, instead of using it from live-medium. I would consider that a license fee. They don't even sell support.
True -- but if it is a license fee it's a GPL violation.
No, I don't. The installer is not build in their system, you have to download it separately, and if they have written it from scratch and don't include GPLed code(I don't know, never had purchased it) they can give any license to it they want. No breaking of GPL that way, they can even use libraries for it that are under LGPL license (in fact the LGPL was invented by the FSF for this purpose).
Yes, but the installer installs the system, doesn't it? To charge a license fee for it prevents you from installing the OS without paying that fee. Therefore, by charging a license fee for the installer you charge a license fee to install the OS and therefore a license fee for the OS.
Yes, but the installer installs the system, doesn't it?
It just copies some files and sets up the system. I am sure this can be done by hand, but is more complicated. I am paying for an automated service, sold to me by the Elive people. I don't see any GPL violation here.
Yes, but the installer installs the system, doesn't it? To charge a license fee for it prevents you from installing the OS without paying that fee. Therefore, by charging a license fee for the installer you charge a license fee to install the OS and therefore a license fee for the OS.
You're obviously not a lawyer ... and potentially not that
great w/ English, shall I say? The GPL explicitly allows
you to charge for distribution (to cover your cost) - this
is what those people are doing. It's not a licence fee for
GPLed code - it's a charge for the use of their installer.
Yes, but the installer installs the system, doesn't it? To charge a license fee for it prevents you from installing the OS without paying that fee. Therefore, by charging a license fee for the installer you charge a license fee to install the OS and therefore a license fee for the OS.
May be the following will help;
Quote:
gpl-violations.org Source Code Release FAQ is a FAQ that contains some more detailed information on the requirements and best current practice of providing corresponding source code for GPL licensed executable code. It was compiled as a result of the numerous shortcomings and mistakes of more than sixty successful GPL enforcements.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
