can I sell desktops or laptops with Linux Mint or Ubuntu installed on it?
 

Hi, I am a I.T professional, been working in the tech field since 2001, I buy old computers at auctions or get them from companies I do e-waste cleanup from. Many are still viable machines that work. But if i put XP on them they work too slow and nobody wants them. I have installed MINT and UBUNTU and they work fine, way faster, I am wondering if its OK to sell the hardware with this OS installed. I dont sell discs. These are PC that I sell for like $45 to $75 depending on amount of ram , hard drive size, and processor speed

Unless we know what legal jurisdiction you are in no one can give a definitive answer. I would suggest that becauseyou are the legal owner, after you purchase it, of the hardware you can on sell it. You should not however be selling something (i,e, the operating system) because you did not purchase it.

I'm in Australia and do a similar thing although the PCs I have are given to me freely, as long as I wipe the hard drives and I also give them away without charge. I also put a copy of the iso on the hard drive so I am not charging for discs or anything like that and the person then has the opportunity to burn it themselves if they want to.

I am in san diego area of california, USA , thanks for the info, i dont sell the software. I sell hardware after i wipe the drive and install the linux OS , i never gave a disc because i was not sure if i could, also anyone can download it for free

In the words of the Brits, "rubbish."

k3lt01 may have a moral distaste for it, but that is his opinion.

It is no more "wrong" to sell a copy of Linux Mint that you downloaded than it is to sell your Mother's cookies that she gave you.

You are selling the hardware. Perfectly fine.
You are being compensated for knowing where to obtain an OS that runs well on said hardware. Perfectly fine.
You are being compensated for your time to install said OS on said hardware. Perfectly fine.
You are being compensated for your time verifying the hardware boots and functions. Perfectly fine.
You can charge for the software itself. Perfectly fine.

Indeed, have a look at the FAQ from GNU.org regarding GPL:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Further, you are distributing verbatim copies of the software (via installation). My understanding of the GPL is that you are under no obligation to provide a copy of the source code unless you so choose. You are only required to provide the source if you make changes to a GPL program and distribute the version with the changes.

It may in some areas not be legal to sell a machine with Mint. AFAIK Mint comes with a bunch of codecs pre-installed that are not open source and may be are not free to distribute in your area.
For advices about the law in your country it is the best option to ask a lawyer to get good advice.

TobiSGD has given good advice, consult your local legal professional as to what you can and cannot sell. I myself do not sell the Operating System because I get it freely, discs or USBs however, and if you look at some of the links in my signature you will see this is the case, are a totally different matter.

In the words of the Brits, you have just posted complete bollocks with regards to my post.

I do not have a moral distaste for it, infact I don't have a moral distastes for many things. You have no idea what I like or dislike regardless of your completely misinformed opinion of my tastes. Did you see I said suggest? Did you see I mentioned legal jurisdictions? There are legal issues involved so think before you bite.

To get around such rules, companies that sell linux buy their product from a software vendor. I doubt you can legally install any version and sell it. There would always be the question if part of the price contained a portion to the software. Would you ever get caught. Maybe not. I would not install Mint with the codecs for sure.

See what it costs for OEM linux.

You can offer free (if stated free) a cd of some legal totally open source version if you follow all the embedded rules/agreements/eula's for re-distribution. Some CD's can be sold too for what you can get it for. Cheapbytes used to sell like 10 packs of stuff. http://www.linuxcd.org/ may be the place now.

I'm not going to get into a ____ match with you.

But I would suggest that you take your own advice: "so think before you bite."

I would direct you back to the very quote you included:
(emphasis added for clarity)

So, k3lt01, did you read the quote? Do you understand what the word "may" means? Or perhaps you did not "think before you bite."

Further, I also said it was your opinion. "Opinion" is the word I used. How is:
NOT an opinion?


You have no idea how much training I have in the legal field. I guarantee you, unless you have a license, you've had less.


The licensing of individual pieces of software can vary. The licensing of the Linux kernel and core utilities--the operating system--cannot because they are GPL. If the OP wishes to sell the operating system, the OP may do so in accord with the GPL as stated above. If the OP wishes to sell copies of specific applications within the install that are not licensed by the GPL, the OP would need to abide by the licensing restrictions of that piece of software.

Alternatively, apply common business practice: cost-shift by not selling the software and setting a higher rate for installation or a larger margin for the hardware, the installation, etc.

Then don't respond to me! Simple isn't it.
Read my post in its entirety, taking it in its entire context. Not one sentence at a time splitting hairs so you can look like you know me and how I think.

I love this type of argument. Provide proof because if you don't what you have posted about your legal knowledge is mere hearsay your honour. You insert an argument that makes the other person look like they have a personal issue and at that point you think you have won. Creating a cheap argument based on nothing but your own opinion and then asserting you have a superior knowledge has done nothing for you. Stick to the facts not the "may" haves. Give solid proof of your claims, with regards to the OPs legal rights to be able to sell something that is for the most part in public ownership but also contains propriety software, if you have such a wealth of knowledge of the legal system. I would hazard a guess and say he can sell discs or USBs with them but to sell the OS itself (i.e. at more than the values of the item it is contained on and the price to produce it and post it etc) is a grey area legally and that you cannot give him a full guarantee that he is not breaking some obscure law.

Alot of words to get around things like Linux Mint's pre-installed Codecs and Ubuntu's Jockey that will install non-free drivers. The OP asked about Mint and Ubuntu, they have non-free codecs and applications in them. Is he legally allowed to sell the OS with these things contained therein? Unless you can categorically state, and provide proof of your assertion, you cannot just say he can sell it. If and when you can provide such proof I will bow down to your, self proclaimed, greater legal knowledge. I will wait with baited breath until then.

Please see attached.

I graduated from Texas A&M with a Computer Engineering Degree.
I graduated from Texas Wesleyan School of Law.
I passed the Texas Bar Exam.
I became a member of the Texas State Bar after passing the MPRE (Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam).

Shall I send you an email address for where to send the video of you bowing? Because, like you, I can't just take you at your honor. I need proof.

EDIT:
Attachment removed and dates removed.

DH

so you are telling me it is OK, in the USA and in the Peoples Republic of California, for me to acquire old desktops and laptops, erase windows, and install MINT or UBUNTU ?

again, i dont include a disk, nor do i charge a ton or large amount, simple something for the hardware and my time to configure the pc, i make no code change to any OS, for what i charge i spend as little time as needed on it

Have a look at: http://www.linuxmint.com/faq.php

Lol, you have no idea do you. You do not know who I am you do not know anything about me and you start bragging and even have to keep going. Now you have "proven your credentials" provide proof of your other claims. Remembering what I said in my initial post and refraining from taking it out of context as I am sure you will know and understand is not good legal practise. Giving appropriate precedence's and not hearsay your honour.

Send me your email if you wish I have no problem with carrying out further investigations into your qualifications and claims.

I know you are asking Dark_Helmet but I think you need to consider two things.

What are you charging for?The hardware which you purchased or the entire package which includes the software?
Are you providing any sort of warranty? and if you are not are you making it clear that there is no warranty.

Like I said in my first reply to you, before Dark_Helmet started up misquoting and misrepresenting what I had posted, I do this in Australia and there are legal issues regarding proprietary software which both Mint and Ubuntu have in their systems. I would be asking someone who specialises in this sort of field, if Dark_Helmet specialises then so be it, if not then keep asking because you may unwittingly be charging for something you have no legal right to charge for.

Is it different from selling Linux Mint on USB sticks?
http://www.linuxcd.org/view_distro.php?id_distro=337

Warranty ? I offer a handshake warranty of ................ if anything goes wrong in 7 days i will replace it for FREE with another pc of equal or better hardware, if you hate the OS you can apply the cash u spent towards a windows pc

I expected nothing less from you k3lt01.

Where was I bragging? The list of qualifications are requirements for a law license--and you requested proof of my legal field knowledge. In Texas, you must hold an undergraduate degree to be admitted into law school. To take the bar exam, you must graduate from an accredited law school. To become a member of the Texas State Bar, you must pass the State Bar Exam and pass the MPRE. None of that list is "bragging" inasmuch as any licensed attorney in Texas may say the same--dates notwithstanding. Without question, had I left off one of those items, you would have played "gotcha" by trying to say that "if you were a real attorney, you would know you have to have X as a requirement." You want to play a game where you define the rules, continue to move the goal posts, and continue to proclaim that I am the one being unreasonable.

To PCGUY760:
As much as k3lt01 will love to twist this into a "see he's squirming"--I cannot give you a definitive "yes" or "no" answer. The rules of professional responsibility preclude me from doing so. If you care to review them: Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In the interest of full disclosure, that is the "model" rule set--each state tweaks changes/adds/removes some to apply to their attorneys.

Acquire old desktops and laptops: happens all the time
Erase Windows: you can do whatever you want with the hardware once legal title passes to you (i.e. you pay for it)
Install MINT or UBUNTU: same as immediately above

What you didn't say was "sell" though I obviously understand you want to do that.

As a practical matter, you could avoid all the licensing issues by charging strictly for the hardware. In other words, the invoice/receipt you provide to the customer does not list any software as contributing to the cost of sale.

If you feel you must list software as a component on the invoice, then GPL-licensed software may be sold for a profit--as stated by the authors of the GPL. That "GPL-licensed software" phrase is important. What others have alluded to (without explicitly mentioning) is that "Linux Mint" and "Ubuntu" are collections of components. Some of those components are proprietary--using restricted licenses. If your invoice explicitly identifies a proprietary component with an associated cost, then the sale must conform with the licensing requirements of that component. If you only list components that are GPL-licensed, then you are only selling GPL-licensed components--any other components are being included free of charge. Listing "Linux Mint" or "Ubuntu" as an item could lead to a dispute as to what specific components are being charged for and what percentage of the price is associated with each component.

But again, as a practical matter, listing only the hardware and/or services provided on your invoice avoids any licensing complications to begin with. You are, in essence, selling them the hardware with the added service of installing software they could have done on their own, but would have had to invest the time and energy to do so.

Regarding the "warranty" issue (which is irrelevant to the original question of charging for freely obtained software), every state imposes implied warranties in addition to any express warranties on things sold by "merchants." Also, virtually every state recognizes that an item sold "as-is" puts the consumer on notice that there are no implied warranties except those deemed non-waivable by the state's legislature. Selling something "as-is" also typically requires the seller to make absolutely no oral or written representation as to the object's quality or character. Any such statement is deemed an express warranty. Typical statements for someone in a used-item-seller position would be:

"I have not used this machine since I installed the operating system. When I did install it, everything appeared to function as expected [except for _____ [and ____ ...]]."

You must, in good faith, disclose any shortcomings of the hardware that you are aware of.

The subject of warranties is complex. Many states have consumer protection laws (the Deceptive Trade Practices Act in Texas). I am certain California has one as well, but I am not familiar with it. A California-licensed business attorney should be able to answer most of the warranty questions in a free 1-hour consultation. But again, warranties are a wholly, distinctly separate topic from the original question of charging for software you obtained freely.

well hell. i am not running a business, i just sell 3 or 5 machines a month , just older desktops and laptops that i want to fool with , got no interest in dealing with John Q Public on a daily basis

Are they charging for the OS or the stick and postage?

If you are not running a business, then most of the "warranty" stuff is out the window. You would likely fall under the "garage sale" concept of commerce. This is the kind of thing where Bob in the neighborhood likes to tinker with things, and sells the result of his hobby from his garage. People find out through friends of friends. Essentially, in those kinds of circumstances, it's assumed the consumer realizes the material is being sold "as-is." You do not encounter many "warranty" lawsuits resulting from garage sales I assure you.

If this is a onesy-twosy operation, you likely needn't bother with much of anything. Technically, to follow the letter of the law, you need to record and report the income from the sale (state and federal--there is a "hobby" section of the federal tax code that might actually provide you some tax benefits if you research it). Technically, to follow the letter of the law, you would need to follow licensing agreements. As a practical matter, for a 3 or 5 machine monthly volume, it's not economically feasible for anybody to do anything. Hiring an attorney to come after you for any alleged damages/violations would likely consume any possible judgment through attorney fees before the lawsuit is filed with the court. The only possible exception would be statutory damages (i.e. a minimum award for some legal violation). I don't see that as likely in this case--the licensing business is a civil, contract-based action. There are no punitive/statutory minimum damages in such a situation. As I said, the warranties generally do not apply for non-merchant transactions (short of the computer exploding, catching fire, or some such). The only possibility that I see where statutory minimums could come into play is with a consumer protection law (i.e. fraud). Just don't lie to anybody or consciously omit something that might influence their decision to purchase, and most of your concerns vanish.

Keep in mind though, if at some point you begin to present yourself as a "polished" type of transaction (e.g. logo, trade name, uniform, etc.) then someone that buys from you could make the claim that they thought you were a merchant.

I assume they're only charging for the stick and postage. But are there legal issues about proprietary codecs shiped with Mint? I suppose there aren't (because they are doing it), although I'm really not sure...

You are a funny fellow aren't you?

Remember this little bit?So without knowing me you have bragged that you know more than me! You start your entry into this thread by stating what I said was rubbish, on what basis did you come to that conclusion, realising the OP did not say what jurisdiction he was in I could not give any better answer because as pointed out by TobiSGD some countries do not allow people to do this.

I requested proof, and I am still yet to see anything that cannot be forged by most clever and resourceful high schooler, because your method of debate is not convincing.

Again you don't get it, you started your entry in this this topic stating that someone else post is "rubbish". I haven't moved any goal posts I am giving you what you started dishing out from the beginning. Don't like it do you? My suggestion would be to mellow a little and think before you bite.

In NSW to teach a subject you have to be qualified in it. I teach a group of subjects within an KLA (Key Learning Area) called HSIE (Human Society in It's Environment). One of my teaching subjects in this group is, wait for it, Legal Studies. I may not sit on a bench but for you to assume I have not got the knowledge to do so is a very weak argument on your behalf. To launch into, without even knowing me or my qualifications, an "I am smarter than you I can guarantee it" is something that belittles your supposed qualifications.

Well done you have finally answered the question although I would debate whether or not failing to explicitly list proprietary components lets the OP off the hook. It is well known that Ubuntu and Mint include these so to say I didn't list them ignores the idea that ignorance of the law is no defence. The OP would knowingly be selling something, even though he chose to "not specifically list it", that he has no legal title to do so.

Warranties are not a separate issue in all jurisdictions. If you sell something for profit, as in not just recouping costs, you may be, notice I said may, required to provide a warranty. If you are not the legal title holder of any part of the sale item, software included, you can be liable. That is why in some Common Law jurisdictions (New South Wales Australia is but one of many) all stock held by a retailer is either theirs through purchase at cost price to be sold at retail rates later, or held in trust from the manufacturer to be sold on the manufacturers behalf. The OP owns the PCs outright but he does not own the licences to the proprietary software.

Contact a local LUG for advice, they would hopefully have someone who knows the legal status of things like this in your country. If they do not have someone who can help contact a good lawyer who has expertise in this field.

Yep, better be careful with these kinds of things. BTW, I think Ubuntu only offers an option to download codecs (if I'm right), so it's up to the user to install them (so not Ubuntu responsibility.)

And in fact it turns out to be so simple as looking at the Linux Mint website. They offer a download of their CD without codecs with the following explanation:

Not having used Ubuntu recently I am not sure how they do it now. Ubuntu and Mint are not the only Distros who install by default or offer to install proprietary codecs and drivers. This is why it is a good idea to know what is on each distro and what your legal system allows.

This is my last response in this ridiculous exchange.

Were you, perhaps, assuming what license I was referring to? Perhaps you were trying to put words in my mouth by assuming a license to practice law?

As you so aptly stated:
Question: How is one determined to be "qualified?" A certificate? An official document from a governing/oversight group that determines minimum knowledge on a subject recognized by society/government? A "license," perhaps? And how would the holder of such a document interpret the "unless" clause of my statement?

And this is precisely what I refer to as "moving the goal posts." You asked for evidence. I provided a list of my qualifications and the scanned image of my Bar card. Yet, you take refuge in the "forgery" argument to avoid the fact that I stated who and what I am and didn't slink away when you challenged it.

What, pray tell, would be sufficient evidence to convince you? That I board an airplane, fly to your home, present you with paper documents that were stamped by the Texas State Bar, an accounting that I am a member in good standing, both notarized, stamped by your country's customs, and sealed with wax to indicate the contents were undisturbed in transit? Wait, I forgot, first I would need to prove to Jeremy that I am the individual associated with this account, get a document from him proving the association (likely including a photo ID and genetic sample), have him personally accompany me to the State Bar office for the other documents, and have him verify that I boarded a connectionless flight. There is absolutely nothing that I can do to satisfy you because you will "move the goal posts" by questioning the authenticity of anything I provide.

Your only recourse is to state, "I want uniquely identifying information" to authenticate my qualifications. Yet, you continue to repeat (over and over again) that "you don't know me." Precisely. Why would I want to provide you, some random person on the Internet with uniquely identifying information about myself that could be used to devastate my livelihood? How am I to know that you're not some Russian hacker looking to score a new identity to sell to criminals? How are you going to convince me that you're not? And if there's no proof that meets your exacting standards, your challenge of my claims is meaningless.

There are limits on "proof." You know this, and you are hiding behind unattainable standards and/or expecting me to be an absolute moron and give you the keys to everything about me.


You say that I "belittle[d] [my] supposed qualifications" by stating your original post was "rubbish." I assert that you belittle your supposed qualifications by getting worked up about it. Someone with experience in the legal field is accustomed to others making claims bordering on the outrageous, characterizing one party's actions as "beyond the pale," or "against all standards of moral decency." I find it hard to believe someone with that experience would have such a thin skin for the word "rubbish."

finally.

Nope, were you on the other hand assuming I knew nothing and used that assumption to "put me in my place".

Why have a last response and then ask a question?

If you hadn't come in "all guns ablazing" I would have just pointed out I didn't have the information with regards to what jurisdiction the OP was from. I would then have pointed out I gave my answer on a best intentions basis. You however started up and then bragged about how clever you were. You want to bring this into a discussion expect someone, like me, to push you on it. You initiated this so deal with it in an appropriate fashion.

Here we go again.

You made the statement, you should expect that people do not just fall at your feet and believe every word you post. This thread was about selling desktops and laptops with Ubuntu and Mint on it, you successfully turned it into a thread about you, well done. We didn't need the "I'm smarter than you" attitude the OP just needed good advice which you eventually gave as have others who have joined in. No one else bragged about their qualifications just you.

And here we go again and again. Before you read this take a deep breath ok. I don't care about your qualifications you mean absolutely nothing to me as a human being. You have made statements and when asked to verify it you complain when it is pointed out to you that it is practically impossible to prove it. You understand law and legal process why has it take so long for you to understand this?

Yes I do know this but no I am not expecting you to be a moron. What I did expect was that you would recognise you come into this discussion running hot and from your first post you started asserting your superiority. A better way may have been to say, "hey, recognising new information has come to light the post prior to this may not be totally accurate".

Sorry to tell you sunshine LQ is not a legal service per se. LQ is a place were people offer advice on a best knowledge basis, some people make mistakes others come in and fill in blanks. You come in and acted all superior. That has not helped anyone and has filled this otherwise informative thread with your life story. You keep saying I have changed the goal posts,it was you who had to point out how smart you are compared to everyone else. I fail to see what that, in a thread that could otherwise have been short and sweet, did to keep the thread and any subsequent discussion on track. It isn't about having a thick or thin skin (why you brought this into the discussion I don't know will you blame me for changing the goal posts again when it was you who initiated this and every other tangent?) rather it is about being helpful. I answer the OP to the best of my ability with the information I was presented with, what did you do?

@k3lt01 and Dark_Helmet, please calm down and stay on topic. Further intemperance will not be tolerated. Moreover, you might solve your disagreements privately without hijacking the thread. Thank you.

I guess an Aggie doesn't know that you can't legally sell or for that matter posses or download some of the things in MINT unless the version if the free non-codec version in the US.

If you want to protect yourself then purchase a copy from some company as an OEM installer.

The company that is big in commercial linux (RH) went after all sorts of people 15 or 20 years ago. Things that the people had to remove in included text files, art work, copy and trade mark protected items.

If you want to use Ubuntu then you need to contact them. http://www.ubuntu.com/business/desktop

You are not using this as a person. You have stated you are a business entity involved in making profit.

Watch for things in there like this.
"...2 Restrictions. Except as expressly permitted by this EULA or by applicable law, You may not (i) sell, lease, assign, license, sublicense, distribute or otherwise transfer in whole or in part the Software; (ii) permit any use of or access to the Software by any third party, (i..."

EDIT:
Almost got dragged back into it...

Did you hear the Aggie football team will have to go without ice water at games next year? The guy with the recipe graduated.

Ba-dum-boom

One may not forget that not only GPLed and proprietary code may possibly play a role here, but also the brands. Ubuntu and Linux Mint are trademarks. IANAL, but this may also give problems.
It would make the whole thing much easier to use a free distribution, like Debian, I think. No proprietary software in a standard install, free to distribute: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/de...istrib.en.html
I think if they allow you to sell Debian CDs/DVDs they have no problems with Debian installations.

For that price. I would not sweat selling them at 3 or 4 units a month in Texas. You definitely won't be getting rich doing this. So I don't think you'll attract any attention. I'll probably get hammered for this but I am thick skinned.

I have sold a couple of older Linux IBM Thinkpads over the Hotline (a local radio station garage sale) to folks who were attracted to the linux part of the radio broadcast. By the way . They were not Ubuntu or Mint. Debian instead.

You must be picking these units up super cheap to offer at those prices.Cheaper than a Windows install disk or other proprietary software like I use. By the way. These folks are still happy with their gear (I live in a small town). I even gave a IBM M41 Desktop with 1.2 gig of ram to a 70ish year old lady who thinks my wife is her long lost daughter and will do any thing for her. Last time that women touched a keyboard was in the 1960s. It was fun teaching her how to email, watch videos, read the news, and log into her new computer. She is a happy camper also.

If anybody local tries to give me grief. I got character witnesses.

I typically get the desktops and laptops for FREE or as part of my contract, I partner with a friend who owns a certified E-waste company, he actually charges companies a small fee to haul their ewaste, i cherry pick desktops and laptops to fix and sell, 95% get an OEM windows reinstall of XP or Win7 based on their easily recognizeable OS sticker and #, if its a nice desktop with a bad sticker , a vista desktop or something thats too old to use XP on with any good speed then i put Mint or Ubuntu on it, selling the Linux OS is not easy, most people cant cope with not seeing WINDOWS , what hooks them in is the LOW LOW price and the idea of being virus free

The relevant sections in the FAQ feel to me like they imply a contradiction

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....ngedJustBinary
That seems to say that if you download and give away unmodified Linux binaries, you are still required to include an offer to provide the (same exact version) sources to anyone you gave the binaries to. That and similar discussion implies you cannot simply identify the upstream distribution that (at the moment you got the binaries) was giving away exactly those sources.

But this section
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....ariesGetSource
Seems to say that a promise to provide source code does pass through intermediaries.

I don't pretend to understand that level of detail. If you provide a promise to provide source code, I can't find details on time limits if any (Can you provide a promise to provide source code to only those who asks for it within 7 days of getting binaries from you? How about 7 minutes?) I have read that you can include a reasonable charge for expenses connected to that offer.

I think you would get away with selling a computer with Linux installed coupled with a notice identifying the location from which you could have (but didn't bother to) download the full set of that version of source code, coupled with an offer to put all that source code on DVDs for anyone who wants to pay you $100 (for expenses only, the source code is free) to do so within some reasonable period of time. By doing so, you are betting that anyone who wants source code would rather get it themselves (you told them where) than pay you $100 to collect it, and you are betting that the copyright holders won't be interested in suing over your violation (for $100 being more than reasonable expenses) and you are betting that the upstream distribution leaves old source code around long enough for you to retrieve if anyone were crazy enough to give you $100 for it.
Alternately, you could be safer by making the DVD collection of (downloaded) full source code at the time you download the binaries and then offer to charge a reasonable expense fee for anyone who wants a copy of that DVD set.

In all this I can't see if the install is worth the effort unless you have some specialty market. How hard is it to have a linux market and ask them to install their own OS? A windows user may be reluctant to install linux or even use linux no matter how pretty you make it.

OK, that is a new one on me. "The guy with the recipe graduated."

Even Debian may have some pitfalls.
"14.1 Can I make and sell Debian CDs?

Go ahead. You do not need permission to distribute anything we have released, so that you can master your CD as soon as the beta-test ends. You do not have to pay us anything. Of course, all CD manufacturers must honor the licenses of the programs in Debian. For example, many of the programs are licensed under the GPL, which requires you to distribute their source code. "

Debian legal disclaims their statements and cautions one to be warned on many pages and for many reasons.

The above quote from this site: http://www.slackbook.org/html/introd...pensource.html

Give the buyer the Live/Install CD which costs about twenty five cents with or without the OS installed with an additional charge to have it installed. You probably won't get many people who would rather install it themselves.