Legality of charging for Linux?

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,570
10,204
126
Can you burn various Linux distros and charge for them? I believe that you can, that the GPLv2 doesn't limit your right to charge money for software, but are there any distros that otherwise forbid, possibly based on trademark grounds / licensing, distribution for money?

Yes, I know that nearly all Linux distros are both free as in speech and beer, but I was thinking of starting a distro-burning service. Yes, snail-mail a DVD or DVDs.

Given that ISPs are looking at charging per GB overage fees soon, something like this might actually prove valuable to a certain segment of the population.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
20,162
14,702
136
IIRC, AFAIK, IANAL: The GPL says yes, sure, you can sell say Linux, but if you make modifications to it, the source code has to be freely downloadable/accessible.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
59,227
9,721
126
Exceptions to the gpl that further restrict the user aren't valid, and can be ignored. One thing you'll want to do is have the source code available for everything you distribute in case anyone asks. It's your responsibility to provide it.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,570
10,204
126
IIRC, AFAIK, IANAL: The GPL says yes, sure, you can sell say Linux, but if you make modifications to it, the source code has to be freely downloadable/accessible.

Exceptions to the gpl that further restrict the user aren't valid, and can be ignored. One thing you'll want to do is have the source code available for everything you distribute in case anyone asks. It's your responsibility to provide it.

Do I have to provide the source code, if I'm only re-distributing something that some upstream entity has created, and they offer the source code, if I'm not modifying that in any way?

Does OSDisc.com provide source code to their distros?
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
59,227
9,721
126
Do I have to provide the source code, if I'm only re-distributing something that some upstream entity has created, and they offer the source code, if I'm not modifying that in any way?

Does OSDisc.com provide source code to their distros?

If you're really interested in staying legal, you should probably contact the FSF for guidance regarding the gpl. As I understand it, source code should be provided by the distributor, which would be you in this case. It doesn't have to be provided with every purchase, but made available on request. Odds are very good that no one will ask, but to be legal...
 

ninaholic37

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2012
1,883
31
91
People still use CDs/DVDs? I haven't used one since 2007. Linux distros are easy to download, seems like a silly business idea. Many laptops don't even have a CD drive any more. I don't know how internet access works in some countries though, maybe there's a few that are way more behind the times.
 

Tsavo

Platinum Member
Sep 29, 2009
2,645
37
91
Given that ISPs are looking at charging per GB overage fees soon, something like this might actually prove valuable to a certain segment of the population.

Not really. The people that use Linux will have multiple avenues to obtain it.
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,989
1,619
126
People still use CDs/DVDs? I haven't used one since 2007. Linux distros are easy to download, seems like a silly business idea. Many laptops don't even have a CD drive any more. I don't know how internet access works in some countries though, maybe there's a few that are way more behind the times.

Agreed.

Thumb drive distro creation... Maybe. If the drives were cheap.
 

ArisVer

Golden Member
Mar 6, 2011
1,345
32
91
The way I see it is that you are actually charging the delivery, the discs and the time you spend to make the discs, which is your time and you can charge whatever you feel like.
 

teclordphrack2

Junior Member
Jun 18, 2015
1
0
36
You actually can't charge for it. All the companies that are out there give the software for free b/c they have based their os mods on code that stipulates it must be free if included in your project. What the big companies, Redhat, Ubuntu, etc, do is charge for tech support.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
59,227
9,721
126
You actually can't charge for it. All the companies that are out there give the software for free b/c they have based their os mods on code that stipulates it must be free if included in your project. What the big companies, Redhat, Ubuntu, etc, do is charge for tech support.

That's not true. Forbidding the sale of the software would be a gpl violation. "Free" in this case refers to user freedom, or libre. Free software doesn't concern itself with money aside from clear cases of fraud. Example, you can't give away a binary, but charge $1m for the sources. the sources have to be provided gratis, or for a nominal distribution charge.

Old thread, but for anyone interested, this is the rule...

I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too? (#UnchangedJustBinary)

Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
You actually can't charge for it. All the companies that are out there give the software for free b/c they have based their os mods on code that stipulates it must be free if included in your project. What the big companies, Redhat, Ubuntu, etc, do is charge for tech support.
Obviously no clue...
 

Mikemk

Junior Member
Jun 26, 2015
2
0
66
The license is here, important part copied below
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
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.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
69,964
13,472
126
www.anyf.ca
This it the beauty of Linux and open source software. You can almost do what you want with it short of a few rules such as having to provide the source if you change it, and other rules in the GPL which are all fair. Unlike Windows where you're not even allowed to install it on more than one computer for your own personal use, let alone distribute it.
 

Eelectricity

Member
Jul 13, 2015
89
0
0
www.indiegogo.com
You can also charge for the sources if someone asks to see them. For example someone sends you a request for the source for a distro, you tell them if they want the source they need to pay you $100 so you can burn it to dvd and ship it.

But good luck making a living at selling distros on dvds/cds. Or even breaking even for that matter.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
69,964
13,472
126
www.anyf.ca
You can also charge for the sources if someone asks to see them. For example someone sends you a request for the source for a distro, you tell them if they want the source they need to pay you $100 so you can burn it to dvd and ship it.

But good luck making a living at selling distros on dvds/cds. Or even breaking even for that matter.

I think the source still needs to be available freely though but you can charge for alternative methods too. For example you can host it on a dialup FTP server or something super horrendous, but it has to be available. At least that's what I always figured. Otherwise you could just charge a million dollars for it, it's basically the same as not making it available.
 

Eelectricity

Member
Jul 13, 2015
89
0
0
www.indiegogo.com
I think the source still needs to be available freely though but you can charge for alternative methods too. For example you can host it on a dialup FTP server or something super horrendous, but it has to be available. At least that's what I always figured. Otherwise you could just charge a million dollars for it, it's basically the same as not making it available.

Good point. Although I'm really not sure about it being available for no cost. They cannot burden you with the cost of providing the source and bandwidth to download the source, etc. That is a gray area I think.

On a side note I remember reading somewhere that very few cases have been a success. i.e. there have not been many times when a vendor took something opensource, made a product using that opensource and then resold it as something else. Many of the cases I read about showed that the vendor hadn't made any modifications to the code.

It was more of an educational experience for the vendor than anything else. They literally just didn't know.

So very, very few cases of an enforcement that resulted in code coming out of it.
 

Essence_of_War

Platinum Member
Feb 21, 2013
2,650
4
81
This may be useful to the discussion of charging for source. From eelectrity's comments, I find the figure of 100 USD to be ludicrous for the cost of mailing a source dvd. I have included some relevant excerpts from the Software Freedom foundation's gpl compliance guide.

https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html

4.1.2 Option (b): The Offer

Many distributors prefer to ship only an offer for source with the binary distribution, rather than the complete source package. This option has value when the cost of source distribution is a true per-unit cost. For example, this option might be a good choice for embedded products with permanent storage too small to fit the source, and which are not otherwise shipped with a CD but are shipped with a manual or other printed material.

However, this option increases the duration of your obligations dramatically. An offer for source must be good for three full years from your last binary distribution (under GPLv2), or your last binary or spare part distribution (under GPLv3). Your source code request and provisioning system must be designed to last much longer than your product life cycle.

In addition, if you are required to comply with the terms of GPLv2, you cannot use a network service to provide the source code. For GPLv2, the source code offer is fulfilled only with physical media. This usually means that you must continue to produce an up-to-date “source code CD” for years after the product’s end-of-life.

Under GPLv2, it is acceptable and advisable for your offer for source code to include an Internet link for downloadable source in addition to offering source on a physical medium. This practice enables those with fast network connections to get the source more quickly, and typically decreases the number of physical media fulfillment requests. (GPLv3 § 6(b) permits provision of source with a public network-accessible distribution only and no physical media. We discuss this in detail at the end of this section.)

The following is a suggested compliant offer for source under GPLv2 (and is also acceptable for GPLv3) that you would include in your printed materials accompanying each binary distribution:

The software included in this product contains copyrighted software that is licensed under the GPL. A copy of that license is included in this document on page X. You may obtain the complete Corresponding Source code from us for a period of three years after our last shipment of this product, which will be no earlier than 2011-08-01, by sending a money order or check for $5 to:
GPL Compliance Division
Our Company
Any Town, US 99999

Please write “source for product Y ” in the memo line of your payment.

You may also find a copy of the source at http://www.example.com/sources/Y/.

This offer is valid to anyone in receipt of this information.

There are a few important details about this offer. First, it requires a copying fee. GPLv2 permits “a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution”. This fee must be reasonable. If your cost of copying and mailing a CD is more than around $10, you should perhaps find a cheaper CD stock and shipment method. It is simply not in your interest to try to overcharge the community. Abuse of this provision in order to make a for-profit enterprise of source code provision will likely trigger enforcement action.

Second, note that the last line makes the offer valid to anyone who requests the source. This is because v2 § 3(b) requires that offers be “to give any third party” a copy of the Corresponding Source. GPLv3 has a similar requirement, stating that an offer must be valid for “anyone who possesses the object code”. These requirements indicated in v2 § 3(c) and v3 § 6(c) are so that non-commercial redistributors may pass these offers along with their distributions. Therefore, the offers must be valid not only to your customers, but also to anyone who received a copy of the binaries from them. Many distributors overlook this requirement and assume that they are only required to fulfill a request from their direct customers.

The option to provide an offer for source rather than direct source distribution is a special benefit to companies equipped to handle a fulfillment process. GPLv2 § 3(c) and GPLv3 § 6(c) avoid burdening noncommercial, occasional redistributors with fulfillment request obligations by allowing them to pass along the offer for source as they received it.

Note that commercial redistributors cannot avail themselves of the option (c) exception, and so while your offer for source must be good to anyone who receives the offer (under v2) or the object code (under v3), it cannot extinguish the obligations of anyone who commercially redistributes your product. The license terms apply to anyone who distributes GPL’d software, regardless of whether they are the original distributor. Take the example of Vendor V , who develops a software platform from GPL’d sources for use in embedded devices. Manufacturer M contracts with V to install the software as firmware in M’s device. V provides the software to M, along with a compliant offer for source. In this situation, M cannot simply pass V ’s offer for source along to its customers. M also distributes the GPL’d software commercially, so M too must comply with the GPL and provide source (or M’s own offer for source) to M’s customers.

This situation illustrates that the offer for source is often a poor choice for products that your customers will likely redistribute. If you include the source itself with the products, then your distribution to your customers is compliant, and their (unmodified) distribution to their customers is likewise compliant, because both include source. If you include only an offer for source, your distribution is compliant but your customer’s distribution does not “inherit” that compliance, because they have not made their own offer to accompany their distribution.

The terms related to the offer for source are quite different if you distribute under GPLv3. Under v3, you may make source available only over a network server, as long as it is available to the general public and remains active for three years from the last distribution of your product or related spare part. Accordingly, you may satisfy your fulfillment obligations via Internet-only distribution. This makes the “offer for source” option less troublesome for v3-only distributions, easing compliance for commercial redistributors. However, before you switch to a purely Internet-based fulfillment process, you must first confirm that you can actually distribute all of the software under GPLv3. Some programs are indeed licensed under “GPLv2, or any later version” (often abbreviated “GPLv2-or-later”). Such licensing gives you the option to redistribute under GPLv3. However, a few popular programs are only licensed under GPLv2 and not “or any later version” (“GPLv2-only”). You cannot provide only Internet-based source request fulfillment for the latter programs.

If you determine that all GPL’d works in your whole product allow upgrade to GPLv3 (or were already GPLv3’d to start), your offer for source may be as simple as this:

The software included in this product contains copyrighted software that is licensed under the GPLv3. A copy of that license is included in this document on page X. You may obtain the complete Corresponding Source code from us for a period of three years after our last shipment of this product and/or spare parts therefor, which will be no earlier than 2011-08-01, on our website at http://www.example.com/sources/productnum/.

Under both GPLv2 and GPLv3, source offers must be accompanied by a copy of the license itself, either electronically or in print, with every distribution.

Finally, it is unacceptable to use option (b) merely because you do not have Corresponding Source ready. We find that some companies chose this option because writing an offer is easy, but producing a source distribution as an afterthought to a hasty development process is difficult. The offer for source does not exist as a stop-gap solution for companies rushing to market with an out-of-compliance product. If you ship an offer for source with your product but cannot actually deliver immediately on that offer when your customers receive it, you should expect an enforcement action.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
69,964
13,472
126
www.anyf.ca
I'm just curious but who would actually perform "enforcement action" if someone does break the GPL? It's not like the RIAA or MPAA where they have billions of dollars to spend on lawyers and get most of that money and more back through lawsuits, how would it work in the open source world?
 

Essence_of_War

Platinum Member
Feb 21, 2013
2,650
4
81
I'm just curious but who would actually perform "enforcement action"
The copyright holder. (Edit: See my link below to the FSF's article on "Enforcing the GNU GPL".)

Here are some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Legal_status

There is a somewhat relevant and recent example w/ regards to Cisco. In this case, the FSF is the copyright holder since the materials in question (distributed w/o source and modifications) were GNU coreutils and some other useful command-line utilities.

On 11 December 2008, the Free Software Foundation sued Cisco Systems, Inc. for copyright violations by its Linksys division, of the FSF's GPL-licensed coreutils, readline, Parted, Wget, GNU Compiler Collection, binutils, and GNU Debugger software packages, which Linksys distributes in the Linux firmware[84] of its WRT54G wireless routers, as well as numerous other devices including DSL and Cable modems, Network Attached Storage devices, Voice-Over-IP gateways, Virtual Private Network devices and a home theater/media player device.[85]

After six years of repeated complaints to Cisco by the FSF, claims by Cisco that they would correct, or were correcting, their compliance problems (not providing complete copies of all source code and their modifications), of repeated new violations being discovered and reported with more products, and lack of action by Linksys (a process described on the FSF blog as a "five-years-running game of Whack-a-Mole"[85]) the FSF took them to court.

Cisco settled the case six months later by agreeing "to appoint a Free Software Director for Linksys" to ensure compliance, "to notify previous recipients of Linksys products containing FSF programs of their rights under the GPL," to make source code of FSF programs freely available on its website, and to make a monetary contribution to the FSF.
[86]
Edit:

An additional useful link:

Enforcing the GNU GPL
So what happens when the GPL is violated? With software for which the Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (either because we wrote the programs in the first place, or because free software authors have assigned us the copyright, in order to take advantage of our expertise in protecting their software's freedom), the first step is a report, usually received by email to <license-violation@gnu.org>. We ask the reporters of violations to help us establish necessary facts, and then we conduct whatever further investigation is required.


We reach this stage dozens of times a year. A quiet initial contact is usually sufficient to resolve the problem. Parties thought they were complying with GPL, and are pleased to follow advice on the correction of an error. Sometimes, however, we believe that confidence-building measures will be required, because the scale of the violation or its persistence in time makes mere voluntary compliance insufficient. In such situations we work with organizations to establish GPL-compliance programs within their enterprises, led by senior managers who report to us, and directly to their enterprises' managing boards, regularly. In particularly complex cases, we have sometimes insisted upon measures that would make subsequent judicial enforcement simple and rapid in the event of future violation.


In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults.
 
Last edited:

Essence_of_War

Platinum Member
Feb 21, 2013
2,650
4
81
There seems to be a misunderstanding with regards to the purpose of the GPL.

The GPL is intended to do two things:
1) Ensure that the recipient of a piece of software has all of the free-as-in-freedom rights to do things such as study, modify, distribute, etc.
2) To use "copyleft" to preserve those same freedoms for future users upon subsequent re-distribution, with or without modifications and changes.

The point isn't to annex code from companies like some sort of software-conquistador. The point is to preserve the end-user freedoms.

And at any rate, I don't see how this is relevant. My point re: Cisco was just to answer Red Squirrel's question about who takes legal action in a GPL violation with a non-compliant party. My point with the big excerpt from the Software Freedom Foundation is that this:

You can also charge for the sources if someone asks to see them. For example someone sends you a request for the source for a distro, you tell them if they want the source they need to pay you $100 so you can burn it to dvd and ship it.
is not a good idea. It's at best mean-spirited since you're charging WAY more money than the cost of burning and shipping a src DVD, and at worst it is a violation of the GPLv2's “a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution”. Not to mention you don't seem to be considering the "3-year" obligation from last distribution of binaries.

If you want to make money selling GPL software, sell the software and comply with your obligations under the GPL for providing source.
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,989
1,619
126
If you want to make money selling GPL software, sell the software and comply with your obligations under the GPL for providing source.

Counterpoint: if you want to make money selling GPL software, distribute the software for free and charge an arm and a leg for enterprise support.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |