What is your stance on paying for Linux ?

[kop316]

One thing I have always thought would make it an advantage is the fact that if it were paid for, even with a nominal fee (like 10$), then it would actually appear on retailers shelves (granted they would bother with Linux), since they would not bother to put it up for free (unless they got something out of it). At least then when people go to the store they would see Linux as an option.
But when you start getting to the 70-100$ range, that is when i look for another distro.

[Hygelac]

One of the things that 'sold' me on Linux was the price of distros such as this ('free' as in beer). I would never have started experimenting with Linux had I had to pay for it; I do not want to toss money into the unknown. Thanks to not having to pay for Linux and having an outdated computer taking-up space in a closet, I was able to start experimenting, and now Linux is the main OS I use.

That's just me though...

[briancurtin]

ive paid for SuSE twice in the past, and if i felt like continuing to use SuSE, id probably pay for it again. i liked what i got in the DVD/CDs they offered, as well as the great printed materials. since SuSE ive used a bunch of distros that ive just downloaded, but if some of them were available with printed materials, id probably throw some money towards them since most of it is a donation anyways.

im not against paying for linux at all. i definitely prefer things to be free as in freedom first, free as in beer second.

[enopepsoo]

I am against paying money that I am not already paying for my internet connection.
I do not care for economics at all, and any notion of paying 'with my time' is an insult to what my time is worth to me. Screw Milton Friedman, long live Linux!

[briancurtin]

^doesnt make any sense at all

[Christmas]

I'd pay for Linux. Can anybody enlighten me? I don't know how you can earn money using Linux as a platform. For example, I heard that programs made for Linux cannot be commercialized, even if you made them from scratch. Is that true? Then how comes games like UT2004, Quake and other which are native or ported to Linux are costing money? Also, if the kernel and the DE are licensed under GNU, how can you use them in making a distro and ask for money? GNU says that you can modify a program but license it under the same GNU rules. Pls enlighten me.

[helpme]

I'd pay for Linux. Can anybody enlighten me? I don't know how you can earn money using Linux as a platform. For example, I heard that programs made for Linux cannot be commercialized, even if you made them from scratch.

That's simply wrong. What you are probably refering to is that programs that use code that's under the GPL also have to be published under the GPL. This however does not mean that you can't sell them, it simply means that you have to make the source code accessible to those who pay for a reasonable fee and that you have to grant them the rights to basicly do with the code what they want.

Then how comes games like UT2004, Quake and other which are native or ported to Linux are costing money?

First off, again, free software does not refer to not costing money, but to having the rights to basicly do what you want with the program. However, it's of course perfectly possible to offer non-free software for Linux, as the games you mention show.

Also, if the kernel and the DE are licensed under GNU, how can you use them in making a distro and ask for money? GNU says that you can modify a program but license it under the same GNU rules. Pls enlighten me.

They are not licensed under GNU, but under the GPL or the LGPL (which allows you to link against programs under the LGPL without having to GPL your program) and of course under a host of other open source licenses.
Also, asking money for free software is as already mentioned absolutely within anyones right. In fact, the FSF (Free Software Foundation) even encourages people to make as much money with their free software as they want and can.

[Virogenesis]

I'd pay for Linux. Can anybody enlighten me? I don't know how you can earn money using Linux as a platform. For example, I heard that programs made for Linux cannot be commercialized, even if you made them from scratch. Is that true? Then how comes games like UT2004, Quake and other which are native or ported to Linux are costing money? Also, if the kernel and the DE are licensed under GNU, how can you use them in making a distro and ask for money? GNU says that you can modify a program but license it under the same GNU rules. Pls enlighten me.

Well You can make commercial apps for Linux, Zeus webserver is just one of the many commercial apps for linux.
Well you can make a distro and ask for money for many reasons eg: the service they provide, burning the cds, support, manuals....etc

What the GNU states is that GPL work always has the source code provided for example ubuntu gets around that by offering the source code online.

I would pay for Linux for a polished disto, I've used suse in the past and the polish was incredible.
I have a redhat 5.3 box set and thats also good as that comes with a manual.

[jethro10]

I've paid for Suse in the past.
However the best distros are free..........
Like this Ubuntu thingy, automatic updates, click and install, it's got almost everything.
Makes it difficult to think why i'd pay for something else.

Jeff

[Christmas]

Thanks for the explanations guys. So basically you can make programs from scratch for Linux and sell them but provide the source code too. You can also use other programs/parts of code and modify them and sell them but provide the source code too. Is that correct, I've got it?