how is it legal for novell to sell linux?

[mamamia88]

i thought it was under a restrictive liscense that makes it almost impossible to make money off the selling of linux i have been wondering about this for awhile now

[Tibuda]

"Free speech" is different from "free beer".

[SuperSonic4]

the GPL says you can sell it for any price but you must make the code available to everyone who asks who are then free to redistribute it

Novell generally make money from offering businesses technical support

[snowpine]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8888563&st=ubuntu&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1211587312374

[mamamia88]

oh cool so you can sell it as long as you give it away for free at the same time? seems like an effort in futility if you could get it for free. so the only reason novell makes money is for the support?

[|{urse]

It is legal because i said so. I told them they could and they were like, "Thanks!".

/me nods approvingly

edit: Or maybe it was because they are selling their support not the code.

[koenn]

oh cool so you can sell it as long as you give it away for free at the same time?

no, they can sell it but the source code needs to be included. That does not mean they have to give it away to anyone who asks.
And the one buying it can decide to redistribute it, or not.

[p_quarles]

oh cool so you can sell it as long as you give it away for free at the same time? seems like an effort in futility if you could get it for free. so the only reason novell makes money is for the support?
The GPL only discusses the availability of the source code. Novell makes the source code for SUSE Enterprise available to those requesting it. What you cannot do is download a binary installation disk.

OpenSUSE, on the other hand, is a community-driven distro supported by Novell. That is free in terms of cost and in terms of source code.

[lykwydchykyn]

Keep in mind there is a difference between Linux and a Linux distro. You can put proprietary software in a Linux distro; you are only required to release code for the parts that are licensed under the GPL or similar licenses.

I believe Novell does this, as well as RedHat, Linspire, and Xandros.

[MaxIBoy]

oh cool so you can sell it as long as you give it away for free at the same time? seems like an effort in futility if you could get it for free. so the only reason novell makes money is for the support?



If you buy the package from Novell, you get some copyrighted assets (such as icons, themes, etc,) legal codecs, and most importantly, you get support. Support means not only tech support, but the ability to use their repositories to download new programs and automatic updates.
If you download the source code, you have to compile it yourself, you have to add some free assets to make it work, and you don't get any suppport.

Keep in mind that Novell only has this policy for their "enterprise" offerings. For their "home use" SuSE offerings, they offer tech support bought separately, the same as Canonical does for Ubuntu.

[Giant Speck]

The GPL only discusses the availability of the source code. Novell makes the source code for SUSE Enterprise available to those requesting it. What you cannot do is download a binary installation disk.

OpenSUSE, on the other hand, is a community-driven distro supported by Novell. That is free in terms of cost and in terms of source code.

So, let's see if I understand this correctly.

A company can create a Linux distribution and sell it, as long as they release the source code to the customer.

What I want to know is, can the company restrict availablilty to the source code to only those who purchase their software?

[Icehuck]

What I want to know is, can the company restrict availablilty to the source code to only those who purchase their software?

I would say yes based on this line from the FSF on the GPL.


The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

Found here GPL FAQ (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)

[lykwydchykyn]

So, let's see if I understand this correctly.

A company can create a Linux distribution and sell it, as long as they release the source code to the customer.

What I want to know is, can the company restrict availablilty to the source code to only those who purchase their software?

A company can create a Linux distribution and sell it, as long as they release the source code of GPL licensed components to the customer.

And they have to release source publicly. See section 3 b:


Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code,


You cannot limit it to your customers only.

[gnomeuser]

So, let's see if I understand this correctly.

A company can create a Linux distribution and sell it, as long as they release the source code to the customer.

What I want to know is, can the company restrict availablilty to the source code to only those who purchase their software?

If you are the recipient of a binary built from GPL'ed source code then you can request the source code. They may charge you a reasonable amount to provide it to you, say to cover medias, shipping, hosting charges, etc.

So yes Novell can perfectly well restrict handing out the source to non-customers. However nothing stops a customer from requesting the source and then redistributing it with trademarked content (such as artwork) removed.

Nothing is stopping anyone from creating a CentOS-like freely distributable version of Novells excellent SLED products. Just buy a license, ask for the source, strip proprietary elements and trademarks then redistribute. This is just what CentOS and Oracle does with Red Hats RHEL product.

[Slug71]

You also have to buy Xandros if you want it.

[jrusso2]

You also have to buy Xandros if you want it.

Xandros has a free community version which it does a pretty good job of hiding but it it available.

[kk0sse54]

You also have to buy Xandros if you want it.

Of which I see no point in doing

[cardinals_fan]

I would say yes based on this line from the FSF on the GPL.


The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

Found here GPL FAQ (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)
That refers to internal use, such as Google's Goobuntu, which is not available to the public.

[Icehuck]

That refers to internal use, such as Google's Goobuntu, which is not available to the public.

Yes, but it can also relate to sales to end users. The general public doesn't get the code, just the end users.

[yabbadabbadont]

The general public doesn't get the code, just the end users.

Correct, but then the end users can redistribute that code as long as it is licensed under the GPL. The company only has to make it available to customers, but they can't prevent the customers from sharing the GPL'd parts.

<insert obligatory IANAL>

[phrostbyte]

You pretty much can outright sell distros of Linux (even without support). It's just very hard to make this very profitable because most distros are free already. And yes you'd have to release the source code of any GPL things you modified or software that links to GPL code.

[lykwydchykyn]

Correct, but then the end users can redistribute that code as long as it is licensed under the GPL. The company only has to make it available to customers, but they can't prevent the customers from sharing the GPL'd parts.

<insert obligatory IANAL>

Section 3b says you need to provide a written offer for source code good for 3 years to any third party. Although, admittedly, the issue of whether or not you need to provide code to just anyone or only legitimate customers is a bit of a grey area. I think RMS would insist that you need to give it to anyone who asks, because someone could legally acquire the binaries without necessarily being your customer (e.g., you buy something second-hand that has Linux on it). I don't think it's been tested in court, so it's kind of up to your own interpretation at this point.

[koenn]

Section 3b says you need to provide a written offer for source code good for 3 years to any third party. Although, admittedly, the issue of whether or not you need to provide code to just anyone or only legitimate customers is a bit of a grey area.

refering to GPL v3 :

Conveying Non-Source Forms.

You may convey a covered work in object code (i.e. compiled, binary)form provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
a) ...
b) ...
c)
d)

make publically available for download is only one of the possible ways to satisfy this requirement, and not an obligation. Giving your customer (and noone else) a cd with source code when he purchases your binaries, is just as valid.


... because someone could legally acquire the binaries without necessarily being your customer (e.g., you buy something second-hand that has Linux on it).
I don't think so.
If you acquire the binaries, you are entitled to the source, but the obligation to provide the source lies with the person you acquired the binaries from.

[Leo Dragonheart]

It is legal because i said so. I told them they could and they were like, "Thanks!".

/me nods approvingly

edit: Or maybe it was because they are selling their support not the code.


I love the secret message....cool :-)

[jenkinbr]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8888563&st=ubuntu&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1211587312374

The following is found in the product description:

This boxed set includes a Ubuntu CD, Quick Start Guide, and 60 days of professional support from Ubuntu

The $20 USD here is probably going to the 2 months of support.

[hoopz23]

There are people in the world who aren't as tech savvy as the people on this forum. They may not know anything about Live CD's and other stuff like that and this may be the only way they can try out Linux and Ubuntu.