Charge money for linux?

[jsmidt]

How is it that some linux distro's can charge money for linux. Doesn't the GNU liscence say linux should be distributed freely, or am I confused about something? I'm obviously a newbie.

[Stormy Eyes]

How is it that some linux distro's can charge money for linux. Doesn't the GNU liscence say linux should be distributed freely, or am I confused about something? I'm obviously a newbie.

The GPL allows you to sell Linux as long as you provide the source code.

[dubz]

they charge for the services offered and the propriety software in their OS.

Minaly for Big Corporations.Novell,IBM,etc

[ofek]

They still have a free ver. (most of em)
The ver they charge money for has programs which cost money and aren't based on the GPL license.
The os it self doesn't cost money, its the commercial programs in it that cost money.

[Brunellus]

the support contract costs money as well. If you're a corp, you pay for a helpdesk; if you're an atomic user (whoa did I just invent a buzzword?) you hang out on ubuntuforums.

[bulldogzerofive]

Strangely, it is easier to sell a product to a corporation than to give them one. Corporate bureaucrats will always want to cover themselves, and being able to produce contract to an outside company to provide things like software support in an emergency is usually prefered to having to take responsibility for that emergency. Besides, i am sure the support comes in handy.

Other times, people pay for what is billed as an "easier" linux. I do not think these are easier (I paid for Mandrake when i first tried linux) and I am not entirely sure the money i paid actually went to improving the software. Ubuntu, by the way, is much easier to learn and less buggy than mandrake.

I encourage people to donate something (artwork, code, or a little money in the absence of those) in return for all this great software, but they should probably try a few options out before doing so... just so they know what they are really giving to.

Take care
-mat

[Kvark]

Companies that sell propriarity software has monopoly on that software, those who sell GPL software doesn't.

Anyone can take all the GPLed software in for example RedHat, put their own trademark on it and offer it for free. You can't do that with propriarity software.

[az]

The whole thing is summed up this way:

GNU software is not property. It belongs to everybody, which does not prohibit you from selling a copy of it to someone.

Proprietary software (non-gnu, or non-free-libre software) is someone's property. They do what they want with it and that includes not telling you exactly what it does or how it does it. It's ownership can change without regard for who wrote it.

The whole free software movement is really about how you think of software. Is it property or not?