How does this work with GPL?

How does this work with GPL?

Post by John Wiltshir » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1538345.html

"MontaVista Software of Sunnyvale, Calif., announced a version of
Linux designed for extremely small devices with no keyboard or monitor
and as little as 500 kilobytes of memory--less than a 60th of what a
typical inexpensive PC today ships with. MontaVista's HardHat Linux
will be sold under an annual subscription instead of through a
per-unit royalty, the company said."

Can't they only charge fees for the media and postage if they modify
the kernel?  How do they plan to make any money from this other than
through support?

Curious...

John Wiltshire

 
 
 

How does this work with GPL?

Post by Steven Smolins » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


[Followups set.  Why bother the NT people with GPL talk?]


>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1538345.html

>"MontaVista Software of Sunnyvale, Calif., announced a version of
>Linux designed for extremely small devices with no keyboard or monitor
>and as little as 500 kilobytes of memory--less than a 60th of what a
>typical inexpensive PC today ships with. MontaVista's HardHat Linux
>will be sold under an annual subscription instead of through a
>per-unit royalty, the company said."

>Can't they only charge fees for the media and postage if they modify
>the kernel?  How do they plan to make any money from this other than
>through support?

You really should read the GPL for this.  It does not forbid selling
GPLed material for any fee you wish.  You can take a RedHat distro,
stick your name all over it, smack on a $600 price tag and call it Windows
for all the GPL cares.  

*If* you redistribute GPLed code, mind you, the *source* must be available
(for modest media and delivery costs at most).  (See the GPL for other
specific restrictions.)

I didn't read the story above, but they cannot stop you from getting
their 'subscription,' and posting all the GPLed code in it for download
on your site, or burning it for friends.

There may be software in the distro that is not GPLed and only links to
the kernel as a module, in which case it's not infected by the GPL and
may stay proprietary.  Which means: you cannot redistribute it and would
have to get their 'subscription.'

Steve

 
 
 

How does this work with GPL?

Post by Tim Cai » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Quote:>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1538345.html

[snip]

Quote:

>Can't they only charge fees for the media and postage if they modify
>the kernel?  How do they plan to make any money from this other than
>through support?

Maybe selling a development kit?...Dunno.

Tim.

 
 
 

How does this work with GPL?

Post by Truckasauru » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> [Followups set.  Why bother the NT people with GPL talk?]


> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1538345.html

> >"MontaVista Software of Sunnyvale, Calif., announced a version of
> >Linux designed for extremely small devices with no keyboard or
monitor
> >and as little as 500 kilobytes of memory--less than a 60th of what a
> >typical inexpensive PC today ships with. MontaVista's HardHat Linux
> >will be sold under an annual subscription instead of through a
> >per-unit royalty, the company said."

> >Can't they only charge fees for the media and postage if they modify
> >the kernel?  How do they plan to make any money from this other than
> >through support?

> You really should read the GPL for this.  It does not forbid selling
> GPLed material for any fee you wish.  You can take a RedHat distro,
> stick your name all over it, smack on a $600 price tag and call it
Windows
> for all the GPL cares.

From the GPL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html):

'1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the
Program.'

So, 'sticking your name all over it' does not mean that you can call it
yours, or claim that you wrote it if you didn't.

--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
Martin A. Boegelund.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

How does this work with GPL?

Post by Drestin Blac » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Quote:> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1538345.html

> "MontaVista Software of Sunnyvale, Calif., announced a version of
> Linux designed for extremely small devices with no keyboard or monitor
> and as little as 500 kilobytes of memory--less than a 60th of what a
> typical inexpensive PC today ships with. MontaVista's HardHat Linux
> will be sold under an annual subscription instead of through a
> per-unit royalty, the company said."

> Can't they only charge fees for the media and postage if they modify
> the kernel?  How do they plan to make any money from this other than
> through support?

> Curious...

Um... wait... make money from Linux?
<holding breath>
buwaahahahahahaha

sorry John, I couldn't help it. If it wasn't for IPOs there would be no
money in Linux today. And we'll see about that tomorrow...

 
 
 

How does this work with GPL?

Post by Steven Smolins » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





>> You really should read the GPL for this.  It does not forbid selling
>> GPLed material for any fee you wish.  You can take a RedHat distro,
>> stick your name all over it, smack on a $600 price tag and call it
>> Windows
>> for all the GPL cares.

>From the GPL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html):

>'1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
>code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
>and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
>and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
>this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
>recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the
>Program.'

>So, 'sticking your name all over it' does not mean that you can call it
>yours, or claim that you wrote it if you didn't.

No, of course you cannot remove the copyright notices.  By 'stick your
name all over it' I was thinking of the LinuxOne distro.  Apparently,
they took Mandrake and it looked the just ran

perl -pi -we 's/(Mandrake|Red Hat)/Linux One/g'

on the interface code on all the apps.  The copyright notices could
remain, but the user would see your name instead of the original author's.

Steve

 
 
 

How does this work with GPL?

Post by JEDIDI » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1538345.html

>> "MontaVista Software of Sunnyvale, Calif., announced a version of
>> Linux designed for extremely small devices with no keyboard or monitor
>> and as little as 500 kilobytes of memory--less than a 60th of what a
>> typical inexpensive PC today ships with. MontaVista's HardHat Linux
>> will be sold under an annual subscription instead of through a
>> per-unit royalty, the company said."

>> Can't they only charge fees for the media and postage if they modify
>> the kernel?  How do they plan to make any money from this other than
>> through support?

>> Curious...

>Um... wait... make money from Linux?
><holding breath>
>buwaahahahahahaha

        It's not Linux they're making money off of.

        They're SAVING money with Linux, money that
        they would otherwise have to spend and make
        their business more difficult in the process.

Quote:

>sorry John, I couldn't help it. If it wasn't for IPOs there would be no
>money in Linux today. And we'll see about that tomorrow...

        VA and Redhat were both doing well enough before their IPO's.
 
 
 

How does this work with GPL?

Post by Otto » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:48:17 -0500, Drestin Black


.
.
.

Quote:> >sorry John, I couldn't help it. If it wasn't for IPOs there would be no
> >money in Linux today. And we'll see about that tomorrow...

> VA and Redhat were both doing well enough before their IPO's.

Judging by their latest financial statements, it's been downhill ever since
the IPO...
 
 
 

How does this work with GPL?

Post by Rob S. Wolfr » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1538345.html

>"MontaVista Software of Sunnyvale, Calif., announced a version of
>Linux designed for extremely small devices with no keyboard or monitor
>and as little as 500 kilobytes of memory--less than a 60th of what a
>typical inexpensive PC today ships with. MontaVista's HardHat Linux
>will be sold under an annual subscription instead of through a
>per-unit royalty, the company said."

>Can't they only charge fees for the media and postage if they modify
>the kernel?  How do they plan to make any money from this other than
>through support?

They can charge however much they want for Linux, the GPL allows that.
If they distribute it and I wish to have the source to it they must
provide it to me at no charge. Also they cannot forbid anyone to
redistribute the software, be it for profit or not.

RMS himself sold emacs on tape back in the '80s.

FMI: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Cheers,
Rob
--

   "A negative comment on unix would warrent death threats. With Linux,
   it is like stirring up a nest of butterflies.
                -- Ken Thompson

 
 
 

How does this work with GPL?

Post by John Wiltshir » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





>>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1538345.html

>>"MontaVista Software of Sunnyvale, Calif., announced a version of
>>Linux designed for extremely small devices with no keyboard or monitor
>>and as little as 500 kilobytes of memory--less than a 60th of what a
>>typical inexpensive PC today ships with. MontaVista's HardHat Linux
>>will be sold under an annual subscription instead of through a
>>per-unit royalty, the company said."

>>Can't they only charge fees for the media and postage if they modify
>>the kernel?  How do they plan to make any money from this other than
>>through support?

>They can charge however much they want for Linux, the GPL allows that.
>If they distribute it and I wish to have the source to it they must
>provide it to me at no charge. Also they cannot forbid anyone to
>redistribute the software, be it for profit or not.

>RMS himself sold emacs on tape back in the '80s.

>FMI: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

This means, in simple terms, that I can set up a company that buys one
copy of the product and then distribute it to anyone who wants it at a
tenth the original price.

John Wiltshire

 
 
 

How does this work with GPL?

Post by Rob S. Wolfr » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


[selling GPLed software]

Quote:

>This means, in simple terms, that I can set up a company that buys one
>copy of the product and then distribute it to anyone who wants it at a
>tenth the original price.

... or maybe ten times the original price. I don't think that you would
have many customers but is would still be perfectly legal. Cheapbytes
does exactly that (for the lower price, of course).
The BSD license has even less restrictions in this subject. You may copy
and sell the software commercially without releasing the source code.
Examples here are the sendmail and bind binaries in most commercial
Unixen.

Cheers,
Rob
--

   There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of.
                -- Bill Gates, 1980

 
 
 

1. GPL GPL?

Hi
   If i want my software obey GPL. What should i do? Just write
something to say "it is a GPL software" in the source code? I think
shouldn't this simple.

   And what is the international organization that handle/create
liscence? If we don't have, how can all the country agree with the
GPL?

thanks

2. cdrw

3. Funding GPL projects or funding the GPL?

4. pII and 5.0.4 installation

5. Gtk+ is *L*GPL (Was: Qt goes GPL)

6. parameters in lilo.conf

7. GPL question: including a GPL program in a software package

8. What's this card: EP2000T plus??

9. offtpic: GPL driver vs. non GPL driver

10. Gnu GPL problem: License copyrighted things under GPL???

11. Using GPL'd Linux drivers with non-GPL, binary-only kernel

12. Working on a GPL page-layout application