Slashdot Mirror
But You Can Download It For Free, Right?
An unnamed reader writes: "It seems that Libranet wants to start a new trend. They are asking $15 for their download. They make a pretty good case for why, don't you think?" A note on their website (reachable from their download page) includes the following: "We at libranet have come to the conclusion that it is necessary for us to get paid for our work. We produce and support what is perhaps the best GNU/linux distribution ever, and we spend long hours and much effort in doing so. Also we think it unfair that only those users with fast connections can download CD images. We provide a free download of our previous release, which is still a first class product. We have made a simple calculation in deciding on a price for the download of our latest and best version. The price of the CD, less $5 for the production of the CD, less $5 for shipping.
At $15 this is still little to pay for a product of this quality. Compare it to the price of windows software or even to a few cups of coffee."
Hmm...the difference between them & RH seems to be that they're not releasing their distro with a download option. Bad move if you ask me, this will only turn people away from libranet.
That said though, I think they're most likely hoping that people who really like their distro will pay for it. Kinda like how everyone always says that they'd like to give their money directly to the artists instead of to the record companies. Well, here's a situation where you can do just that. If you like the distro that these guys put together, then send them the cash.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
So I go pay them $15, and turn around and place the exact same download on my own server, but only charge $5.
Perfectly legal, right?
I realy, realy don't understand all this fuss.
Until today I had never heard of this "libranet" distribution and yet we have people crawling all over slashdot claiming this is the best linux distribution.
Come on guys, the company doesn't even support it's own distribution: ftp://ftp.libranet.com/pub/updates
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
- /pub/isoimages - pay for
- /pub/theircode - pay for
- /pub/containsgplcode - free
With this approach any GPLed code is still available without a cost. If they don't use this approach then they are in danger of having to pay for QT and other software which has a 'commercial' clause in them.Jumpstart the tartan drive.
SuSE 7.1 - their latest distribution - is available as 3(?) Gb ftp directory, but there's no ISO image (what they used to call "evaluation" version).
SuSE developers stated that at this moment they have no plans to produce a downloadable CD.
Yes, that's fine - but why am I going to pay $5 to download an image you *say* is the same and free of trojans, when I could pay $15 to get it from the source?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They are free to charge $15 a download if thats what they like, it's within their right in the GPL to charge for it. However they should realize that someone can pay the $15 dollars and download it then set up a mirror and charge $1, or even provide downloads for free. That's also permitted in the GPL. They have to accept that charging for downloads is a double-edged sword and that anyone can just find a path around them to get their software.
As long as they accept this, it's fine with me; the moment they try to stop the second person from offering it for free then I wil have issues.
After all, they may be doing some work, but there was alot of work done for them by others contributing under the GPL; to put restrictions on code that isn't theirs would be a clear violation.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
There is NOTHING wrong with me taking a copy of Redhat Linux, or any other code - calling it XtalLinuX, putting up the XtalLinuX.com web site, and charging you $40/CD for it. I don't even have to make the source code available to the general public. That would be the nice thing to do, of course, but the GPL has one, and only one requirement:
Anyone who gets the binary gets the source, to do so as they please, under the GPL.
This of course means that you can buy a copy of XtalLinuX, and then give it away free to anyone who asks, if that's your perogative. If I charged you $5000 instead of $50, you might be less inclined to do so - but both are perfectly legal under the terms of the GPL.
What's wrong with this? I try to buy every major revision of Redhat because I think it saves me a lot of time, and it's a good product compared to the alternatives. The money IMHO is well spent, and like it or not, everybody has to eat - charging for support is one model, but there's nothing wrong with selling GPL code. I've done it in the past, and I'll likely do it in the future. The key point, is that once the binaries and source leave your hands, that person can do with them whatever they want - that's what FREE as in SPEECH means. IE is free as in beer - read the EULA - once you drink the beer, you don't get much else. Except maybe a nasty belch or two!
Hope that clears things up.
..don't panic
They're not charging for the GPL'd work of others. They're charging for packaging that work into a distribution. And they're charging for the cost of their servers to host it, and the cost of the people to maintain those servers, and the cost of the bandwidth. Those servers and bandwidth aren't free, and I don't see money coming in from anywhere else to support them.
You're still free to go and get the GPL'd works yourself and put them together into your own distribution.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
When were people turned towards libranet? Libranet doesn't have a huge following- the big question is will this alienate their audience? I don't know; does anyone here actually use libranet? Does this piss you off?
-bugg
Even the god-among-men ESR thinks that Open Source does not mean that one has to forgo monetary considerations.
Pay these people their money and get on with your life.
------
That's just the way it is
Someone is paying way too much for their coffee!
Why whine about them? If they want to NOT be used by me, then they can charge 15 bucks a cd image. So what? I'll just download Debian! This is just a excuse for them to do what Red Hat already does, except they are not selling CD's at Walmart. Why don't they just make some CD's and sell them online for those who don't have a broadband connection? That would make more sense to me! Don't they realize that someone could just as well pay the 15 bucks, then upload the image to another server and charge nothing for it? The Kernel developers have made money with their work by getting jobs at the distros, but I bet there are still a good chunk who work on Kernel code just for the heck of it. There are millions of developers who have not gotten money for what Libranet is ditributing. Is Libranet going to pay them? What about the Debian developers that made Libranet possible?? Is Libranet going to pay them?? Nope. Libranet is putting a HUGE nail right in their foot. May as well say goodbye to Libranet. If I want a nice to use Debian based distro, I'd choose Progeny or heck Debian! It's NOT hard if you know a bit about your computer to install Debian. What you need to know takes 5 minutes to figure out.
Gorkman
Yes, but they have the right to modify and redistribute it with the same (GPL) license - you can control who gets it, but not what they do with it.
The part you're quoting is the part which guarantees the user the source to the binary - so you can't say that the program is $50 and the source $5000.
The GPL has no restrictions whatsoever on price of the binary - you can charge whatever you like.
Another issue many don't understand: You have to own the binary to have a claim to the source.
The GPL does not say that you have a right to get anything for free: It just says that you have a right to the source if you get the program, that changes are GPL as well if you distrbute them and that you can redistribute the program freely with the same license.
So if someone sold a high priced 3D package and GPLed it, you couldn't demand that they give it to you or put it on the web - you could ask another one who already bought it to give to you, but if you don't have the program, you have no claim.
The iso uses GPL'ed code, and hence is also covered by the GPL. That's why it's called a "viral license," because it infects everything it comes in contact with.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Almost every poster who's posted to this story (at least the 'top level' comments seems to think that GPL means 'Cannot Charge Money(TM)'. False. GPL only ONLY means that you cannot stop whoever gets their hands on it from doing what they like with it, short of removing the GPL. That's it. I could go download RedHat Linux, and sell it for one million dollars a copy if I really wanted to. The GPL seems to have been designed to a) keep code free and b) encourage payment by means other than monetary; i.e. by contributing more code, but it certainly does not preclude charging money. How do you think Stallman himself lived for a while? Anybody who can't understand why these guys want money have obviously never tried running a public site. Geocities doesn't count. Neither does apache on your 1337 Linux box behind a cable modem. Go price a T1 sometime.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Yes. Perfectly legal. There could be a number of results: 1. your download becomes popular and you reach your transfer limit, so you have to stop. 2. your download doesn't become popular so it doesn't harm the original company very much.
As economic reality continues to progress into the web, expect to see more of this. When people are looking to cut costs, expensive servers that don't generate revenue are a good target for the axe.
Eventually, the cost of these "free downloads" will be born by somebody. Does anybody know what the real cost of a typical Linux download is? If this plays our like meatworld retail, we might expect the equilibrium price to be about twice the cost of the download (typical retail markup).
Any company that charges more will eventually lose customers. Any company that charges less will eventually fail to provide adequate service.
OTOH, the equilibrium cost of distributing free software might turn out to be ridiculously low. A distributed system like Napster (except perfectly legal in this case) could probably distribute Linux for very little. Of course, TANSTAAFL. The additional bandwidth usage might drive up ISP rates for everybody and/or lead to more ISPs clamping down on uploads.
Regardless, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Of course, despite what the Liberal Software advocates like to say, you are not paying for software here. You are paying for a copying service.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee"
If this is considered a 'physical transfer' then they have a point.
It is not a physical transfer, it is an electronic transfer. Physical transfer is disk, CD etc.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
I have been trying to change my home computer over to linux for a little while now... I still havent found a driver for my Netmate USB -> Ethernet device yet but anyways...
I have tried out maybe 4 distros so far... exactly what is it about Libranets Linux that makes me say "Hey, lemme pay 15 bucks for this distro and actually keep it"?
I dont hold store in the manufacturers hype so maybe someone here who has used it can shed some light, eh?
Helps in having other people justify it, as well.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Basically, Joe can sell you the source for $50, and then sell you the executable for $100. And you can't demand that he gives you the source for free either, unless you've already bought the executable from him first.
#include disclaimer.h
I can't be karma whoring - I've already hit 50!
SIG: HUP
by Richard Stallman
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of ``free software'', we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.
Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.
Non-free programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free software, though. Price or no price, the program is non-free because users don't have freedom.
Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.
Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on it ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community. For a distributor, the way to do this is to give a part of the profit to the Free Software Foundation or some other free software development project. By funding development, you can advance the world of free software.
Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!
In order to contribute funds, you need to have some extra. If you charge too low a fee, you won't have anything to spare to support development.
Will a higher distribution price hurt some users?
People sometimes worry that a high distribution fee will put free software out of range for users who don't have a lot of money. With proprietary software (18k characters), a high price does exactly that -- but free software is different.
The difference is that free software naturally tends to spread around, and there are many ways to get it.
Software hoarders try their damnedest to stop you from running a proprietary program without paying the standard price. If this price is high, that does make it hard for some users to use the program.
With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.
Will a higher distribution price discourage use of free software?
Another common concern is for the popularity of free software. People think that a high price for distribution would reduce the number of users, or that a low price is likely to encourage users.
This is true for proprietary software -- but free software is different. With so many ways to get copies, the price of distribution service has less effect on popularity.
In the long run, how many people use free software is determined mainly by how much free software can do, and how easy it is to use. Many users will continue to use proprietary software if free software can't do all the jobs they want to do. Thus, if we want to increase the number of users in the long run, we should above all develop more free software.
The most direct way to do this is by writing needed free software or manuals yourself. But if you do distribution rather than writing, the best way you can help is by raising funds for others to write them.
The term ``selling software'' can be confusing too
Strictly speaking, ``selling'' means trading goods for money. Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it.
However, when people think of ``selling software'', they usually imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the software proprietary rather than free.
So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term ``selling software'' and choose some other wording instead. For example, you could say ``distributing free software for a fee''--that is unambiguous.
High or low fees, and the GNU GPL
Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (20k characters) (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.
The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay--such as, a billion dollars--and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source, to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.
Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line of what the GNU GPL permits plead for permission, saying that they ``won't charge money for the GNU software'' or such like. They don't get anywhere this way. Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.
Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
Updated: 5 Oct 2000 taz
I think it is vital to consider the idea of getting paid for Free software (or music, or whatever). It costs very little to put a "tip jar" or a splash screen on a web site to take payments for downloads, and even if only a few people pay, it's a good start. Since so many people aren't getting paid at all for work they do in free software, what do they have to lose?
RMS and the FSF have done a good job of talking about freedom, and that's important, but someone should stand up and preach the value of paying for things that add value to your life.
Just like the GPL is mostly a social contract at this point, and hasn't been enforced by the courts, we should collectively endorse the idea of paying for Free products (heh that reads kinda funny don't it). For solidarity, if for no other reason.
I think this is the best way to battle the nascent War on Copying (just wait folks, it's coming).