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."
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?
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.
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
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!
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.
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 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).