Slashdot Mirror
Xandros 1.0
Mr. Smoove writes "Despite the quick-off-the-mark review from Newsforge this morning, the Xandros 1.0 desktop is finally here! No free download so you'll have to shell out US$99 for it but you do get an enhanced (?) version of KDE 2.2 and built-in Cross-Over Plugin and Office! Finally a decent challenger to Lycoris and also what Lindows should have been..." There's also an interview with a Xandros executive.
Yes, it is legal to make a GPLed project only available for pay.
The fact a product is GPLed means basically two things:
If you give someone a copy of the product, they are allowed to give it away to anyone they like, and you cannot stop them.
That's ALL. There. It's said. Now you don't have to complain about the $99 thing, right? Becuase you all get it now. So shut up. There's a nice FAQ here if you're still confused.
I'm too late by now, aren't i?
'Tseems the site has all but yielded already. You can find some info at Distrowatch
Don't forget the roots, either: http://linux.corel.com/
No. You are only obligated to make the sources available to those who receive/buy the binaries.
As a good citizen of the open source community you should feed your patched upstream but you are not required to.
Incorrect!
GPL faq says:
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
Translation: If you take a GPL'd program and make modifications it and release that program you must make the modifications available to anyone who had a license to the original program or any derivative version of it!
from the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* 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, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
E-mail is fine and dandy. You can even charge costs, and you only have to do it for three years.
"The shipping version of Xandros has two CDs. One is the main desktop that we think is good enough and stable enough, and easy enough for people to use. The second CD is basically KDE 3, so the bleeding edge users can try it out to see what the fuss is all about. We are trying to satisfy both worlds, as opposed to just satisfying the bleeding edge.
take the GPL quiz, They must send you a copy, only email or only over the internet. Suitable is taken to mean by the same delivery method as you recieved the binaries, e.g. Post.
also from the FAQ's
" You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place. "
" "Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you. "
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Translation: If you take a GPL'd program and make modifications it and release that program you must make the modifications available to anyone who had a license to the original program or any derivative version of it!
Read the FAQ again -- it explicitly says that you do NOT have to do anything. You don't have to make the modifications available to anyone; you just have to permit them to use your modifications, if they should happen to get their hands on them.
The only people who have a *right* under the GPL to get their hands on your modifications are the ones you give the modified software to.
This doesn't matter. Odds are almost 100% that Xandros has already released all their modifications as patches. The main reason they're not giving it away is that they're heavily integrated with non-GPL, and in fact non-free software. They couldn't give that away if they wanted to, and they shouldn't.
-Billy
things like the two crossover packages, which by the way, cost together near 99$. Xandros is a pretty good deal like that, especially if you are a new linux user (who they are targetting).
What it really indicates is that Xandros is using a more recent (i.e., not otherwise commercially released) version of Crossover Office.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Okay.. let me clarify myself after spending a lengthy period of time reading the gpl carefully.
1. Everyone who has the binary and is licensed to use it is entitled to the source code(to my understanding excludes some random person stealing the binary).
2. Everyone who had a license to the original work or any derivative works of the original work also has a license for the modified version (even if it is distributed for a 99$ fee - perfectly acceptable).
3. Distributor of modified version to my understanding is not required to provide either the binary or a source to a third party (original version license holder) but if this third party happens to come across the binary somehow they have the same rights as anyone who acquired it directly from the provider of modified version.
4. A third party can acquire a license also if someone who bought the software from you distributes it to them.
5. If a third party has acquired the binary and have a license to use it they can demand the source code and the provider must provide it or they are in violation of gpl.
Now, I wonder what the implications are for a case where a third party original license holder who does not have the modified binary "steals" it from somewhere. Technically it is not even a theft since they were licensed to use the software anyway.
No. The ones that receive binaries from the original customers have the right to get the sources from those customers, not from the company that put it out originally.
What? Please back up your position with a citation from the GNU GPL or the GNU GPL FAQ.
I'll back up my position. From the GPL (my emphasis):
From the GPL FAQ:
Will I retire or break 10K?