I don't believe you because you are wrong, and you actually just proved my point. You don't seem to understand that the $349 doesn't buy the software, it gives access to their tools and copyrighted errata, documentation, etc. If you can't understand this, stop misinforming people and wasting people's time trying to disprove the simple logic that you can't sell someone rights they already have.
Read it again and think this time. If you create and distribute a derivative work I already have a license to use it. You can't sell me rights I already have.
Again, you can't create A DERIVATIVE WORK and sell it, which is the case we are talking about here, because: "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. " Good luck learning about the GPL!
Stop thinking you understand what you just proved you don't. In the case you describe you are charging for the cost of the CD including the cost of labor to create the CD, packaging and distribution, including shipping costs.
I haven't embarrassed myself, because I never said the reason has anything to do with Stallman or his philosophy. The issue is a legal one, not a philosophical one.
Did you intentionally leave out the preceeding answer to try to sound smart? "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." If Red Hat creates something from scratch they can sell it, but nobody can take their work and re-sell it. This is why NOBODY can sell Linux.
They only say "give" and don't mention sell, because with derivative works "give" is the only option, as I said: "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".
You can offer non-derivative works under dual license (e.g. Nokia with qt ). Linux is not developed in house from scratch by Red Hat. I'm afraid it is you that has no clue my friend.
You can't sell the GPL. It is certainly NOT legal to sell rights to any entity already granted by the GPL. That is THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT of the GPL. They offer their distribution for free, with a SUPPORT contract. You are free to redistribute ALL code, even if you don't have and have never purchased a SUPPORT contract. You can't redistribute their logos, etc. or other non-derivative copyrighted material, like knowledge base articles, etc. which is where CentOS comes from. They DO NOT sell GPL code, nor do they sell the GPL license.
You mean you didn't think. I already pointed that out, actually. I'm not going to use Google for you, when you have already shown that your argument will be: "It wasn't unethical. Monsanto said it wasn't! ".
Yes,systemd is driving the people who switched from Windows to Linux either back to Windows or over to the BSDs because their big issue with Windows was the init system and the ones who waited to switch because it was "hard" are now pining for something much more difficult with less features.
Your subject line is based on the false premise that Linux has been "hurt". Long time readers know Microsoft and SCO did in fact try and fail miserably to hurt Linux. Their FUD couldn't do it, and neither can yours.
Oh, yes. It was a "misunderstanding" alright. The other times they did this it wasn't an issue, and they didn't "understand" that they wouldn't get away with it this time.
If it is a fact that "X" is molesting his child, then no, it isn't. Your honor, I object to the defendant saying I have been molesting my daughter, because he is right. I ask for the maximum penalty! No problem; you've got it. I'd be happy to grant that. Case dismissed.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe you because you are wrong, and you actually just proved my point. You don't seem to understand that the $349 doesn't buy the software, it gives access to their tools and copyrighted errata, documentation, etc. If you can't understand this, stop misinforming people and wasting people's time trying to disprove the simple logic that you can't sell someone rights they already have.
Read it again and think this time. If you create and distribute a derivative work I already have a license to use it. You can't sell me rights I already have.
Again, you can't create A DERIVATIVE WORK and sell it, which is the case we are talking about here, because: "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. " Good luck learning about the GPL!
Stop thinking you understand what you just proved you don't. In the case you describe you are charging for the cost of the CD including the cost of labor to create the CD, packaging and distribution, including shipping costs.
I NEVER said that. I said you can't sell Linux. You can certainly write your own OS and sell that if you want to do that.
I haven't embarrassed myself, because I never said the reason has anything to do with Stallman or his philosophy. The issue is a legal one, not a philosophical one.
Did you intentionally leave out the preceeding answer to try to sound smart? "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." If Red Hat creates something from scratch they can sell it, but nobody can take their work and re-sell it. This is why NOBODY can sell Linux.
They only say "give" and don't mention sell, because with derivative works "give" is the only option, as I said: "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".
You can offer non-derivative works under dual license (e.g. Nokia with qt ). Linux is not developed in house from scratch by Red Hat. I'm afraid it is you that has no clue my friend.
You can't sell the GPL. It is certainly NOT legal to sell rights to any entity already granted by the GPL. That is THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT of the GPL. They offer their distribution for free, with a SUPPORT contract. You are free to redistribute ALL code, even if you don't have and have never purchased a SUPPORT contract. You can't redistribute their logos, etc. or other non-derivative copyrighted material, like knowledge base articles, etc. which is where CentOS comes from. They DO NOT sell GPL code, nor do they sell the GPL license.
You mean you didn't think. I already pointed that out, actually. I'm not going to use Google for you, when you have already shown that your argument will be: "It wasn't unethical. Monsanto said it wasn't! ".
Keep waiting for Office to be those things my friend!
Somebody needs to explain to Fortune that Red Hat doesn't sell Linux; they sell support and services. It is not legal to sell Linux. (See also CentOS)
Well then you need to drop the "Anti" from your Slashdot username.
Yes,systemd is driving the people who switched from Windows to Linux either back to Windows or over to the BSDs because their big issue with Windows was the init system and the ones who waited to switch because it was "hard" are now pining for something much more difficult with less features.
Fedora has many variations and you never had to have Gnome as your DE. Nice lie though!
Your subject line is based on the false premise that Linux has been "hurt". Long time readers know Microsoft and SCO did in fact try and fail miserably to hurt Linux. Their FUD couldn't do it, and neither can yours.
Oh, yes. It was a "misunderstanding" alright. The other times they did this it wasn't an issue, and they didn't "understand" that they wouldn't get away with it this time.
One is under no obligation to facilitate profit for others with their free efforts, so you couldn't be more wrong.
If it is a fact that "X" is molesting his child, then no, it isn't. Your honor, I object to the defendant saying I have been molesting my daughter, because he is right. I ask for the maximum penalty! No problem; you've got it. I'd be happy to grant that. Case dismissed.
Working for someone in the future, or even today, is not a right, period.
IANAL, but I fail to see how grsecurity patches aren't derivative work by definition.
They didn't do it because they got caught in the middle of doing it. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Do you think at all before you type?
Sorry pal, she is not into micro probes.
I could go on all night.