So you can certainly sell GPLed software. Red Hat does it every day.
Redhat doesn't sell GPL'ed software. They give it away for free, and charge for the additions they put into it, and the physical act of assembling a complete distrobution. Just like SuSE doesn't charge for the linux kernel, but for things like Yast2.
No, you can't. The GPL is explicitly designed to allow you to do this, as stated in the preamble
That's just the preamble. It's just stating what the licence is, hence the term "preamble". However, in the actual license, it is stated
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
RedHat, SuSE, Lindows, etc., all charge money for their "improvements" to the OS, and for the act of building a complete working system. If they were merely selling the kernel, then you better believe they would be in trouble.
I can sell compiled binaries of grep for a billion dollars each if I can find someone willing to pay that for them. The GPL allows it.
Um, would you care to state where in the license this is explicitly allowed? Because I can cite where it's explicitly prohibited.
Somebody could re-sell GIMP for $200, and as long as they gave the source code to their customers it would be legal.
This is only partly true. According to the GPL ( http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ), "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.", so you could claim that you're charging $200 for the transferrance, but I don't know how well it would hold up in court. However, the license also states that when publishing something based off the GPL'd work, You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Man those intel chips are so hot that they perform nuclear fusion on the die that generates enough energy to satisfy their mindblowing power requirements
A freak hurricane has struck the AOL offices in Flordia. Officials are baffled as to why the AOL employees had no warning.
Re:I'll tell you what the problem is...
on
A Review of GCC 4.0
·
· Score: 4, Funny
but then the gcc 4 you compiled with gcc 3.4.3 would produce tainted compilations, and the second 4.0.0 compilation would lean towards 3.4.3 because it was compiled with a compiler that was compiled by 3.4.3. You would have to then take the second compilation of 4.0.0 and compile 4.0.0 with it, at which point the similarity to 3.4.3 would make it somewhere along the lines of 3.7.0. If you continue to compile it, while it will never reach 4.0.0, it will approach closely enough that for all intents and purposes, it will be 4.0.0. The forumula is as follows:
V3-V1~2(V3-V2)
where V1 was used to compile V2, and V2 was used to compile V3.
top executives, marketers, and various employees at microsoft are all a part of microsoft. They need to work
together
in order for the company to exist. The government, on the other hand, is composed of completely separate bodies that don't NEED to communicate with each other in order to function properly (such as the department of motor vehicles and the NSA).
You fail to properly demonstrate the line between perception and reality, and you're obviously arguing just for the sake of argument. Reguardless of whether or not you percieve a rock as a rock, it will still be one. Lets say you percieve a rock as being a dog (which you won't). The rock isn't a dog. You just percieve it as one. I will percieve it as a rock, even when you don't. That is what makes it reality.
If a $20 bill falls out of some guy's pocket and you pick it up, legally you could keep it, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't give it back.
This dispute would be more akin to giving the man his $20, knowing that he would just give it back to you in a week
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow I doubt these liquid metals are cheaper than water.
What about water made of gold?
So you can certainly sell GPLed software. Red Hat does it every day.
Redhat doesn't sell GPL'ed software. They give it away for free, and charge for the additions they put into it, and the physical act of assembling a complete distrobution. Just like SuSE doesn't charge for the linux kernel, but for things like Yast2.
Have you seen a limit placed on this fee anywhere? I haven't.
which is why I said
"so you could claim that you're charging $200 for the transferrance, but I don't know how well it would hold up in court."
No, you can't. The GPL is explicitly designed to allow you to do this, as stated in the preamble
That's just the preamble. It's just stating what the licence is, hence the term "preamble". However, in the actual license, it is stated
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Obviously the buyer qualifies as a third party.
A great book to read on this subject is "Open Source - The Unofficial White Papers". It has some great papers about building businesses off open source. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764 546600/qid=1115078180/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl 14/002-2477466-1646408?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
RedHat, SuSE, Lindows, etc., all charge money for their "improvements" to the OS, and for the act of building a complete working system. If they were merely selling the kernel, then you better believe they would be in trouble.
I can sell compiled binaries of grep for a billion dollars each if I can find someone willing to pay that for them. The GPL allows it.
Um, would you care to state where in the license this is explicitly allowed? Because I can cite where it's explicitly prohibited.
Somebody could re-sell GIMP for $200, and as long as they gave the source code to their customers it would be legal.
This is only partly true. According to the GPL ( http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ), "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.", so you could claim that you're charging $200 for the transferrance, but I don't know how well it would hold up in court.
However, the license also states that when publishing something based off the GPL'd work, You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
toilets aren't modular, you cant just go buy one and put it in like legos, it requires a lot of plumbing and floorwork, too
Man those intel chips are so hot that they perform nuclear fusion on the die that generates enough energy to satisfy their mindblowing power requirements
A freak hurricane has struck the AOL offices in Flordia. Officials are baffled as to why the AOL employees had no warning.
but then the gcc 4 you compiled with gcc 3.4.3 would produce tainted compilations, and the second 4.0.0 compilation would lean towards 3.4.3 because it was compiled with a compiler that was compiled by 3.4.3. You would have to then take the second compilation of 4.0.0 and compile 4.0.0 with it, at which point the similarity to 3.4.3 would make it somewhere along the lines of 3.7.0. If you continue to compile it, while it will never reach 4.0.0, it will approach closely enough that for all intents and purposes, it will be 4.0.0. The forumula is as follows:
V3-V1~2(V3-V2)
where V1 was used to compile V2, and V2 was used to compile V3.
no spoofing it unless you are really good at factoring large primes
wouldnt large primes just factor down to 1 and the number?
- together
in order for the company to exist. The government, on the other hand, is composed of completely separate bodies that don't NEED to communicate with each other in order to function properly (such as the department of motor vehicles and the NSA).You fail to properly demonstrate the line between perception and reality, and you're obviously arguing just for the sake of argument. Reguardless of whether or not you percieve a rock as a rock, it will still be one. Lets say you percieve a rock as being a dog (which you won't). The rock isn't a dog. You just percieve it as one. I will percieve it as a rock, even when you don't. That is what makes it reality.
A rock is a rock unless it's being used as a hammer, in which case it's a hammer
If it's being used as a hammer, it's a rock being used as a hammer, not a hammer.
fusion reactor? where can I get one of those?
If a $20 bill falls out of some guy's pocket and you pick it up, legally you could keep it, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't give it back.
This dispute would be more akin to giving the man his $20, knowing that he would just give it back to you in a week
"Someone should pass a bill that makes this sort of act illegal." Well, you could do that, but if you wanted it passed...
"Theres nothing we can do, it's paperclipped"