But You Can Download It For Free, Right? 443
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."
Re:Why is this different from Debian, Slackware, e (Score:2)
They also don't have almost any clients...
But they do package debian and make it easy to install (and forcing newbies straight to GNOME on default - let the user search for KDE - it's on the 2nd CD).
So they have to pay saleries, QA tests, development (they did write some stuff there you know), Support (phone, email, web, newsgroups, etc) - and lets not forget - to pay for ISP, office rent, secretary, sales people etc...
These things do cost money and I think it's pretty fair to pay to them $15.
Personally I wouldn't buy it because I haven't seen a single review anywhere about it - not in Linux weekly news, LinuxToday, slashdot, and other places, but paying for ISO of Redhat or SuSE or Mandrake is fine by me (hey, as long as it's cheap and I get a decent bandwidth from the distributor)
Why is this different from Debian, Slackware, etc? (Score:2)
I'm not saying that their methodology is wrong, they are basically saying that the LPBs get the same deal as the HPBs, an OS for the cost of shipping and media, but I'd like to know why this distro is any different.
Re:Coffee? (Score:2)
Windows (32-bit versions): between $1 and $200, depending on vendor and shipping, on Ebay.
Coffee: 50 cents/cup, unless buying in bulk.
$15 is too much when I can get 30 cups of coffee (with free cream and sugar) at my communter train station for that much. Or two "twoway" tickets and two cups of coffee from near BWI to DC from the same vendor.
--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:3)
Re:That's the point of the GPL (Score:2)
True.. (Score:3)
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.
Another analogy (besides the tip jar) (Score:2)
Actually, it made me think of museums. A lot of museums are "free," but have a "suggested donation" at the door. Carrying this over into the software domain, you could probably get some interesting reactions by having what looks and smells like an order page, but allows you to enter in any amount that you want (include $0) to "pay" for your software.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
If they don't like the racket, they should get out of the buisness of selling other people's code.
um. (Score:2)
One of the cool things about Linux (and BSD, etc) is that there tend to be a lot of actually comparable free things available, so of course we use those. That doesn't mean we're *necessarily* any more cheap than anyone else.
Actually, you're both wrong (Score:2)
You don't need to own the binary to have a claim to the source - you need to own a copy of a written offer to give you the source.
The person selling the binaries either has to give you such an offer (which you may then give to as many people as you wish), or has to give you the source.
In the hypothetical case imagined above, ddstreet would have to either have to: 1) buy a binary and source bundle, or 2) buy a binary, with which the distributor would have to include an offer to give the source at cost, or 3) ask someone else who bought from the producer for either their copy of the source or a copy of the written offer for the source.
Just because I have the binaries, though, doesn't give me a right to demand the source at cost - say that Geeko, Inc. made a customized version of Gnome and sold it on CD sets which always included both a binary CD and a source CD. (which they sold for, say, $100) Now, suppose that they offer a replacement source CD for $99. This is perfectly legal - because they always distribute the source with the binary, they are under no obligation to replace the source CDs of those customers who lose/misplace them.
Now what Geeko can't do is stop some other company from copying the CDs and selling them at $10/set, pocketing all the money themselves. This is one reason we don't usually see boxed linux distros selling for the same price as, say, Win2000 server. However, if Geeko could convince people to buy their CDs at the high price they were charging, that would be perfectly legal.
Free Speech (Score:2)
The two aren't at all the same.
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:5)
Perfectly legal, right?
Because they'd lose customers... (Score:2)
Re:Read the context (Score:2)
Has anybody tried a license like this?
I suspect it is not GPL compatable and so you cannot use it for code that is already GPL, but it could be used for new software.
Re:I love open source advocates.. read the GPL (Score:2)
I have several times taken delight in being able to read source code to understand why something is going wrong. One does not need to understand a whole system to detect a misuse of a feature. Remember that we are not only talking about the kernel here, but all the auxiliary libraries as well.
On the same note, there have been occasions when I have not been able to understand why something is going wrong with a proprietary system---and there has been no fast way of looking up why.
Lars
__
Howzabout this one? (Score:2)
Re:Read the context (Score:2)
Go away and read what the GPL says. Then come back.
(It's at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [gnu.org].)
Re:Read the context (Score:2)
What the GPL says is:
There are a couple of other options, one of which is to provide a written offer to provide source code for the cost of distribution. But if you choose option (a), you are not obliged to give out source code to 'anyone who asks' - you just have to ship the source code together with the binary.
Re:Free Speech (Score:2)
Personally, I prefer to call it "software libre".
Re:Yet another angle... (Score:2)
Humm. . . Let's do the math. . . $10.
By Libranet's reconing, that's enough for, like, two cups of coffee.
-"Zow" [bruggerink.com]
Is this smart? (Score:2)
Okay, most of the discussion that I've seen centers around the point of "is this legal or not?" The conscensus seems to be that it is, with the caviot that anyone else can take it after they've paid their $15 and give it away ir charge less (I guess one way to look at that is that they're making mirrors pay).
Now what I'm wondering is, is this move really smart? I mean I don't remember hearing anything about Libranet before today - if I did I thought, "Just another disto" and promptly forgot about it. In this saturated market for Linux distros with almost everyone (esp the big ones like RH, Deb, SUSE, Mandrake, TL, Slack, insert fav here) giving their distro away for free, how does Libranet hope to ever gain any market share?
Okay, so they give away the previous version. That might work well for ghostscript where there's really no compitition & the product is stable, but that's not the case with Linux distros. I started using Debian back in '97 when my slackware distro wouldn't work on a friend's new machine. A year later I went to using RH because Debian wouldn't run on the new machine I had at work. (For the record I'm now using Mandrake, but I just got Debian and OpenBSD discs to play with.) Given my experience, giving away the old version of a distro is a sure way to drive away potential customers.
-"Zow" [bruggerink.com]
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:2)
How's the download version any different than that? Sure, it's perhaps not quite so blatantly labour-intensive, but someone had to do some gruntwork in putting together the package, let alone creating the fancy website for it. That's gotta be worth some amount of money.
--
What's all the fuss ? (Score:3)
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 [libranet.com]
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
It's not about money. I'm already paid reasonably well for writing software during the day. The code I write on my own time and release under the GPL is another matter altogether -- it's about freedom for its users. If I wanted to help fatten the coffers of businessmen, I'd keep it closed and demand a licensing fee, not release it under the GPL.
I find it disturbing that so many software companies think the generosity of GPL software authors is an invitation to theft, especially when those same companies would not hesitate to sue anyone who blithely disregarded their licenses.
--
Re:SuSE went that way too (Score:2)
This is at best misleading.
SuSE can be installed, for free, off their own ftp servers, which they pay bandwidth costs of. You simply download a floppy image, boot it, and install off the network. CDROM images are not put up, partly because it would be significant effort (especially to keep them up to date!), bandwidth, space, etc. And partly beacause they're giving you an incentive to buy the product.
This doesn't change the fact that you can install off the internet for $0, quite easily.
You CAN'T mirror the Binary... (Score:2)
... OK, I went back and re-read a couple of sections of the GPL, and though IANAL, it makes no mention of how/what I have to do with the binary itself.
Thus, as far as I can tell, this is a perfectly legitimate way to work this:
Now, of course, people could take the source obtained from #3, and build their own ISO image, then redistribute that themselves, and this is perfectly legal. However, should the original author choose to, he can forbid the distribution of the original executable if he wants. Or he could demand a royalty. Or whatever. It's all legal under the GPL.
Probably about the only way to enforce this would be through watermarking the original binary. Otherwise, how would you tell if a binary is yours or not?
One last thing: I could certainly see a possible place where this would be a big benefit: suppose I have Super-Wiz-Bang-Studdly-Compiler that spits out really optimal code. I could sell the binary that I compiled with my compiler, and then give away the source for use by people with GCC (or any less Studly compiler). You could charge per copy, and not let people distribute your version, but still give people the freedom of the code. IMHO, this is a good value-add.
-Erik
Who are they targetting? (Score:2)
How many people have bandwidth that they can devote to downloading a set of 600MB ISO images to burn onto a CD-ROM? I find that it's a big enough pain to download a comprehensive set of patches to apply to one of the Tru64 systems at work -- usually about, say, 70MB (which include text and postscript versions of the patch release notes, installation guides, etc.) -- that I usually wait until after hours to keep from impacting anyone else.
I guess some people are a lot more patient than I am when it comes to downloading software. I really can't imagine seeing any benefit in taking the time to downloading up to a half dozen ISO images. It's gotta be cheaper to drive to the nearest bookstore and just purchase a distribution. Plus there's the disk space needed to hold all this prior to burning. Heck, if I have 600 MB free on a disk it doesn't seem to stay that way for long. :-)
How many downloaders are they trying to get to pay the fifteen bucks. It surely can't be that many.
--
No problem with this (Score:2)
I have no problem with this. As long as they still allow it to be freely redistributed and still provide source, it's still fine under the GPL.
Of course, a mirror will come up somewhere and people will be able to download for free from that I'm sure. While I wouldn't suggest you should be brought to court in any way for doing it, I would ask that people refrain from downloading from a free site out of courtesy.
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:2)
So I see no problem here.
Re:Who are they targetting? (Score:2)
Did I get all the packeges? Nope. After 48 hours of servers uploading a package only 98%, hunting down servers, dealing with fsck'n pacific bell's fsck'd up excuse for DSL...I gave up with about 70% of what I needed.
These guys aren't going to get my money.
Not because I disagree with them, not for some moral imperitive. I'm just never going to try to grab a distro from cable or DSL ever again.
I did it successfully once using an academic OC-3 that was maybe 50 yards from the box I was using. But that's a whole different world.
I'll stick to buying $3 distro's through the mail
Re:If they want $, it better not suck (Score:2)
Both have problems recognizing hardware and my experience has been that windows networking is not as good as Linux networking and Linux is nice cause it is easier to load and unload modules from the kernel without the reboot that is required in win 95/98/NT4. I have not tried w2k or winme but I know both of them still crash and they only are supposed to support a limited hardware, so they say.
If you don't like Linux you can try solaris, or a BSD or even MAC OS X. Don't think of this as flame that is not what I am intending, more my point is that just because they are requiring money is not a bad thing for them to do. They need to make money to continue doing what they are doing. you want a free Linux distro, get debian. It will probalby always be free.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:If they want $, it better not suck (Score:2)
A module is a driver. In windows 95/98/NT 4.0 you have to reboot after adding a new driver. Try this.. turn off your scanner on windows (if you have one) then start your windows box. After your system boots up turn on your scanner. Is is recgonized? Probably not. I ahve not tried w2k so maybe that will, but with Linux you can modprobe -a and presto it is. Then when you are done you can rmmod if you want. I do this with my scsi cdrom and scanner as they share the scsi card and I don't use them all the time. This is what I meant by modules. A modules is a peice of code that makes things work. It may be a driver like in case of my scsi card or it may be some peice of code that can be dynamically loaded and unlaoded from the OS to change 'running' behavior of the system. Linux has been doing this for years and windows has not.
I think the problem here is that you don't care about learning anything about your system, not Linux. Windows is making things easier in that sense, however there is a cost. The latest windows XP almost needs 128Meg of RAM as well as a pretty fast processor to run quickly. I imagine that soon your need the power of a web server to run the desktop windows operating system. No joke here cause that is where they are heading and they really are not adding anything but useless fluff that people could do without.
Use what you like .. I use Linux and windows as I think they both have plusses and minuses...
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Few notes (Score:2)
Atleast that is my recollection of the argument. You can charge for distributing but you can't keep others from distributing except as far as the GPL does.
---
Whether or NOT libranet provides a service that is worth paying for, or whether they deserve to be paid for it, the question is more effectively whether anyone wants to pay for it. As far as it goes, if they have written some software they want to sell, well GPL isn't always the best way to get money. If it isn't GPL'ed then of course whatever license they choose to use is their business. In any case it seems to me unlikely that anyone who is sophisticated is going to pay for libranet. Debian itself is quite easy to handle and they DO provide cd images as well as other several other installation methods. Infact Libranet just takes debian and adds to it if I recall correctly.
d
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
You know, the server, the T1 lines, the sysadmin, etc. Overhead. This is fair, if a bit tricky to price. The problem is, that once you start charging anything, you start needing to add bookkeepers, accountants, lawyers, insurance,
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
> distribution then tough. There's no such thing as
>a right-to-profit. You work for a start-up you
>take your risks. Sometimes you get burned. Find a
> new business plan, guys.
i think that's exactly what they have done. ;-)
Not that you should have noticed
-earl
SPEECH not BEER (Score:2)
Yeah... (Score:2)
Wasn't there an earlier article about a case like this in which some company wanted to charge something like $1-2k/copy?
It's perfectly GPL-legal to charge for distribution. What the license-holder can't prevent is -re-distribution.
"If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3)
- /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.SuSE went that way too (Score:5)
SuSE developers stated that at this moment they have no plans to produce a downloadable CD.
Re:Coffee? (Score:2)
Not for long!
--
Absolutely. (Score:2)
So.. nothing prevents someone you 'sold' a copy to from simply giving it away to all your potential customers. Nothing at all.
It also only requries you to provide source to people you have distributed to... so if I pay for a copy, and then give it to you, the people I got it from have no obligations towards you at all... I do.
Corrections. (Score:2)
The only time they have an obligation to provide anything is if they distribute a binary version to you, they must give you source, or make it available to you. So if you bought the CD from them, they would have to provide source as well, on a commonly accepted medium.
The GPL only requires a couple thigns that are relevant here.
1) that anyone you distribute to gets the code licensed under the GPL as well.
2) That you provide/make available source to anyone you distribute binaries to.
So.. accordign to #2, if your 'friend' somewhere has binareis he received from them, they are not obliged to give you the source... they are obliged to give your friend the source.
They are not charging for the work.. they are charging you for a distribution in a cd-image format, which is a lot of work. They are not charging for 'other people's work'. They are not pretending the 'own' the copyrights on the work, and not telling you you can't go and give it out to everyone after you get it from them. They are simply saying 'if you want to download the cd image from us, you pay us $15'
That's perfectly fair.
Definition of free software (Score:2)
`Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''... Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere.
Now, this is part of RMS' official definition of free software, which the GPL was created to protect.
Now a quote taken from the GPL's Preamble:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish),...
So, in conclustion... RFM people.
You can find the complete free software definition here: Free Software Definition [gnu.org]
and the GPL here: GPL [gnu.org]
Yet another angle... (Score:3)
Re:Isn't this kinda anti debian? (Score:2)
Maybe to have a real installer that doesn't feel like pre-RH 5.2? Or to be able to have something better than aptitude/debconfig which will detect your video card and, at least, offer you a selection of monitors to choose from instead of inputing sync rates? Or to have software which is more up-to-date than what is offered in stable and packaged better (i.e. no conflict/broken dependancies) than the stuff in testing or unstable?
I use Debian every day and truth be told once it's installed it is, for the most part, a dream to work with. But the install is definately not Debian's selling point and it is an issue that may or may not be resolved when Woody is stable for all I can tell.
Going back to configuring XFree, why haven't the maintainers ripped the monitor values from RH's configuration utility which is GPL'd and incorporate that information into a user-friendly interface? Part of OSS is to stop reinventing the wheel. If somebody has done the legwork and got that data in an easy to access format then run with it! I'm not asking for RH's utility but I am asking for something better than what Debian currently offers and the pieces are out there for the taking.
Truth be told, while I use Debian I know I'll purchase Progeny and I might even purchase Libranet. Their efforts to make an easily installable distribution can go back into Debian which will benefit everyone. Heck, $15 is less than two tickets to a movie. Add in popcorn and some sodas and $30 bucks ain't that much. I can easily toss that into the communal kitty to improve Debian and add in a bug report or two just for kicks.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5)
Good Idea, if... (Score:2)
Personally, I've contributed money to the Debian project by donating a few dollars whenever I purchased ISO cds from linuxcentral.com. Unfortunately, I now have cable, and I don't need to use linuxcentral any more.
I think more distros should have donation pages off of their main site - which would allow a user to donate some money for each ISO. I'm not sure that I could afford 15 bucks per distribution release (some are 3 a year) but I would happily fork over a few dollars here and there to help pay for the bandwidth and storage costs that allow me to access and download the isos.
Personally, I think that a few more distros are going to do this. Mandrakesoft has just released MandrakeFreq - a semi-regular update of the ISO with latest packages, and several people wanted to donate some money to the cause.
I, however, would not donate money to a distro that didn't allow others to still access the isos for free.
Double edged sword. (Score:5)
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
Re:Can someone explain something to me? (Score:2)
I will probably try a version of Debian next time round, or maybe go with the latest SuSE. Or perhaps Mandrake - not sure at this time. SuSE 6.3 has been pretty solid for my needs. I have only patched the kernel to 2.2.14 (13 as packaged) to get my ZIP drive working proper. I have been pretty pleased.
Drop the USB thingie and get a real NIC - they can be had cheap enough (under $20).
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? executive summary (Score:2)
This is my understanding of the GPL:
- You can do whatever you want with the source code. -- fold, spindle, mutilate or improve.
- You can distribute copies -- either source or object, as long as the people you distribute the copies to get (or have free access to) the source code -- and all configuration files, etc. needed to (re)generate the binaries you distribute.
- You can charge anything you want for the copies (or nothing).
- Anybody who gets a copy can do the same thing.
So, As I understand it, what they're doing is legal, as long as the $15 includes access to the full sources, and people have the rights to redistribute.--
I love open source advocates.. read the GPL (Score:5)
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.
Re:Read the context (Score:2)
BULLSHIT
That is pure BS. You're saying that if I wrote a program as GPL, and someone else changed it and started selling binaries, I would have to buy a binary to get the source to the changes they made? You are totally wrong.
Once you make your GPL'd code public (sell or give it to anyone) then you MUST make the source available to ANYONE who asks.
Re:Can someone explain something to me? (Score:2)
Since it's 10Mbps only, it's probably kawasaki-based. Try the "kaweth" driver at http://kaweth.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
... there is also an updated version in the 2.4 "ac" series of kernels.
- - - - -
Re:I love the smell of irony....BANDWIDTH COSTS (Score:2)
Bandwidth pricing is anything but simple. But AFAIK bandwidth costs at least US$3/GB for a big site. So that ISO someone donwloads costs the sender [if not the receiver] ~$2.
Re:Double edged sword. (Score:2)
- That's also permitted in the GPL.
I'd be careful. The article is originally talking about the availability of CD images - well who is to say that all of the software on the CD is GPL'ed?It is true that you can grab a debian CD, rip it, and freely distribute the iso you produce. But this is not true for any distributions that contain copyright software, and you could find yourself violating copyright on the non-GPL software.
cheers, G.
Re:From the GPL (Score:2)
And personally, I think that this is a perfectly acceptable fee. Servers and bandwidth don't grow on trees. Someone has to pay for them. So why shouldn't they be able to charge a fee for the use of these things if they want to?
-Todd
---
Re:Great idea... should be micropayment based thou (Score:2)
However, I don't agree with you that this should be a donation instead of a fee. If you make it optional, they're back to the same point where hardly anyone's going to pay them. Sure, if they make it easier to donate, they'll prolly get a little more money, but I don't think it will be a significant increase. Do you donate money to every organization that develops free software that you download? I know I don't.
-Todd
---
Re:Paid for their work??!! (Score:2)
In addition, what is your authority to say that this is a clear breach of the GPL when the FSF has said otherwise? I think they have slightly more authority when it comes to the GPL than you do.
-Todd
---
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:2)
-Todd
---
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:3)
You're still free to go and get the GPL'd works yourself and put them together into your own distribution.
-Todd
---
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:3)
So? You can always mirror it. (Score:2)
Ian
I must not get out enough (Score:2)
However, asking people for money isn't a problem. After all, that's how RMS funded much of his work: asking people to pay him to punch Emacs off to a tape for them. They COULD have downloaded it, or found somebody with a tape and copied it.
However, does anybody have any personal experience with these guy's distro?
Re:Paid for their work??!! (Score:2)
Re:True.. (Score:2)
So why go with a rather obscure distribution that you have to pay for, when you can something equally good or better for free?
Bad luck for them, but they have no chance. Yes it is their right to get paid for their work, but they should go into another business if they want to. Linux distributions is something you just can't make money with.
Re:Cost of duplication... (Score:2)
Or something like that, anyway. You lose, thank you for playing.
-----------------------
Re:I'll refrain from downloading all right... (Score:2)
-----------------------
Re:Really... (Score:2)
-----------------------
Coming? (Score:2)
Why don't we start a collection to take "ourselves" to court? We could take donations to pay for the court costs and attorney's fees (pro bono anyone?) to challenge the GPL by two parties who are not MSFT-beholden?
That way we could settle the issue amicably without threatening the GPL directly.
Who wants to volunteer to be the litigants?
Re:Yet another angle... (Score:2)
What's the problem? (Score:5)
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
ISOs can be copyrighted (Score:2)
The OpenBSD ISO images are copyrighted. It's a way to bring in a little money. Someone else could make a new one, but it's more trouble than the bare bones duplicaters like cheapbytes.com want to go through.
To everyone saying, "you can mirror the binary" (Score:2)
You are, of course, free to take the GPL'd programs and make your own ISO, but you cannot necessarily redistribute their ISO.
Consider this from http://www.openbsd.org/faq/obsd-faq.txt [openbsd.org]:
3.1.2 - Does OpenBSD provide an ISO image available for download?
You can't. The official OpenBSD CD-ROM layout is copyright Theo de
Raadt, as an incentive for people to buy the CD set. Note that only
the layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes
someone else to just grab OpenBSD and make their own CD.
Of course, OpenBSD isn't under the GPL, but the same thing would seem to apply. The location of the files, or the release notes, or whatever, is not a derived work from GPL'd code, so it doesn't have to be redistributable.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
Coffee? (Score:5)
Someone is paying way too much for their coffee!
Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:2)
Re:you probably cannot redistribute at all (Score:2)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Libranet makes no sense...... (Score:3)
Re:Proof of ownership. Re:Read the context (Score:3)
Read the context (Score:5)
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.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
On its website the FSF encourages [fsf.org] users to pay for the software they get from the FSF.
The FSF has a stated policy on charging for GPL'ed work, which you can read here [fsf.org].
Similarly, if I fix a bug in a piece of GPL'ed code I have to right to charge for the patch. Most people just don't bother because they don't rely on it for their living. I think a lot of the people complaining on this thread probably write proprietry software for a living. IMHO you are doing more damage to the Free Software Community than Libranet could ever do.
To answer someones question re donating to Debian, I haven't heard of any monetary donations to Debian/SPI from Libranet, but I believe they have provided some help with the core parts of Debian because its in their best interest to do so. BTW have you ever donated anything to Debian?
johno
ps: if you're going to flame me, at least read my links first so you know what you're talking about
Define "few cups of coffee" (Score:2)
;)
That's the point of the GPL (Score:2)
Perfectly legal, right?
Therein lies the rub. GPLing a piece of software effectively drives its cost to $0. No matter how high or low you charge for it, there'll be someone who bought it and has access to the source who can charge less and someone further down the chain who can charge even less until we get to the last link in the chain who will allow it free to be downloaded or at cost of distribution media.
If I was one of the Libranet developers I'd simply stop distributing the software if it costs them that much to distribute it. No one says you can't hack GPLed code on your own, as long as the people they give it to can access the source they should have no problems. Heck, I just spoke to someone who is hacking C99 compliance into gcc and as long as all the people he gives the binary to (i.e. no one) have access to the source he doesn't have to deal with having to pay excessive bandwidth costs, people complaining about bugs or lack of features, complaints about potential GPL violations, Slashdot editors questioning his motives, etc. All he has to worry about is hacking the code, which what it's all about anyway.
The FSF charges, why can't they? (Score:2)
As has been pointed out by others, it's just fine to charge for transmission costs, whether that cost be time, materials & postage for a physical copy or bandwidth charges for a downloaded copy. Similarly, they're not saying you can't copy it and put it up yourself - if you have lots of available bandwidth that someone doesn't mind you using, go ahead, the licensing allows that.
-- fencepost
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:2)
It would be worth the price of the gold but labout has nothing to do with it. What if JoeBloggs Ltd down the road is stamping out exactly the same gold discs with a machine down the road? The only time labour comes into play is where it adds value. The selection and arrangement of files on a distribution for example or, in the case of made goods the ethnic charm or artisitic style it adds (and if you want to go around boasting that your CDs are made by wizened old men with nanochisels).
I mean, would you pay a guy who you employed to dig a hole in your backyard more because he used a spoon rather than a shovel?
Rich
Re:um. (Score:2)
Rich
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
Rich
Wrong (Score:3)
HoLY ShIT! (Score:3)
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:4)
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.
From the GPL (Score:4)
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 [cavalrypilot.com]
Can someone explain something to me? (Score:3)
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?
Re:Charging for GPL'd code ? (Score:3)
Helps in having other people justify it, as well.
Logic, my god! (Score:3)
Makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.
Re:Read the context (Score:3)
In this situation what the GPL means is that anyone could buy the product and then redistribute it for less. Naturally that means that it will only be possible to charge reasonable prices. I don't think $15 is unreasonable, provided it's as good as they say (given the free alternatives).
Free to charge (Score:3)
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!
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4)
Libra, like anyone else, has expenses associated with distributing the software, and is trying to make sure they can continue to do so by asking for help paying their bills. Personally, I like this approach better than the "we'll give away our main draw and make all our money on support" line. This seems a lot more realistic.
If you are angry that you have done some hard work coding a piece of software and no one is paying your bills, then stop coding. If your software is that important, I'm sure the people who value your continued efforts on their behalf will be happy to work out a way to pay you for the service of programming-- whether a consortium funds you, or a non-profit grant, or whatever. The GPL is designed to protect the users and "consumers" of software, not the producers (except that if I've gotten ahold of a piece of software that I want changes to, as a non-programmer, the only way I get changes made is by hiring programmers, so the deal doesn't look that raw to me, especially considering the rates most programmers are able to charge.)
Selling Free Software: From The GNU's Mouth (Score:3)
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
Free shouldn't have to mean zero cost (Score:5)
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).
Re:SuSE went that way too (Score:3)