The FBI Paid OpenBSD Developers For Backdoors?

[Remco]

On the contrary, this is perfectly reasonable. You only need to provide the source code upon request. It's usually simpler to put it on a website, but you *don't* have to do this - you could conceivably send it by snail mail and still be compliant.

There are some limitations here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section6

[crazycheese]

Trademarks have nothing to do with license. You cannot use the Red Hat or Firefox trademarks. You are free to use their source code.

I never said trademarks are bound to license. You said that RedHat and Novell are selling code - I responded that they are not and showed two things you need to do in order to get and use their code for no charge. Replace logos to unmark their solution as authentic and do not use official mirrors, for that requires their stuff being payed in order to fix the code - what centos does and is legal. And you will obviously get no support as well, since it is also part of the subscription.

On the contrary, this is perfectly reasonable. You only need to provide the source code upon request. It's usually simpler to put it on a website, but you *don't* have to do this - you could conceivably send it by snail mail and still be compliant.

Yes, you need to provide true source code. But if only source is free and everything else is closed it is refering to - (3). It is not an opensource solution.

Many (if not most) commercial users will be happy to buy the software from you, if they consider it valuable enough. If a company wished to install Ubuntu to 10000 computers, they will probably buy it from Canonical with a support contract, because that is actually *cheaper* than downloading from the web without any support at all.

This does not relate to the situation. Canonical is not selling a copies - it sells a medium it is burned upon. You can purchase them from them at raw price, burn yourself or download as you see fit. This has nothing to do with media-bond closed source proprietary software sold as a product. Read MS EULA for example, part refering to what makes "a copy" legitimate.
If you wish support from them, (additional to 10,000 copies) that would be commercial and cost money. Similar if you ask them to implement a solution for you(integrate the system), that would also be actual human work and cost money.
If a company would ask such volume, they would purchase integration and support sevice and just dd one copy around the machines.

I think I have put it nicely seperated and clear, yet you have fun mixing different parts and asking me to separate your salad

[deanjo]

There are some limitations here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section6

That's only the restrictions for GPL3. Older GPL's do not have such strict conditions (such has a networkable server).

[deanjo]

And BTW, you can sell "free software", even in the eyes of the FSF. Thus where the whole "free as in speech, not as in beer" phrase came about. Now if it is viable or not, that is an entirely different matter, however "free software" does not mean "free as in no money".

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

[Remco]

That's only the restrictions for GPL3. Older GPL's do not have such strict conditions (such has a networkable server).

A networkable server is not a strict condition in the up to date GPL either. Conveying the software according to 6a and 6b with option 1 are acceptable, too.

[BlackStar]

You said that RedHat and Novell are selling code - I responded that they are not and showed two things you need to do in order to get and use their code for no charge

Sorry, but this doesn't make sense:
1. I say that RedHat and Novell are selling code
2. You argue that they are not
3. You then say that you need to do extra things in order to get their code for no charge

How does this work? According to #3, you need to pay in order to use their code, which implies #1: that they sell code (among other things, such as support). Yet with #2 you say that they don't.

Huh?

I have always considered Red Hat as selling a package (source code, support and/or training). Ditto for Canonical. Yes, you can also get the source code for free, it's there - but as a company that may not make sense from an economic standpoint.

Bah, sleepy.

[deanjo]

A networkable server is not a strict condition in the up to date GPL either. Conveying the software according to 6a and 6b with option 1 are acceptable, too.

True, but as there is no hard definition of what defines "for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source" it is dependant on the originating party as to what "reasonable" is.

[Nevertime]

Bah, sleepy.

Yes get some sleep and don't worry about it... He's not called crazycheese for nothing and he can only manage to persuade other like minded dairy products...

Btw I have a theory that in fact the only 'true' opensource is code you've sold to mircosoft for less than its value so they can make everyone buy it when purchasing a pc. The source code of course available to all, encripted and sealed in a microsoft vault never to be seen or fixed properly ever again. Do you care to bother disagreeing with me in the morning?

[ModplanMan]

Sorry, but this doesn't make sense:
1. I say that RedHat and Novell are selling code
2. You argue that they are not
3. You then say that you need to do extra things in order to get their code for no charge

How does this work? According to #3, you need to pay in order to use their code, which implies #1: that they sell code (among other things, such as support). Yet with #2 you say that they don't.

Huh?

I have always considered Red Hat as selling a package (source code, support and/or training). Ditto for Canonical. Yes, you can also get the source code for free, it's there - but as a company that may not make sense from an economic standpoint.

Bah, sleepy.

I'm really not sure what point you're making. All of RHEL's code is available for free, and built versions are easily available from others like CentOS. Red Hat is selling a package, but compilation/source is probably the least important part of that package when that's already available. It's hardly basis for claiming they're selling code.

ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/

[yogi_berra]

I have always considered Red Hat as selling a package (source code, support and/or training). Ditto for Canonical. Yes, you can also get the source code for free, it's there - but as a company that may not make sense from an economic standpoint.

Bah, sleepy.

They sell security updates and the use of your hardware. The software is free