The GPL doesn''t state that it cannot be resold, if they truely wanted it to remain fully free they would use a different license. Besides, most distributions, mandrake included, can be used for free if you so choose.
If the GPL were applied to food, your quote would say:
"It is my fervant hope that this food remains free for use and consumption but you can charge for it if you package it nicely or change it a little"
15 users logged in
Proud partner of GDC 2025
Before posting, review our community guidelines.
Support GameDev.net with a monthly GDNet+ subscription!
Mandrake 9.1 released!
122
April 01, 2003 02:20 AM
The GPL doesn''t state that it cannot be resold, if they truely wanted it to remain fully free they would use a different license. Besides, most distributions, mandrake included, can be used for free if you so choose.
If the GPL were applied to food, your quote would say:
"It is my fervant hope that this food remains free for use and consumption but you can charge for it if you package it nicely or change it a little"
If the GPL were applied to food, your quote would say:
"It is my fervant hope that this food remains free for use and consumption but you can charge for it if you package it nicely or change it a little"
April 01, 2003 03:12 PM
The GPL did not say anything about it, correct.
However Linus had made it clear many times that he wanted nothing more than for Linux to be a learning tool. That is why he originally tried to get it put into Minix''s codebase. Stallman has said repeatedly that he does not think a company should sell the FSF tools, but rather offer support and programmers for those tools. Things like that suggest to me that the original intent behind these things was for free use to offer academic insight into how things work.
However Linus had made it clear many times that he wanted nothing more than for Linux to be a learning tool. That is why he originally tried to get it put into Minix''s codebase. Stallman has said repeatedly that he does not think a company should sell the FSF tools, but rather offer support and programmers for those tools. Things like that suggest to me that the original intent behind these things was for free use to offer academic insight into how things work.
April 01, 2003 03:29 PM
Another Anonymous Poster wrote: "However Linus had made it clear many times that he wanted nothing more than for Linux to be a learning tool...Things like that suggest to me that the original intent behind these things was for free use to offer academic insight into how things work. "
The original intent of the internet was for academic/government purposes only. Sometimes things evolve.
Get off the internet if you can''t deal.
The original intent of the internet was for academic/government purposes only. Sometimes things evolve.
Get off the internet if you can''t deal.
142
April 01, 2003 03:38 PM
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
However Linus had made it clear many times that he wanted nothing more than for Linux to be a learning tool. That is why he originally tried to get it put into Minix's codebase. Stallman has said repeatedly that he does not think a company should sell the FSF tools, but rather offer support and programmers for those tools. Things like that suggest to me that the original intent behind these things was for free use to offer academic insight into how things work.
Yeah, but for an example, George Washington was against a partisan government. The creators hopes for his product usually are not fully realized, in the case of a product which many people contribute to. Not saying GW created our government, you get the idea.
[edited by - Ronin Magus on April 1, 2003 4:39:46 PM]
April 01, 2003 03:43 PM
If it weren''t for big bad companies like Mandrake, SuSE, and RedHat, i REALLY doubt I''d be using Linux right now. I''m pretty grateful for their efforts, and if they wanna try and make some money to support what they do, fine with me.
Current Projects: GK3 for Linux | Landscape Engine | Bug Hunt
Current Projects: GK3 for Linux | Landscape Engine | Bug Hunt
I like the DARK layout!
122
April 01, 2003 08:18 PM
You misunderstand me. Linux needs to be free to succeed. So long as there is a free version of linux in all forms (and I don''t mean like Redhat or Mandrake who sell your names to spammers to get cash flow) , then I have no problem. I am not against them succeeding, unless their success means the Free (Truly free in all forms) linux distributions failure.
magnwa
magnwa
217
April 02, 2003 02:35 AM
Don''t forget the Free Software Foundation''s interpretation of the GPL...they created it.
http://www.gnu.org
On that site, they explicitly say that the GPL does not mean that software is necessarily free as in beer. It usually is, but nothing prevents you from trying to sell the software for whatever price you want. You just have to follow the license terms, which basically mean that you must provide the source freely along with the binary.
So commercial, GPLed software is a reality. Of course, nothing stops one person from buying one copy of Red Hat and distributing it to friends...but that is explicitely mentioned on the website as well.
GPLed software is meant to give more freedom to the users. Whether or not you agree with this ideology, you have to admit that free as in speech software has done wonders. People still buy new Office product licenses. Somehow they find it necessary to use Office XP now, as opposed to 2000, as opposed to 97. MS keeps changing the "standard" formats of your data. If you don''t pay for your upgrades, you lose your data.
The GPL promotes actual standards, which don''t change. If they do change, you don''t have to pay up the wazoo for software that can read YOUR data. Naturally since GNU/Linux is so new, these standards will take some hammering out. You might argue that GNU/Linux is still not ready for prime time. But I know that in my daily use, I try to avoid things such as .doc when .rtf and .html exist. I avoid proprietary extensions to standards since they prevent some people from reading the files. MPEG is preferred to .avi and .rm files, although I can watch them all. I like to listen to .ogg rather than .mp3 as Ogg Vorbis is actually a free standard rather than MP3s, which are actually not a free format.
The best part about this software is: You DON''T have to pay for it. It is freely available. But you are encouraged to make a profit from it if you choose. GPLed software is not meant only for the cheapskates. It is meant to replace proprietary software. So far, the government has installed GNU/Linux on a number of their systems. Companies use it. People use it for their normal desktop use (me included). About the only thing lacking is the games, but they exist. If you can make a profit providing such software, FSF encourages it. You simply have to follow the GPL license, which basically says that no matter how you distribute the software, you must provide the source code freely.
http://www.gnu.org
On that site, they explicitly say that the GPL does not mean that software is necessarily free as in beer. It usually is, but nothing prevents you from trying to sell the software for whatever price you want. You just have to follow the license terms, which basically mean that you must provide the source freely along with the binary.
So commercial, GPLed software is a reality. Of course, nothing stops one person from buying one copy of Red Hat and distributing it to friends...but that is explicitely mentioned on the website as well.
GPLed software is meant to give more freedom to the users. Whether or not you agree with this ideology, you have to admit that free as in speech software has done wonders. People still buy new Office product licenses. Somehow they find it necessary to use Office XP now, as opposed to 2000, as opposed to 97. MS keeps changing the "standard" formats of your data. If you don''t pay for your upgrades, you lose your data.
The GPL promotes actual standards, which don''t change. If they do change, you don''t have to pay up the wazoo for software that can read YOUR data. Naturally since GNU/Linux is so new, these standards will take some hammering out. You might argue that GNU/Linux is still not ready for prime time. But I know that in my daily use, I try to avoid things such as .doc when .rtf and .html exist. I avoid proprietary extensions to standards since they prevent some people from reading the files. MPEG is preferred to .avi and .rm files, although I can watch them all. I like to listen to .ogg rather than .mp3 as Ogg Vorbis is actually a free standard rather than MP3s, which are actually not a free format.
The best part about this software is: You DON''T have to pay for it. It is freely available. But you are encouraged to make a profit from it if you choose. GPLed software is not meant only for the cheapskates. It is meant to replace proprietary software. So far, the government has installed GNU/Linux on a number of their systems. Companies use it. People use it for their normal desktop use (me included). About the only thing lacking is the games, but they exist. If you can make a profit providing such software, FSF encourages it. You simply have to follow the GPL license, which basically says that no matter how you distribute the software, you must provide the source code freely.
-------------------------GBGames' Blog: An Indie Game Developer's Somewhat Interesting ThoughtsStaff Reviewer for Game Tunnel
168
April 03, 2003 08:48 PM
Linux is free. Companies like Mandrake and RedHat charge money because they want to try and stay in business. Their products (except for perhaps professional or corporate versions) are free, but they must charge money for the CD distribution and manuals and such (no company will ever offer free Linux distributions on CD).
|.dev-c++.|.the gimp.|.seti@home.|.dbpoweramp.|.torn.|.=w=.|
|.dev-c++.|.the gimp.|.seti@home.|.dbpoweramp.|.torn.|.=w=.|
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement