https://plus.google.com/115556873499158641618/posts/VfAcAdUHU6h
Mirror in case of deletion: http://pastebin.com/7fXKR6ss
A small snippet...
"Chad can sell his kernel, and he has the right to refuse to sell it to
specific people he if sees fit.
Chad can charge for the source code. so as long as the price of the source
code does NOT exceed the cost of the kernel itself. There is NO limit to
what Chad can charge for the kernel.
Source needs to be made available only to "users of the software" and only
if "requested" by the "user of the software" - and yes, as stated above, a
fee can be charged for access to the electronic download of source, as long
as it is no more than the cost of the kernel.
Yes, people who "buy" the kernel can share it with who they want with or
without a charge, but Chad still has the right to charge for source if the
"3rd party" requests source."
I'm curious to know if there is a single maintainer or contributor on this
list who finds such behavior acceptable.
Wasn't the whole idea of a fee being permitted an acknowledgment that
physical distribution of source was acceptable if electronic was not
possible (low bandwidth ISP, security concerns, etc).
I don't have a problem with people charging for GPL software, you can do
that. But usually the money goes towards supporting the user or covering the
costs of hardware it's shipped on. All I see is a profit-driven scheme that
effectively charges for a Linux kernel that you all made together and Chad
represents less than 0.001% of.
- Eric
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Eric Appleman <[email protected]> wrote:
> https://plus.google.com/115556873499158641618/posts/VfAcAdUHU6h
> Mirror in case of deletion: http://pastebin.com/7fXKR6ss
>
> A small snippet...
>
> "Chad can sell his kernel, and he has the right to refuse to sell it to
> specific people he if sees fit.
> Chad can charge for the source code. so as long as the price of the source
> code does NOT exceed the cost of the kernel itself. There is NO limit to
> what Chad can charge for the kernel.
> Source needs to be made available only to "users of the software" and only
> if "requested" by the "user of the software" - and yes, as stated above, a
> fee can be charged for access to the electronic download of source, as long
> as it is no more than the cost of the kernel.
>
> Yes, people who "buy" the kernel can share it with who they want with or
> without a charge, but Chad still has the right to charge for source if the
> "3rd party" requests source."
>
> I'm curious to know if there is a single maintainer or contributor on this
> list who finds such behavior acceptable.
>
> Wasn't the whole idea of a fee being permitted an acknowledgment that
> physical distribution of source was acceptable if electronic was not
> possible (low bandwidth ISP, security concerns, etc).
GPLv2 states:
"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."
> I don't have a problem with people charging for GPL software, you can do
> that. But usually the money goes towards supporting the user or covering the
> costs of hardware it's shipped on. All I see is a profit-driven scheme that
> effectively charges for a Linux kernel that you all made together and Chad
> represents less than 0.001% of.
I really cannot understand the rumors about this Chad dude. Nobody is
forced to use/buy binaries
from him.
Anyway, just my 2 cents...
--
Thanks,
//richard
On 01/03/2014 05:07 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Eric Appleman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wasn't the whole idea of a fee being permitted an acknowledgment that
>> physical distribution of source was acceptable if electronic was not
>> possible (low bandwidth ISP, security concerns, etc).
>
> GPLv2 states:
> "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."
Yeah, that's section #1. Charge all you want for general distribution.
But you are forgetting section #3, which kicks in if you distribute in
compiled or executable form. It limits the fee for separate source code
delivery to "no more than your cost of physically performing source
distribution"
Only your customers are entitled to that service, though.
But IANAL.
Regards,
Phil
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Phil Turmel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/03/2014 05:07 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Eric Appleman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Wasn't the whole idea of a fee being permitted an acknowledgment that
>>> physical distribution of source was acceptable if electronic was not
>>> possible (low bandwidth ISP, security concerns, etc).
>>
>> GPLv2 states:
>> "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."
>
> Yeah, that's section #1. Charge all you want for general distribution.
>
> But you are forgetting section #3, which kicks in if you distribute in
> compiled or executable form. It limits the fee for separate source code
> delivery to "no more than your cost of physically performing source
> distribution"
>
> Only your customers are entitled to that service, though.
Not customers. Anyone who got an binary from you (no matter how).
GPLv2 only cares about distribution of binaries not customers.
But this kind of discussion should move to [email protected].
--
Thanks,
//richard