Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753908AbaACWHk (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jan 2014 17:07:40 -0500 Received: from mail-ve0-f175.google.com ([209.85.128.175]:34383 "EHLO mail-ve0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753814AbaACWHj (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jan 2014 17:07:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 23:07:38 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GPL violators (charging for a Linux kernel by itself and then charging again for source) From: Richard Weinberger To: Eric Appleman Cc: LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2221 Lines: 51 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Eric Appleman 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/