linux-kernel - Re: GPL violators (charging for a Linux kernel by itself and then charging again for source)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 3 Jan 2014 23:07:38 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To:	Eric Appleman <erappleman@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPL violators (charging for a Linux kernel by itself and then
 charging again for source)

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Eric Appleman <erappleman@...il.com> 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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/