| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Sun Sees Road To Prosperity Paved With Its Own Products (TechWeb)
Sun Sees Road To Prosperity Paved With Its Own Products (TechWeb)
Posted Jul 30, 2003 17:20 UTC (Wed) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207)In reply to: Sun Sees Road To Prosperity Paved With Its Own Products (TechWeb) by TimCunningham
Parent article: Sun Sees Road To Prosperity Paved With Its Own Products (TechWeb)
> I'm curious as to what the liscense will look like... since it looks like it's both 'Open Source' and costs money...
Mad Hatter is GNU/Linux, and the license will be (has to be) the GNU General Public License.
Remember, free software is free as in free speech, not necessarily as in free beer. GNU have a superb FAQ on their website which explains all the nuances of the license in great detail. There's even a quiz on the web site to test your knowledge when you've read the FAQ. It should be compulsory reading for anyone who has anythying to do with GNU/Linux.
(Log in to post comments)
Sun Sees Road To Prosperity Paved With Its Own Products (TechWeb)
Posted Jul 30, 2003 17:22 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
The kernel has to be licensed under the GPL, but many distributions contain proprietary components, preventing licensees from copying the entire distribution without an additional license.
Apparent (not real) conflict between GPL & reported licensing terms
Posted Jul 30, 2003 19:17 UTC (Wed) by jre (subscriber, #2807) [Link]
dwalters, is, of course, correct about the GPL and fees. However, it puzzled me that the story would report a Sun licensing scheme requiring "$50 to $100 per year per desktop." Under the GPL, any user is free to re-distribute the source, re-compile it and install it on as many desktops as desired, without additional payment of fees. Although Sun might ask for "rental" from users of binaries, the steps needed to avoid payment of that rental would be legal and almost trivial to execute.But JoeBuck has put his finger on it. Although most distributions of GNU/Linux have segregated the non-free binaries from those derived from GPL'ed source (for example, on separate CDs), this does not seem to be a requirement. It is up to you to figure out which parts of the distribution are under the GPL. Sun could satisfy every element of the GPL, including the mandatory startup display, and still so commingle the free and non-free portions of their distribution that they are difficult to separate.
Apparent (not real) conflict between GPL & reported licensing terms
Posted Jul 31, 2003 13:01 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Or look at RedHat - WHICH CHARGES A PER-SEAT LICENCE ... (as does SuSE, I think)The point is, for both RH and SuSE, you can take their linux and install it on as many computers as you like. BUT
The service contract is "all or nothing". If you have six computers, but only buy five or fewer "distro packs", then ALL the maintenance contracts thrown in with the official pack are VOID.
Basically, the "licence" is a service contract, and if you try to be cheap by only licencing some computers, then RH, SuSE, and presumably Sun, will just say "sorry" and leave you in the lurch.
Cheers,
Wol
Apparent (not real) conflict between GPL & reported licensing terms
Posted Jul 31, 2003 13:55 UTC (Thu) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]
> <i>Or look at RedHat - WHICH CHARGES A PER-SEAT LICENCE</i><p>This is just plain wrong.
Apparent (not real) conflict between GPL & reported licensing terms
Posted Jul 31, 2003 14:24 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
Or look at RedHat - WHICH CHARGES A PER-SEAT LICENCEI think you must be confusing Red Hat Linux (the general distribution) with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The former can be downloaded without paying any licensing fees:
http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/iso/i386/
...if you try to be cheap by only licencing some computers, then RH, SuSE, and presumably Sun, will just say "sorry" and leave you in the lurch.
If you intend "leave you in the lurch" to mean that they won't provide a service which you did not pay for, then yes, that is correct. This is a strategy followed by most financially solvent companies.