Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

dtw · 2005-08-08 10:49:18

OK, as you may or may not know we are currently startup the AEGIS project. We have licensed the project under the GPL as required by the GPL license that Arch is distributed on. However, as I understand it, the individual applications contained in the CD are still covered by their own license. I have not yet had a chance to check all the licenses for the software we intend to include, hopefully they are all freely distributable but I also hope one contains a not-for-profit clause.

Why?

People that burn and sell ISOs of linux distributions without permission make me sick. Anyone can do it and profit from others hard work. In most cases I think distros go along with it because it gives them more exposure.

Not-for-profit is a core tenant of the AEGIS Project so I want to protect it from people profiting from it's distribution. Under the GPL you may "charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy".

If I want to prevent blatent profiteering I can envisage two ways. Include software that is free to distribute but contains a non-profit clause OR simply include one document, e.g. our getting started document, which is licensed in such a way as to prevent distribution for a fee without permission. With this file on the ISO non-one could sell it straight off the ftp site without editing the ISO first.

Legal action is a good way to make money for the project after all!

How does that sound to everyone?

jackmetal · 2005-08-08 11:20:15

I absolutely agree!

The people that make money off others hard work.....Those types make me sick!!

Too bad we can't "legally" take them all out back and beat the h#!! out of them. ;-)

Kern · 2005-08-08 11:23:53

i cant see much opportunity for profiteering if

a: You supply your own copies as near to cost as possible.
b. There's ftp access for those with adequate bandwidth.

piracy exploits the large difference between the cost of manpower to design, produce and service a product, and the cost of merely supplying a copy of it.

If theres only a small margin, pirates will copy product that gives them more potential return for their energy.

If you want to make money out of a project, you could maybe charge for services, as most non-payed-for-distro users have to take pot-luck when it comes to troubleshooting.

the one thing pirates / profiteers cant copy, automate or sell, is experience.

dtw · 2005-08-08 11:58:16

Kern wrote:

i cant see much opportunity for profiteering if
a: You supply your own copies as near to cost as possible.
...snip
If you want to make money out of a project
...snip

It's a not-for-profit project I'm aware that some people will require hard copies though, that's why it says without permission - third party distribution maybe essential but if it is it will be closely overseen by me

cactus · 2005-08-08 14:23:50

The GPL allows others to profit monitarily. That is part of what makes the gpl the gpl. Others cannot distribute modifications to the source, without releasing them. That is the payment system.

Charges for downloads and cds are allowed. There is a grey area as far as charging large sums of money for gpl software though. The market generally rectifies this issue. If you give it away, and someone charges 500 <insert money of choice> for it..well...duh! People will get it for free.

Generally that is why linux companies sell support, and not the software.

If you feel you need a more stringent license, then you need to look at something like BSD. You can relicense bsd software as "owned by dibble" if you want. You cannot do this with gpl software.

I think your desire to maintain a lock over the iso--which is more of a packaging and distribution medium than a peice of software itself--is not inline with what I would want to do. That is just me though. In fact, it leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth--it appears you are trying to hijack and govern the work of others...the very thing you are attempting to avoid having happen to you.

Further, an iso is considered "mere aggregation" by not only the gpl, but by many licenses. Trying to enforce a license on an iso by including non-free software on it, will not work--and is questionable legally.

I am not a lawyer of course, so consult a real one regarding these issues if needed.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm … RequireFee
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm … edVersions
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm … AllowMoney
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm … RequireFee

dtw · 2005-08-08 15:31:09

cactus wrote:

If you feel you need a more stringent license, then you need to look at something like BSD. You can relicense bsd software as "owned by dibble" if you want. You cannot do this with gpl software.

As I understand the BSD license someone can take the same ISO change the name and charge $500 for it - I fail to see how that helps. Beside the project is Arch based and Arch is GPL therefore all Arch based projects must be GPL - as I understand it. And what is this about owning it? When have I said that?

cactus wrote:

I think your desire to maintain a lock over the iso--which is more of a packaging and distribution medium than a peice of software itself--is not inline with what I would want to do. That is just me though. In fact, it leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth--it appears you are trying to hijack and govern the work of others...the very thing you are attempting to avoid having happen to you.

Sorry?! How on earth am I trying to do any of that? The ISO will be freely distributable, there will be no "lock". How am I hijacking anything? By wanting to prevent people from selling it to line their own pockets without making any contribution? I don't want to create a monopoly, I just want to avoid exploititative practices. Let me reiterate - not-for-profit, for anyone.

I actually take offense at your misrepresentation of my point.

cactus wrote:

Further, an iso is considered "mere aggregation" by not only the gpl, but by many licenses. Trying to enforce a license on an iso by including non-free software on it, will not work--and is questionable legally.

Which type of non-free are you talking about? There's free and free, speech vs beer - we all know that. Freely distributable and not-for-profit do not have to be mutually exclusive, do they? Maybe I am wrong.

I read some of your links - they basically say "Yeah, charge for your software to make some cash." It doesn't say exploit all the people making free software to line your own pockets!

What it does say is that under the GPL you may charge a fee. As this project HAS to be licensed under the GPL that means that people may charge a fee for it - there is no way around that it seems.

I will freely admit to not having a good grasp of this license business. However, based on what I have already read, and the links, cactus provided I think my question has been answered.

aCoder · 2005-08-08 18:17:52

...

Sounds like plenty of misunderstanding's all that's going on here. Calm down you two...

cactus · 2005-08-08 18:54:18

dibblethewrecker wrote:

As I understand the BSD license someone can take the same ISO change the name and charge $500 for it - I fail to see how that helps. Beside the project is Arch based and Arch is GPL therefore all Arch based projects must be GPL - as I understand it. And what is this about owning it? When have I said that?

I meant that if you were using purely bsd software, you could change the name and put it under a new license..one that would enforce a "no pay, but free use" license. It was provided as an example only.

Sorry?! How on earth am I trying to do any of that? The ISO will be freely distributable, there will be no "lock". How am I hijacking anything? By wanting to prevent people from selling it to line their own pockets without making any contribution? I don't want to create a monopoly, I just want to avoid exploititative practices. Let me reiterate - not-for-profit, for anyone.

I misinterpreted your position as trying to attempt to restrict other people from reselling the iso (prepackaged software): be it shipping cost, or otherwise.

Which type of non-free are you talking about? There's free and free, speech vs beer - we all know that. Freely distributable and not-for-profit do not have to be mutually exclusive, do they? Maybe I am wrong.

Not-for-profit, could be considered to be not freely distributable (as in you are free to do with it what you will). It would be freely (as in cost) distributable. A nitpick on my part, I guess.
It does seem like it would be putting a restriction on what people can do with it (ie. not able to sell it).

I read some of your links - they basically say "Yeah, charge for your software to make some cash." It doesn't say exploit all the people making free software to line your own pockets!

Well, the market would not bear (sp?) such a thing anyway. If joe charges $400 for the exact same thing that sally charges $1 for...guess who sells more of them?
And I never inferred that people should be exploited.

What it does say is that under the GPL you may charge a fee. As this project HAS to be licensed under the GPL that means that people may charge a fee for it - there is no way around that it seems.

I would agree.

I will freely admit to not having a good grasp of this license business. However, based on what I have already read, and the links, cactus provided I think my question has been answered.

Yeah. I grasp a little bit of licensing, enough to know that I easily get confused by it. I recommend you contact the FSF, and ask them for some literature on the matter if you are as concerned about this issue as you seem to be.

ps. sorry if I upset you. It was not my intent.

dtw · 2005-08-08 19:01:50

Just a bit of confusion - what I suggested would have violated the GPL that I am obliged to use, I think...

I did email Judd a few days ago for advice about the whole thing - busy as ever I guess

johnisevil · 2005-08-08 19:37:21

A good idea would be if some of these sites that sell CDs from different distros actually worked together with the distro developers. Say for every CD they sell of a given distro, they donate a certain percentage or x amount of dollars back to the distro so it's not only the seller that's making money.

dtw · 2005-08-08 21:41:19

That'ts what I'd do, dude. I'd feel morally obliged!

johnisevil · 2005-08-08 22:06:54

The fact is anyone with some money and computer knowledge can start an e-business that downloads ISO's, burns them, packages them and sells them. But it's the developers that make it all possible. Without the distros and without the developers of these distros, these online Linux CD retailers are out of business, plain and simple. So my opinion is that they owe everything to the developers. So they should be sharing in the profit. It's bad that a site like Distrowatch gives back more to the Linux community than these online Linux CD retailers do.

cactus · 2005-08-08 23:25:39

I agree. Shiesterous indeed.

dtw · 2005-08-08 23:29:55

As I said - cheeky gits!

Arch Linux

#1 2005-08-08 10:49:18

Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#2 2005-08-08 11:20:15

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#3 2005-08-08 11:23:53

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#4 2005-08-08 11:58:16

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#5 2005-08-08 14:23:50

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#6 2005-08-08 15:31:09

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#7 2005-08-08 18:17:52

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#8 2005-08-08 18:54:18

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#9 2005-08-08 19:01:50

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#10 2005-08-08 19:37:21

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#11 2005-08-08 21:41:19

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#12 2005-08-08 22:06:54

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#13 2005-08-08 23:25:39

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

#14 2005-08-08 23:29:55

Re: Stopping cheeky gits from selling your distro for profit

Board footer