Quote:
Originally Posted by ccperf721p  My idea of abuse is unleashing a 3.5GB DVD of a free beta OS on the public, recieving multiple bug reports, waiting for the linux community to fix these bugs, package it up, copyright it, and then profit from it. Which is why I don't use Fedora . (Or any other distribution that profits from software covered under the GPL) |
I understand what you're saying, although I'm not entirely certain I agree.
- Redhat provides services and support. THAT is what they sell. The fact that the service and support comes with a disk of Linux software is incidental.
- Under the terms of the GPL, Redhat HAVE to provide access to the source code for all of the GPL'd software they distribute, and they do.
- Redhat have programmers who are on the Redhat payroll, who do work on GPL'd code. In other words, they give back to the community.
In short, it's not like Redhat are plundering the work of the FOSS community, claiming it as their own, stripping any evidence that anyone else ever contributed, and then selling it and making a killing off it (unlike what some other companies, e.g. SCO, have done).
Open Source doesn't mean you can't sell it and make money off it. In fact, the GPL was specifically constructed so as to not only allow, but ENCOURAGE such behavior. The primary purpose of the GPL is to protect the rights of the people creating the software, as well as the people using the software. It does this via two mechanisms:
- It first guarantees that the CREATOR of the code retains OWNERSHIP of the code. If I write something, and I distribute it under the GPL, then you can't take it and use it for your own software application without giving me due credit. If you modify my code, you have to give me due credit as the author of the original code base.
- It then guarantees that the USER of the code has the right to a COPY of the code, thus ensuring that if I decide to shuffle off this mortal coil, or maybe I just don't want to play with that particular toy any more, or maybe I'm just being a butt-head and don't like you for some reason, you can go find someone else to make changes to the code to implement the functionality you need.
NEITHER of these mechanisms prevent OTHER contracts from being negotiated. I can release my code under the GPL, AND ALSO release it under a proprietary licence if I desire to do so. I can put the code out under GPL and then negotiate a separate agreement that allows you to incorporate my code into your own proprietary product, if that is my desire. Further, if you want to provide a CD compilation and include my GPL'd code on that CD in compiled form, that is absolutely fine, SO LONG AS you don't charge anything beyond a reasonable fee for the distribution of the application AND you provide access to the source code. If you want to sell service and support aggreements on that application, you are quite free to do that, and in fact a great many people in the FOSS movement make good money doing exactly that.