Linux and Free Software :: Introducing StudentOS™ (A remastered DSL4.0)

I'll look again after this weekend and see how much progress you've made. Thanks, Ananda.

So, with you can easily download DSL and it's also fairly easy to do your remaster...

... yet in theory, before you're allowed to offer your work, you need to send a request to get DSL sources, pay a nominal fee of 7 US $ by check and wait that you receive the source. Although it's perfectly compliant with the GPL, it looks a bit like this delivery process is made to deter spare-time developers :angry:

to publish their own remasters or ports or cool hacks that might find their way back into DSL.

Although I have no desire to see too many remasters or to see forks, I believe it is both pointless and uneffective to have a complex process in the hope of avoiding bad forks, etc. Therefore, I would suggest to have a link to be able to *download* the source of DSL (especially as next version is tiny and entirely compiled from source)! Let's be frictionless.

Quote

it looks a bit like this delivery process is made to deter spare-time developers

Between the costs associated with burning CDs (including the costs of media and the burner itself), maintaining all changes from one version to another, bandwidth, postage, and time involved in doing all the work, I don't think $7 is a barrier to anything. It sure as bleep isn't going to make John wealthy. It's well within the parameters of the GPL and far less than the costs charged by Mepis for the same (although Mepis has a lot more to code to maintain and burn). It's not prohibitive, it's fair. I don't think it's a barrier to making remasters, but it's still something one should do before *releasing* a sub-distro to anyone else (let alone to the general public). I don't know the size of an ISO of the DSL source, but there's no restriction against someone who has that ISO making it available elsewhere -- that, too, is allowed under GPL -- regardless of whether John wants to do that himself.

First, according to the GPL, offering offline access only to the source, when the binaries are online, is against the GPL. If you want to start being a prick to one person, have you bugged John about that?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSources

And DSL is offered for free, yet the sources must be paid for, also in violation of the GPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee

And even more, no gpl software in the repository has the gpl license file with it, also in violation.

Karma has a way of affecting us all. Don't give karma a reason.

QUOTING CHAOSTIC:

Quote

Stop the name-calling right now. I haven't engaged in ANY ad hominem attacks on anyone here. Yet this is the second time you've called me a prick.

Quote

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

This is where DSL is in compliance with both letter and spirit of GPL.

And...

Quote

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

And:

Quote

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost.

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

and...

Quote

Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.

The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay—such as a billion dollars—and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source, to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.

ibid.

So you're wrong. As usual. Not bein' snarky or nothin'... heh.

Next Page...
original here.