Re: Retailing

[Joe Smith]

"Peter Samuelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Debian indeed does not distribute the BIOS ... _but_ whoever sells a
computer with Debian pre-installed most certainly does distribute the
BIOS.  That is what we are talking about; please try to read threads
before replying to them.


I was adressing the potential 'linking' with the bios from the standpoint of 
Debian.


Regardless the whole concept is non-sensical. Next somebody will talk about 
the linking between the Kernel and the non-free firmware in a harddrive. Ot 
the linking between all applications running on a transmeta processor and 
its non-free IA-32 simulator (or would that be emulator?). 




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Retailing

[Peter Samuelson]

[Joe Smith]
> The difference is that Debian does not distribute the BIOS.

Debian indeed does not distribute the BIOS ... _but_ whoever sells a
computer with Debian pre-installed most certainly does distribute the
BIOS.  That is what we are talking about; please try to read threads
before replying to them.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Retailing

[Joe Smith]

"Michael Poole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Kieran Lloyd writes:


Dear Sirs,



I am considering selling some home made PC's on Ebay, the thing is I
want to sell these pre-installed with Debian Linux. Would Debian have
any argument with this? I will obviously be advertising that the Pc's
have Debian installed however I will not be charging for it I would only
be charging a mark up on my hardware. Please advise if this would be
acceptable.


It seems odd to me that no one has yet pointed out the congruences
between this request and that of "Nexenta".  For example, GRUB and
Linux are both licensed under the GPL.  Both would be included with
these retail systems and would be written to locate and call functions
within the BIOS; that is, GRUB and Linux would be dynamically linked
against the (presumably non-free) BIOS.


The difference is that Debian does not distribute the BIOS.
The exception in the GPL says this:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not 
include anything that is normally
distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components 
(compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself 
accompanies the executable.


This would prevent the CDDL'ed kernel from being a problem, except that the 
kernel would be distributed with the programs when we ship CDs.


The BIOS is most certainly part of the "operating system" in which the 
bootloaders run. We do not distribute the BIOS. Therefore the above clause 
does most certainly resolve the issue.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Retailing

[Matthew Palmer]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:44:25PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> [Michael Poole]
> > For example, GRUB and Linux are both licensed under the GPL.  Both
> > would be included with these retail systems and would be written to
> > locate and call functions within the BIOS; that is, GRUB and Linux
> > would be dynamically linked against the (presumably non-free) BIOS.
> 
> It has long been a perception that the computer BIOS, like the kernel,
> provides an API across which a program can execute without considering
> the kernel a derived work of the userspace programs, or the BIOS a
> derived work of the kernel.  The same is not believed to be true of
> shared libraries in a userspace application.
> 
> I myself am not certain what the important distinction is between those
> two cases, but this is very well established GPL interpretation dogma.

I think it comes back to the *intent* of the "modules it contains"
restriction.  It's quite simple to build a binary-only shared object and
modify a GPL-licenced program to use it, so if this were allowed the
copyleft provision of the GPL would be severely constrained in the face of a
determined software hoarder.  On the other hand, modifying a kernel or a
BIOS to provide this binary-only interface is quite a bit more difficult[1].

Looking at it that way, it becomes a lot easier to see why
dynamically-linked libraries are targeted, while BIOSes aren't.

- Matt

[1] There aren't a lot of OSes to choose from to hack on, for instance, and
the primary choice -- Linux -- is protected by it's own GPL sphere of
invulnerability[2].  As for BIOSes, well, the argument goes double for that
little pool of non-freeness.

[2] Although if you were utterly determined to go through with it, I suppose
you could write a non-free program to run in userspace, then write a GPL
kernel module which called it, and then modify the GPL'd program to call the
kernel module which would call the non-free program.  I can't imagine how
that would really escape anyone's attention for long, and while judges may
not be particularly tech-savvy, they're certainly not stupid.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Retailing

[Peter Samuelson]

[Michael Poole]
> For example, GRUB and Linux are both licensed under the GPL.  Both
> would be included with these retail systems and would be written to
> locate and call functions within the BIOS; that is, GRUB and Linux
> would be dynamically linked against the (presumably non-free) BIOS.

It has long been a perception that the computer BIOS, like the kernel,
provides an API across which a program can execute without considering
the kernel a derived work of the userspace programs, or the BIOS a
derived work of the kernel.  The same is not believed to be true of
shared libraries in a userspace application.

I myself am not certain what the important distinction is between those
two cases, but this is very well established GPL interpretation dogma.

> Has it simply gone unnoticed by those who campaign so hard to kill
> competition?

Not unnoticed.  The ever-present issue of non-free driver firmware will
ensure that nobody ever forgets to consider cases involving software
that doesn't run in userspace or kernel space.  Debian obviously can't
*distribute* non-free BIOS or driver firmware, but I don't think anyone
has been arguing that Debian kernels can't *use* the BIOS and other
firmware supplied to the system by someone other than Debian.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Retailing

[phil]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:12:06AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 05:38:59PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> ...
> > You should be careful not to give the impression that you are charging a
> > license fee though -- you are allowed to charge a fee for the copy of
> > the programs, or for the service of installing them, but not for the
> > licenses (in the case of the GPL software at least, which covers most of
> > the software in question)
> 
> My understanding was different. 
> 
> Indeed, in GPL you are only allowed to charge for the price of the physical 
> copy (the CD, the shipment cost) when you are asked to provide the sources 
> after you already delivered the program (e.g. in binary format).

Yes, as mentioned in the "Selling Free Software" document to which I
referred, this is the only case in which you are restricted in the
amount you can charge for a copy of a GPLed program.  If you were always
providing the source along with the binaries no such limit on the charge
would exist.

The fact that you are charging for a copy of a program and it's source
does not mean that you are charging for the license.

Clause 2.b) of the GPL reads:

  You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
  whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
  part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
  third parties under the terms of this License.

so you're not allowed to charge for the license.  The reason being that
if you were supposedly charging for the license then the implication
would be that the recipient would have to pay you again to get a second
license, which is not the case.

> But initially (before you have not delivered any part of the program), you 
> can charge any price for the program, as long as you obey with GPL and only 
> relicense the program under GPL to the customer. 

You can do that repeatedly if they feel like paying you for it, but what
you're charging for is the act of distribution, not the license.

Cheers, Phil.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Retailing

[Peter Vandenabeele]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 05:38:59PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
...
> You should be careful not to give the impression that you are charging a
> license fee though -- you are allowed to charge a fee for the copy of
> the programs, or for the service of installing them, but not for the
> licenses (in the case of the GPL software at least, which covers most of
> the software in question)

My understanding was different. 

Indeed, in GPL you are only allowed to charge for the price of the physical 
copy (the CD, the shipment cost) when you are asked to provide the sources 
after you already delivered the program (e.g. in binary format).

But initially (before you have not delivered any part of the program), you 
can charge any price for the program, as long as you obey with GPL and only 
relicense the program under GPL to the customer. 

So, in my understanding, I could offer for sale a modified version of 
e.g. the Linux kernel at a high price, as long as my customer received
it under GPL with all its right and duties. So I am selling a "license"
to use the kernel, as long as it is licensed under GPL. I would not need 
to offer "services" to make my offering priced higher than the physical 
costs of the medium.

On the GNU page that you quoted:

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

I read:

"...Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it..."

I think this is clearly selling a "license" (in casu a GPL license) to the 
program and not associated with selling additional installation services.

HTH,

Peter


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Retailing

[Michael Poole]

Kieran Lloyd writes:

> Dear Sirs,
> 
>  
> 
> I am considering selling some home made PC's on Ebay, the thing is I
> want to sell these pre-installed with Debian Linux. Would Debian have
> any argument with this? I will obviously be advertising that the Pc's
> have Debian installed however I will not be charging for it I would only
> be charging a mark up on my hardware. Please advise if this would be
> acceptable.

It seems odd to me that no one has yet pointed out the congruences
between this request and that of "Nexenta".  For example, GRUB and
Linux are both licensed under the GPL.  Both would be included with
these retail systems and would be written to locate and call functions
within the BIOS; that is, GRUB and Linux would be dynamically linked
against the (presumably non-free) BIOS.  What distinguishes this case
from the "GNU/Solaris" CDDL-licensed standard library case?  Has it
simply gone unnoticed by those who campaign so hard to kill
competition?

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Retailing

[Philip Hands]

Joe Smith wrote:

> Kieran Lloyd" wrote:
>
>> I am considering selling some home made PC's on Ebay, the thing is I
>> want to sell these pre-installed with Debian Linux.
>> Would Debian have any argument with this? I will obviously be
>> advertising that the Pc's have Debian installed however I
>> will not be charging for it I would only be charging a mark up on my
>> hardware. Please advise if this would be acceptable.
>
>
> Hello. While the other people to respond have covered your question
> fairly well, I would like to summarize and add a few additional pieces
> of information.
>
> (Disclaimer: I'm am in no way affiliated with Debian besides being
> just a user. However, I have been lurking on the mailing lists for
> long enough to start to understand how Debian developers feel. So
> while the following may not reflect the offica feelings of Debian, I
> suspect it at least comes close.)
>
> First of all, Thank you for for choosing Debian GNU/Linux. We
> certainly appreicate that you chose to distibute your computers with a
> free (as in speech) operating system.
>
> Debian does not object, and even encourages sale of computers with
> Debian GNU/Linux pre-installed. The fact that you intend to include it
> at no additional cost is even better, as it will increase the exposure
> of Free Software. You could even charge for the pre-installation of
> Debian, but personally I would prefer if you did not.


On the other hand, some of us would prefer that you did charge.  I for
one, and the Free Software foundation for another:

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

I only say this to make it clear that you shouldn't feel at all guilty
about charging if you want to, not to try and say there is anything
wrong with giving it away if you want to either.

It can be argued that people value things more if they have to pay for
them, in which case, if you charge a fee for the software it is more
likely that people will feel that it's worth persevering with using it,
rather than thinking that they didn't pay for it anyway, so if they
don't like it instantly they might as well use whatever their default
operating system is instead.

Not that I want to start a flame war about this -- there's nothing wrong
with giving it away either.

You should be careful not to give the impression that you are charging a
license fee though -- you are allowed to charge a fee for the copy of
the programs, or for the service of installing them, but not for the
licenses (in the case of the GPL software at least, which covers most of
the software in question)

>
> You noted that you would be advertising the fat that debian GNU/Linux
> was pre-installed. You may wish to use our spiral logo which can be
> found on this page: http://www.debian.org/logos/
>
> Chris mentioned that you needed to distribute source code. He noted
> that the easiest way was to include the cd forms burned onto
> recordable discs. Please consider also including a copy of the
> 'binary' cds. This will help your customers install parts of the OS
> that they are interested in, that you did not pre-install.

An alternative approach, which may be cheaper for you, would be to
install a partial mirror (i.e. the right architecture & source, probably
using debmirror) on the machine's hard drive.  With the right
sources.list line the user will then be able to install packages without
first hunting down the CD that they will have lost by then ;-)

If at some point in the future they are getting short on disk space,
they can just delete the mirror.

> Thnaks again, and if you have any further questions please email me
> off-list.
>

Cheers, Phil.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Retailing

[Joe Smith]

Kieran Lloyd" wrote:
I am considering selling some home made PC's on Ebay, the thing is I want 
to sell these pre-installed with Debian Linux.
Would Debian have any argument with this? I will obviously be advertising 
that the Pc's have Debian installed however I
will not be charging for it I would only be charging a mark up on my 
hardware. Please advise if this would be acceptable.


Hello. While the other people to respond have covered your question fairly 
well, I would like to summarize and add a few additional pieces of 
information.


(Disclaimer: I'm am in no way affiliated with Debian besides being just a 
user. However, I have been lurking on the mailing lists for long enough to 
start to understand how Debian developers feel. So while the following may 
not reflect the offica feelings of Debian, I suspect it at least comes 
close.)


First of all, Thank you for for choosing Debian GNU/Linux. We certainly 
appreicate that you chose to distibute your computers with a free (as in 
speech) operating system.


Debian does not object, and even encourages sale of computers with Debian 
GNU/Linux pre-installed. The fact that you intend to include it at no 
additional cost is even better, as it will increase the exposure of Free 
Software. You could even charge for the pre-installation of Debian, but 
personally I would prefer if you did not.


You noted that you would be advertising the fat that debian GNU/Linux was 
pre-installed. You may wish to use our spiral logo which can be found on 
this page: http://www.debian.org/logos/


Chris mentioned that you needed to distribute source code. He noted that the 
easiest way was to include the cd forms burned onto recordable discs. Please 
consider also including a copy of the 'binary' cds. This will help your 
customers install parts of the OS that they are interested in, that you did 
not pre-install.


Thnaks again, and if you have any further questions please email me 
off-list.





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Retailing

[Chris Waters]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:56:00PM -, Kieran Lloyd wrote:
> Dear Sirs,

> I am considering selling some home made PC's on Ebay, the thing is I
> want to sell these pre-installed with Debian Linux. Would Debian have
> any argument with this? I will obviously be advertising that the Pc's
> have Debian installed however I will not be charging for it I would only
> be charging a mark up on my hardware. Please advise if this would be
> acceptable.

You can do this.  You can even charge for the software (whatever you
think the market will bear, given that the software is freely
available), or for the service of installing it.  HOWEVER, for MUCH
(although not all) of the software, you MUST either provide the source
code along with the system, or must provide a written offer (good for
three years) to provide the source code to ANYONE who asks.

See the GNU General Public License at /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
on any Debian system or at  for
details.

The easiest way to do this is to include CDRs with the source of any
packages you have preinstalled.  This, by the way, is a good excuse
for adding a couple of euros/dollars (or the equivalent in your local
currency) to the price.

Note that we (the Debian Project) are mostly (re)packaging various
Free/Libre/Open Source programs found on the Internet, and are not
responsible for setting or enforcing the license terms.  Only a couple
of components (such as the package tools dpkg and apt) are copyrighted
and licensed by Debian itself.

-- 
Chris Waters   |  Pneumonoultra-osis is too long
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  microscopicsilico-to fit into a single
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  volcaniconi-  standalone haiku


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Retailing

[Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:56:00PM -, Kieran Lloyd wrote:
> I am considering selling some home made PC's on Ebay, the thing is I
> want to sell these pre-installed with Debian Linux. Would Debian have
> any argument with this? I will obviously be advertising that the Pc's
> have Debian installed however I will not be charging for it I would only
> be charging a mark up on my hardware. Please advise if this would be
> acceptable.

Acceptable would be even charging for Debian. 

regards
fEnIo

-- 
  ,''`.  Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo
 : :' :   32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland
 `. `'   phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user
   `-  http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Retailing

[Kieran Lloyd]

Dear Sirs,

 

I am considering selling some home made PC’s on Ebay,
the thing is I want to sell these pre-installed with Debian Linux. Would Debian
have any argument with this? I will obviously be advertising that the Pc’s
have Debian installed however I will not be charging for it I would only be
charging a mark up on my hardware. Please advise if this would be acceptable.

 

Kind Regards

 

Kieran Lloyd