Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 02:57 +1100 schrieb Ben Klein: > > And even if they are in some way vilolating the GPL by not hosting the > > operating systems source > > Not the problem. > 1) Source of individual apps can be retrieved from appropriate > websites. As long as the websites are referenced in the distro's > documentation of each app, they're within the grounds of GPL. First, I am not a lawyer. But the GPL (version 2) says that you have to provide the source code *yourself*. Either by shipping it together with the binaries (section 3a) or by giving you a written offer that they will provide the sourcode to *anyone* who asks for it for a cost not higher than the costs of performing the distribution (section 3b). If you are a noncommercial entity (which iMagic OS definitely is not), passing on the written offer is also enough (section 3c). Finally, if you distribute by offering a download, you have to offer a source download *from the same place* (last paragraph of section 3).
> 2) They don't have to license their own code written for the distro under GPL Correct. But only if they don't link GPL libraries. > What it seems to me is that they are selling binaries, not support. > They could be selling licenses (for Crossover, mp3 etc), but that's > not a matter for us to resolve. If it is determined that what they are > selling is binaries, then I'm almost certain that is a violation of > GPL. No, it is not. You may charge as much as you want for binaries of GPL programs. You just have to allow your clients to pass it on for free. > From memory, GPL allows you to charge for the cost of delivering the > software (e.g. CD media, postage), but not the binaries themselves. This just applies to the source code. Regards, Michael Karcher