Is linux free 4983

Aw, c'mon, guy. You're being intellectually lazy, and asking us to do your thinking for you. Start here:

1. Oracle RDBMS ships a Linux version. If Oracle shipped its database on a set of Linux distribution CDs, do you think they'd be obliged to hand copies to everyone free of charge?

2. A typical Linux distribution will not include Oracle RDBMS, but will include some hundreds or thousands of other applications. Some will be open source. Some may be freely redistributable but restrictively licensed. Some may be not freely redistributable, and restrictively licensed.

Do you think the publishers of restrictively licensed application software are obliged to hand out copies to everyone free of charge?

3. Even without significant user-level application software, a Linux distribution would have to include some libraries, some system utilities, and one of the implementations of the X Window System -- in addition to the Linux kernel. Each of those codebases will be available under some open-source licence: GPL, LGPL, BSD, Perl Artistic License, MIT-X. Did you bother to read those? Why not? That would have answered your implied question.

{sigh}

To answer your implied question: The Linux kernel is distributed by its copyright holders to the public under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2. That licence allows redistribution free of charge, as well as allowing distribution for money. People who do some sorts of redistribution of the Linux kernel or derivative works thereof are obliged to offer all parties specified sorts of access to the matching source code.

If someone says to you, "I'm willing to give you a copy of the Linux kernel, but only if you pay me $5", you have absolutely no cause for complaint. You remain entirely free to find someone else who'll offer it to you cheaper, and everyone else remains free to not offer it at all, or to offer it at the price of their choosing.

If someone puts the Linux kernel onto a CD-ROM with various and sundry other codebases, he-she will have whatever redistribution rights, and matching responsibilities, that the various copyright owners have specified in their licences. That person may have the right to redistribute some of the consbreastuent codebases, but not others.

1. Read the damned licence. They have every right under GPLv2 to sell GNU codebases and the Linux kernel for whatever price the market will bear. You are likewise free to do so. Moreover, so is the FSF. Aren't you aware that FSF has been selling media containing the GNU codebases since its inception?

2. Do you have any reason to think that Redhat sic, Suse sic, or Mandrake sic are failing to provide the required access to third-party GPLed codebases (from FSF or anyone else) in accordance with GPLv2 clause 3b? Or any other provision?

3. Read the damned licence. Do you honestly believe that it says anywhere that redistributors are required to furnish even source code, let alone binaries, without charge?

4. Do you think that Microsoft Corporation (other than its Interix division) has suddenly become a major developer and redistributor of open-source code?

5. Read the damned licence. It'd prevent you from running around in public with your foot in your mouth.

Your opinion is noted, and I'm sure will be valued at, at minimum, acquisition cost. Meanwhile, if you think you can do better than those other people, you're free to acquire source code to the open-soure portions of those distributions' codebases, fork off a copy, develop the hell out of it, and hand out copies free of charge at your own expense. Good luck.

Read the damned licence.

Sheesh.

-- Cheers, Rick Moen Support your local medical examiner: Die strangely.