Is linux free 4988
I quoted it to you, and it says that the source of a GPL program is free of charge to the person the program is distributed to, and possibly to others too (at discretion). I gave the reasoning which supports that conclusion. I suspect that you are pointing out that the cost of posting it to you isn't required t be borne by the redistributor.
Saying "we" when you mean "you" is not particularly open ;)!. There is certainly nothing to argue about in terms of facts or interpretation and...
I have disagreed with you and supprted my claim. I claim that there is a clause of the GPL2 that mandates making something available without charge. That "something" is the source code of a GPLed program that has been distributed to a second party, and the party it is free to is that second party, or, at the first party's discretion, any third party including the second party.
And I quoted it to you. There is nothing wrong with my logic, I can butture you. I understand that you are trying to say that because they give you A+B and charge you for A, then B is not free. I disagree. "A" is limited to costs for B, so it's not a scam.
That is an incorrect statement. Let's analyse it:
It's just not ok to not make it the Linux kernel available for free.
So he says its bad (not OK) to charge (not make available for free) the linux kernel.
JH disagrees with him ("not correct"), thus saying it's good (not bad, or at least not not OK) to charge for the linux kernel. While I may not have an opinion on whether it's definitely good or bad, I certainly agree that it is not not OK.
HalcyonWild To be honest I doubt your friend would be able to install Solaris at all, but then, it's free too :-) Have you ever tried to install XP on...
That is not the case - under 3b he MUST give access to the source code of the program "for a charge no more than the cost of physically performing source distribution" to any third party at all, which implies that the source code is free, just the postage and packaging is being charged for.
Hence the redistributor must make the source code available for free. That's an "anything whatsoever". He can charge for P&P. But not beyond reason. It has to be "on a medium customarily used for software interchange".
No, I am in disagreement. You say that the redistributor (the second party?) doesn't have to make anything whatsoever available without charge, and I say that he must make the source code available without charge. That is a component of what the 3rd party has a right to ask for. Posting it to you is charged for. So is stamping it on a cd.
I'm playing no such games, in my judgment. There are many such situations with which we all have experience. For example, a glbutt of water is free in a restaurant...
It's not a word game - it's very precise. The source code is free; the medium it is sent to you on and the cost of posting it to you is not. Try buying the source code of ms windows to see the difference between zero charge and something very else for the source code!
Peter
Linux groups from Newsgroups