Is this a GPL Violation? - VOIP Live CD @ WIFI.com.ar

[pau1knopp]

Not trying to start any type of war here, but wanted the group to give me a reality check (gently please). There is what appears to be a fine VOIP Live CD available at WIFI.com.ar using open source tools.

http://www.wifi.com.ar/english/voip.html

My concern is that there is a charge for the CD to the tune of $399. AFAI can tell, there are no commercial software packages included in the Live CD.

What is this organizations responsibility to the FOSS community (according to the GPL). Right now, I do not see a list of GPL packages utilized or access to the GPL source code utilized. In fact, nothing is free. Your only option is to charge $399 to their paypal account.

I would like other peoples (constructive) feedback on this to see if this is a potential GPL violation, or if I am missing something.

[Harry Kuhman]

First of all, including a commercial software package on the CD wouldn't change anything. It's not a way to get around the GPL. If the CD is illegal then adding a commercial package wouldn't change that and vice versa.

Second, I don't think it violates the GPL, as long as they abide by the rules of the GPL, including making all source code available. Is there some dollar cap a reseller is allowed to charge? I don't know of one.

Third, I sure wouldn't buy one at that price, cool or not.

Fourth, if someone did buy one, I'm pretty sure they could turn around and give away as many copies as they wanted. Or make their own distro based on it. IANAL and that is not legal advice, but t is my understanding of GPL software. If someone does pay that price and likes it I hope they give out a lot of copies. And if they pay that price and deternime that it's a ripoff, I really hope they give away copies so others can see what it really is.

[UnderScore]

What is this organizations responsibility to the FOSS community (according to the GPL). Right now, I do not see a list of GPL packages utilized or access to the GPL source code utilized.

They are probably abiding by the GPL. The GPL describes the ways to offer source code to remain in compliance with the license.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. 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.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

"RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay" by Federico Biancuzzi. 09/22/2005
Quoting Richard M. Stallman from http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2...l3.html?page=1

There are four essential freedoms that define free software:
1. The freedom to run the program as you wish.
2. The freedom to study the source code and change it to do what you wish.
3. The freedom to make copies and distribute them to others.
4. The freedom to publish modified versions.
If a program gives its users these freedoms, it is free software. If it does not, then for the sake of my freedom I will avoid using it.

Unless they are disobeying the source code distribution rules or are disrupting the four freedoms, then I do not see a GPL violation. They are free to charge any price for the CD. Also note that they are including "1 year upgrades and email tech support." in that price.

[Elshar]

Fourth, if someone did buy one, I'm pretty sure they could turn around and give away as many copies as they wanted. Or make their own distro based on it. IANAL and that is not legal advice, but t is my understanding of GPL software. If someone does pay that price and likes it I hope they give out a lot of copies. And if they pay that price and deternime that it's a ripoff, I really hope they give away copies so others can see what it really is.

No, you could turn around and give away as many copies of the GPL'd software as you wanted. If the vast majority of the software is non-free software and you need a license from whomever wrote it to obtain it, you cannot freely distribute it. The GPL isn't a license to steal people's work. It just makes sure that already GPL'd software stays freed.

Don't mean to re-open this, but alot of people get confused on this point. If you added mplayer to a MS Windows livecd (assuming that you paid MS whatever royalties they'd want) and made a Mplayer Windows distro, you'd HAVE to release the source code for mplayer, and people could redistribute mplayer, but they COULD NOT redistribute the MS Windows part.

Hope that clears things up