Re: Gibraltar
Jens Müller wrote:
> > > Another example is Debian itself: There are some restrictions on what
> can be
> > > done with "official" and "non-official" ISO images (I think only the
> logo
> > > matters, but the principle is the same). I want something in that
> direction.
> >
> > You can use similar restrictions as Debian. That does not inclue a
> > restriction on distribution, whether for profit or not.
> >
>
> What are Debian's restrictions? The use of the word "official"?
I think the use of the logo destined for the "official" CD-ROMs. But there is a
distinction of the "official" ISO images produced by Debian and other images
produced with the content taken from the "official" images.
> > > What can I do to stay compatible with the mostly GPL-ed content of ISO
> > > images ? Do I have the possibility to say "use it in any way, do with
> > > the content what you want but do not sell CD-ROMs produced with the
> > > official Gibraltar ISO-images" ?
> >
> > I suspect (and hope) you can't stay compatible with GPL software if you
> > restrict distribution of the collection. If your work is seperable from
> > all GPL stuff in such a way that you can simply treat your work as
> > no-charge proprietary software, you can write whatever license you want,
> > but it's not free software, and it's not GPL-compatible.
> I suspect the same, and I think it's not fair to make profit of programs
> others gave away for free. Giving support for your project and taking a fee
> is not to be considered "profit-making" IMO.
That is exactly what I mean: if somebody sells his knowledge, his time by
selling support then he does not directly make profit with the ISO images that
are distributed freely. He/she makes his profit because others use the freely
distributed ISO images and he/she has the knowledge about configuring it. And
that is totally ok.
But it is something other than profiting directly by only selling the CD-ROMs.
best greets,
Rene
Reply to: