Re: GPL violators (charging for a Linux kernel by itself and then charging again for source)

[Eric Appleman <erappleman@gmail.com>]

https://plus.google.com/115556873499158641618/posts/VfAcAdUHU6h
Mirror in case of deletion: http://pastebin.com/7fXKR6ss

A small snippet...

"Chad can sell his kernel, and he has the right to refuse to sell it to 
specific people he if sees fit.
Chad can charge for the source code. so as long as the price of the source 
code does NOT exceed the cost of the kernel itself.  There is NO limit to 
what Chad can charge for the kernel.
Source needs to be made available only to "users of the software" and only 
if "requested" by the "user of the software" - and yes, as stated above, a 
fee can be charged for access to the electronic download of source, as long 
as it is no more than the cost of the kernel.

Yes, people who "buy" the kernel can share it with who they want with or 
without a charge, but Chad still has the right to charge for source if the 
"3rd party" requests source."

I'm curious to know if there is a single maintainer or contributor on this 
list who finds such behavior acceptable.

Wasn't the whole idea of a fee being permitted an acknowledgment that 
physical distribution of source was acceptable if electronic was not 
possible (low bandwidth ISP, security concerns, etc).

I don't have a problem with people charging for GPL software, you can do 
that. But usually the money goes towards supporting the user or covering the 
costs of hardware it's shipped on. All I see is a profit-driven scheme that 
effectively charges for a Linux kernel that you all made together and Chad 
represents less than 0.001% of.

- Eric