I was on a stream for tech talk last night and I asked if I could sell Linux Distros for free. The guy said I have no idea, you probably have to work for Linux or something. Then a person is the chat room said it would be leagl to sell it if you make your own Linux Distro. So I wanted to know from the forums if I could. I want to know if I can sell them legally online and at a flea market. And in the future I would like to open up my own store and have something setup like the Apple Store where people could come in and try out the OS. I hope I can get a reply soon.

"Work for Linux"? He doesn't know what he's talking about. The GPL makes it legal for you to sell your Linux distro or one by others. The question is, if the whole point of Linux is that it's free software, why sell it? It should be given away. Basically, yes, you can.

well they say distribute not sell, and you can charge what you want. Kind Regards

Thank You for your replies. I was hoping I would be able to sell my own version of Xubuntu. I called it "Xubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon Spyware Removal Edition." I wanted to make it because a lot of people have spyware on htere computers and there computers won't boot anymore. But if you put Linux of some kind on hte computer it will dualboot (if you want it to) and you can boot to Linux. Well then on the CD there will be a setup file of Spybot Search and Destroy where it will find the spyware and kill it, and then you can boot perfectly back to Windows. And they might even like Linux so much there keep there dualboot or wipe out Windows. Give me a reply if you like my idea.

[quote=computerfreak] I called it "Xubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon Spyware Removal Edition.".[/quote] dont quote me but i dont think you can edit the program and re distribute it under the same name.

If I wanted to redistribute the disk under the same name I would have to get Linux's permission? I don't want to cause any harm I just want to help people with there computers. Any ideas for names then? I picked Xubuntu because its such a light OS. Maybe should I go for DSL and rename it? What should I do then?

"Linux" is not a company. There are many different distros made by different people independently and on their own time. Debian, my favourite, was made by Debra and Ian. See? If you're just going to modify it, then you'll want to use the same name(i.e. Xubuntu - Unofficial whatever edition), and make sure everyone knows that it's unofficial.

So I should name my version Xubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon Unofficial Spyware Removal Edition?

Yes, that would work.

Thanks Guys

no worries. This you should read for your benefit. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html Kind Regards p.s keep us informed :D

It maybe too late now, but I'd like to contribute to this thread as well. No single entity owns any Linux distribution. So, you, me or anybody can distribute it. You can also sell for any amount a distribution you make. Or you can just sell any existing distribution. But, you can't make profit from selling any distribution made by someone else. That you can't do. So you can't open a store and simply sell Linux distributions for profit. Asking for a nominal amount is acceptable, as long as you're not making a hefty profit. As per naming, you don't have to put Unofficial in the name, since you're already calling your product Xubuntu Spyware Removal. So you're not the same as the original Xubuntu. Just always clarify that you're not associated with the original Xubuntu, just that your product is based on it. Now, I strongly suggest you confirm this with the Xubuntu team. Also, where creating a derivative product is concerned, you must ensure you're not violating any copyrights/trademarks etc. For instance, without permission, you can't use the Xubuntu logo or the Ubuntu logo in your project. These things are always complicated so I strongly suggest you discuss this with the Xubuntu team. Don't worry, they won't feel threatened and they'll happily assist if you ask them :) Good luck and cheers!

Thats a great insight! I will bear this in mind when choosing a host for my LFS. Thanks

I created my own distro (Linguas OS / www.linguasos.org), based on PCFluxboxOS, but aimed specifically for the translation industry, and including tools for translators. I changed the artwork and other stuff, but, it is basically PCFluxboxOS underneath, just with slightly different packages (removed some stuff, added others, slid in a few little scripts and stuff), and new artwork. Of course, I'm not selling it. Just giving it away. But, I suppose I could sell it. Although, I don't *own* it...The software is all free and free. I could sell the media (CDroms) that carry it...But not the software. I could charge people for the bandwidth to download it, or for CDs, but, I could not charge for the software. I could charge them for my time when I offer support, too. I'm not though. It's just FREE! I do own the name, the website, and my artwork. That's it. One thing, though, I believe that Ubuntu is a registered trademark (the name and logos, not the software), as are Red Hat, Suse, Mandriva, and a few other distros that are maintained by larger corporations. [Modified by: tonytraductor on January 10, 2008 10:04 PM]

Like I said, you're free to sell it, and you're free to charge for the service (downloading it, burning to disk, etc.) but you can't make PROFIT out of it.

It may be too late but what do you mean by "Spyware Removal Edition" ? There is a list of Linux viruses on Wikipedia and most of them pose a minimum threat and you could just install ClamWin. My opinion : If you run Linux don't worry about viruses. If you base your OS around nothing but security you end up with Windows.

marshall my garden shed is more secure than windows lol the focus on security is what has made linux soo bullet proof, programers all over the world focus on this, myself being one of them. kind regards

What I meant by that was that if you base your OS around security you get a lot of security with numerous flaws. Linux has great security but it is not all about security unlike Windows.

Microsoft may be "about" security but like alpinesatan put very well, it isn't secure in any way shape or form. Nor is it reliable!

lol, i kinda see what you mean, or at least i think i do. But the way i see it microsoft put added emphasis on security and adding the likes of "windows defender" thats just another app using your system resources, unlike linux where you dont even know its there. kind regards

Is a copycat, by any other name, still a copycat? There is an article on EWeek that discusses the goal of the new RedHat CEO to keep focused on OpenSource software. In this article, the author makes a point to discuss difficulties RedHat must face, particularly 'Copycats' or groups who duplicate RedHat's work and redistribute it. Two of the 'Copycats' mentioned are Oracle and CentOS. Both are groups who have taken the RedHat distribution and re-distributed and re-branded it with a different name and with different purposes. Oracle has re-branded RedHat distro and sells support for it on their own, in a bid to profit from that product. On the other side, CentOS has also re-branded RedHat's distro but offers no paid support and does not sell it, but offers it for free. Since the distro being copied falls under ( primarily) the GPL, it is perfectly legal to "copy" it. So there really isn't a legal wrongdoing here, but an ethical wrong is being suggested. In the case of one for-profit company, relabeling another company's product then making a profit from that, I can see where some would come to that conclusion of being 'ethically' wrong. If not wrong, certainly not a move that will gain Oracle many friends. ( Edit: Oracle does NOT charge for their version of Re-branded RHEL, only for support.) CentOS recognizes that the distro is free to redistribute under the GPL, once the company trademarked identifications, etc are removed ( labeling or 'Branding' ). RedHat sells their branded version and offers a different version for free called Fedora. But, the Branded product is indeed also subject to the GPL and the folks at CentOS are not trying to make any money off the deal, per se, merely to make freely available, that which the GPL says is able to be shared as such. So, one can pay RedHat for their branded distro and pay for support beyond that to have their Linux run smoothly. Or , one can download Oracles re-branded RedHat distro for free and pay Oracle for support beyond that to have their Linux run smoothly. OR, one may download CentOS's re-branded RedHat distro for free and do some research and homework to have their Linux run smoothly. CentOS might be seen as a modern day Robin Hood, albeit not legally 'stealing' from the rich to give to the poor, but the scerio is close enough to make the comparison. The reason, as I have read thus far, on CentOS's part wasn't to release a re-branded Distro in order to compete, but it was legally obligated to remove the trademarked "RedHat" branding and images, etc from the distro and replace them with something in order to be legally responsible and still provide a product that is recognized as a leader in the Linux industry without having to pay high costs upfront for it. Essentially making the RedHat product available to everyone, without the support being available for it. Mind you, an entire support industry has popped up in the form of books, internet forums and other means to provide support and CentOS/RedHat directly benefits from this as RedHat is one of the most commonly used distros authors use to base their teaching examples on. Oracle on the other hand, is doing the same, only they are charging for their support and "extras". No matter how you re-brand it, it is indeed RedHat's distro. Both Oracle and CentOS know this. It's all open source and free, in more ways than one. Both of their methods are 'legal' based on the GPL. Most people, from the start, observed that Oracles move is not largely viewed as 'ethically' right. CentOS is not seen by most as "ethically' wrong because they charge no money, despite RedHat, if it wanted a 'free' version of their top drawer product, would have provided one.

this solution works, thank you.

[quote=Shashank Sharma] But, you can't make profit from selling any distribution made by someone else. That you can't do. So you can't open a store and simply sell Linux distributions for profit. Asking for a nominal amount is acceptable, as long as you're not making a hefty profit.[/quote] Actually, this is not quite true. You cannot sell someone else's Linux as a product without their permission (or removing all their logos and identifying components, such as Oracle does with Red Hat Enterprise Linux), but if you include "support" as part of the deal (see Oracle), then you can charge whatever people are willing to pay as they are paying for your ability to support them. In any case, you MUST make the GPL-based code and any changes you make to it available to anyone who wants it. It can be either an online download, or some sort of media that you only charge for the media and REASONABLE shipping/handling fees. Your proprietary applications that are not based upon GPL'd code and aren't covered by the GPL itself dont fall into this caveat. A few companies that did not honor this requirement of the GPL have been successfully sued and have paid big $$ (million$ of USD) as a result of their arrogance. That includes some Fortune 100 entities. So, do your homework, give credit where credit is due, and I wish you all success in your new enterprise!

One has to keep in mind that there are different laws that might play a role here. First the copyright law: Any work one produces is automatically copyrighted. If the author releases this under the GPL or any other free software lisence then you can distribute it as you please. This also means that you can charge whatever you wish for it. If someone pays you a million dollars for a copy of the Linux kernel- lucky you. Second is trademark law: You mustn't use names, logos, that are registered to someone else, only if you pay royalties (or whatever they are called) to the trademark holder. This is why you can't use the term xubuntu in your own distro (Actually, you can, but you got to stick to cannonicals trademark policy- look it up somewhere in the ubuntu forums or google or...). Recently the distro "ubuntulite" had to change its name into "u-lite" because of this. If you strip the free software of any trademarked names, logos etc., then you can do whatever you want with it (if its FLOSS of course). Of course, I'm no lawyer, so I could be entirely wrong. HTH, Christian

I think you got it right. The trademark thing is why CentOS had to strip Red Hat's logos and such in order to distribute the free version of RHEL.

I suppose it depends on the distribution. For example, Debian allows selling the distribution (see the faq): [i][b]14.1 Can I make and sell Debian CDs?[/b]Go ahead. You do not need permission to distribute anything we have released, so that you can master your CD as soon as the beta-test ends. You do not have to pay us anything. Of course, all CD manufacturers must honor the licenses of the programs in Debian. For example, many of the programs are licensed under the GPL, which requires you to distribute their source code. [/i] OTOH, Ubuntu allows only non-commercial remixes that have only minimal changes to use the trademark Ubuntu. Mikko [url=http://lightlinux.blogspot.com]lightweight linux[/url] [Modified by: mikjp on January 15, 2009 02:16 PM]