> If one would only be allowed to distribute Linux, if one did pay > Linus Thorwalds for every copy, then Linux would not only fail to > be "free" as in beer, it also would not be free as in "libre". The > distribution must be allowed without any charges, as soon as I have > the good. I think that's a popular interpretation of the GPL, but in fact I think you only have to distribute source code to those parties that have received a binary. You can sell binaries for whatever you like - Red Hat tm Enterprise AS Premium costs US $2499-$18000 for one year of updates, depending on processor architecture: http://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/rhel/as/ Most of the commercial Linux distributors are using trademarks (eg Red Hat tm), non-GPL essential components (eg SUSE's installer), or lock-in to update services (Red Hat tm Enterprise) to frustrate third-party commercial redistribution. (All trademarks in this email are acknowledged to belong to their respective owners). Cheers Daniel
