How Does Novell Charge For Sled?

Hello,

In November I am going to be doing a presentation at a computer club meeting for the Linux Special Interest Group (SIG) so I am trying to research and anticipate some of the questions that could arise.

One thing I don't fully understand is how Novell can charge for SuSE (SLED) if Linux is developed under the GPL?

Is openSuse *EXACTLY* SLED minus the proprietary pieces (and other Novell-inserted goodies)?

I know with RedHat, they make available their source code (as SRPMs) and point out not to use their copyright materials, but does Novell / SuSe do this?

I've wondered about this also in how Xandros gets by charging for their OS.

Thanks.

Hello,

In November I am going to be doing a presentation at a computer club meeting for the Linux Special Interest Group (SIG) so I am trying to research and anticipate some of the questions that could arise.

One thing I don't fully understand is how Novell can charge for SuSE (SLED) if Linux is developed under the GPL?

Is openSuse *EXACTLY* SLED minus the proprietary pieces (and other Novell-inserted goodies)?

I know with RedHat, they make available their source code (as SRPMs) and point out not to use their copyright materials, but does Novell / SuSe do this?

I've wondered about this also in how Xandros gets by charging for their OS.

Thanks.
[/b]

GPL software can actually be sold for profit, the seller just has to distribute the source code along with the binary:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#D...heGPLAllowMoney

I hope that helps!

One thing I don't fully understand is how Novell can charge for SuSE (SLED) if Linux is developed under the GPL?
[/b]

The term free used in GPL is not the free as in Cash, its free as in free beer

GPL software can actually be sold for profit, the seller just has to distribute the source code along with the binary:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#D...heGPLAllowMoney

I hope that helps! [/b]

So Novell is selling SLED just because it "can" and theoretically I can demand Xandros give me their source code (not that I can do anything with it)?

I think somebody said that SLED includes binaries, which mean you cannot supply the source code for them, and so they "sell" it with the binaries or supply it (via openSuse) without?

I'm still not sure how to define it in minimal sentances if somebody asks "if Linux is open source, then how can Novell (or Xandros) sell their distribution? Don't they require to supply the source code and thus somebody could take that code and give SuSE (or any other distro) away for free?"

Oh this licensing stuff can get soo confusion (feel sorry for the people that get to deal with Microsoft , Apple and Sun licensing :blink: )!

Some apps included by Novell in the SLE series may be proprietary. E.g. things like management tools.

And Novell can charge for support.

The term free used in GPL is not the free as in Cash, its free as in free beer
[/b]

No that's the same free, meaning gratis. You mean free as in freedom, not free as in beer.

Or better still, use libre instead of free, which has two meanings in English.

The charge for SLED covers support and access to updates, in much the same way as Red Hat operates. You can download SLED for no charge from Novell directly, they permit this for eval purposes, but the product is not restricted and there is no timebombing or functionality restrictions. The only exception is that the eval product provides 30 or 90 days of access to updates. There are a number of people running SLED but using the openSUSE repositories for software instead of the restricted SLED-specific update servers.

It's also important to remember, when considering the licensing, that the average linux distribution contains software under any number of different licenses, it's not just GPL. In some cases that software is under a proprietary or commercial license and may not be freely distributed. In the case of a distribution like Linspire, which includes codecs and a licensed DVD player, or Xandros, which includes their own proprietary file manager and management tools, the commercial charge for these distributions includes a license for the proprietary bits but they may not be legally copied and redistributed any more than Windows can.

SLED does include some proprietary software bits but none of these are licensed in the sense that you're paying a license fee for SLED. The charge for SLED is simply a subscription to the update servers. The GPL (and other FLOSS licenses) would certainly permit one to take those FLOSS-licensed bits of SLED and redistribute them freely, but Novell's copyright-protected components (including branding, logos, documentation etc.) would have to be removed, and the proprietary components (ie. citrix client) may not permit redistribution, even though they are freely available from the vendor's website for download. You'd have to take a CentOS approach and basically scrub anything trademarked or non-FLOSS.

Hope this helps clear it up ?

Cheers,
KV

The term free used in GPL is not the free as in Cash, its free as in free beer
[/b]

You know I hate to admit it, but I really don't get what the difference is in this example that keeps getting shot out there. If beer is free, doesn't that just mean that you're not paying for it, aka free as in cash?

Ok then, GPL'd programs are free as in philosophy/choice. That doesn't make it unable to be charged for.

The correct analogy is "free as in speech, not as in beer" AFAIK

the 'free beer' means that u still charged for entering the pub, but you got this beer. So novell actually charges the supports, and you got this SLED. cmiiw.