55

Would it be perfectly legal for them to sell copies of this slightly modified version of Ubuntu (let's call it Mubuntu = Modified Ubuntu)? No. While the software licenses may allow you to do this, the trademark license does not: Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to ...


50

You can use dpkg-deb command to manipulate Debian package archive (.deb). From manpage:- -I, --info archive [control-file-name...] Provides information about a binary package archive. If no control-file-names are specified then it will print a summary of the contents of the package as well as its control file. ...


22

Yes, provided that you satisfy license conditions of all packaged software (ship the source code, etc.) and don't violate any trademarks, copyright laws, etc. Also, you must make sure that your action would make no harm to any third party person like murder, etc. The closed source software included should not violate licenses of any libraries it uses (some ...


19

If you live in a country that has ratified the Berne Convention (you probably do), then anything that can be copyrighted is copyrighted, whether or not it is mentioned explicitly. An explicit mention of copyright can help settle disputes and can lead to higher damages in case of violations, but it is not a requirement to claim the protection of copyright. ...


18

As Serge mentioned, yes. However, you cannot modify parts that are GPL (the window manager is GPL) and then close source it. You cannot even use GPL libraries in closed source code. So the answer should actually be, NO as if you close source a major part of the system or desktop, by the time you are in the free and clear of GPL, it will have nothing to do ...


12

Which licenses portage accepts is governed by the ACCEPT_LICENSE variable in make.conf. This variable is the counterpart to package.license the same way USE is to package.use, ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to package.keywords, etc.. By default, this variable is set to * -@EULA, which means "accept all licenses except those in the EULA set". This set contains all licenses ...


11

Copyrighted means there is a copyright and license protecting that. The license in the case of the Linux kernel is GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html). In a nutshell, you are allowed to modify the code in any way you wish. However, if you distribute your modified code, you have to license it GPL and keep the credit to the original authors. Also, if ...


9

What versions of the GPL are being used here? Regardless, what you have described is, I think, permitted by the GPL. However, since under the GPL, the companies have to provide the source code for the software, so you should be able to rebuild the software without the offending crap. If they will not provide the source, they are in violation of the GPL, and ...


9

First, you must be clear that Google's Android code and Linux kernel code are separate. Android itself is licensed under Apache License 2.0, which is permissive, and in Wikipedia's words: The Apache License is permissive in that it does not require a derivative work of the software, or modifications to the original, to be distributed using the same ...


8

I am not a lawyer. Take this as worth what you paid me for it. That said, I'll try to lay out my reasoning to allow you to reach your own conclusion as well. TL;DR: Yes, legally it would appear to be allowed by the GPL. The longer version: The GNU GPL is a redistribution and source code usage license. Nothing more. Particularly, it never enters into the ...


8

There is no such Linux distribution. Since version 0.95 in March 1992, the Linux kernel has been under the GNU GPL. Prior to that version, it was not under the GPL, but a different licence that prohibited commercial use, failing your other criterion. There can thus not be a Linux distribution that does not include GPL software and allows commercial use. ...


7

What you are missing are two components: the service/support and the fact that they (Red Hat) provide ready (binary) packages. CentOS does as well and they strive to be binary compatible, down to every single last bug. As far as I know only a few aspects of CentOS differ from the respective RHEL release, mostly because of copyright and/or trademark issues. ...


6

WRT to distributions, the essential difference between "free" and "non-free" is that the former is compiled from freely available source code, whereas the later is not; this usually means that the distribution packagers did not compile the binary at all -- they got it from some third party who have legal, private possession of the source code. For example, ...


6

A font like tahoma can be found in the wine fonts package. There's also a package called ttf-ms-fonts which includes some the fonts you mentioned and can be legally installed. See for example this information for arch linux. Includes: Andalé Mono Arial Arial Black Comic Sans Courier New Georgia Impact Lucida Sans Lucida Console Microsoft Sans Serif Times ...


6

From The Art of Unix Programming (emphasis added): After the [1974] paper, research labs and universities all over the world clamored for the chance to try out Unix themselves. Under a 1958 consent decree in settlement of an antitrust case, AT&T (the parent organization of Bell Labs) had been forbidden from entering the computer business. Unix could ...


5

Arial and Verdana were released as part of the "Core Fonts for the Web" project. These are still freely [legally] available and easy to install in Linux. Tahoma... and newer fonts like Calibri ... heh, I think it's very unlikely that these could ever be had [legally] for free.


5

Is anyone allowed to share modified program using same name? It depends; the GPL doesn't really specify that, since names aren't copyrighted. They are, however, obligated to clearly state it's not the same: The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date. To control the name itself, you need a trademark, ...


5

If you choose to make an operating system based on the Linux kernel then you have to distribute it for free under the GPL License, That's not quite true. You can make an OS based on the Linux kernel with no constraint whatsoever, as long as you keep it for yourself. If you distribute an OS based on the Linux kernel, then you have to distribute the source ...


5

Concise Press 1 Press 2 in order to change [ ] to [x] in front of 2) I accept the license agreement Press q Accept license menu does not prompt anymore at boot Comprehensive The issue was caused because the prompt was not clear to me. First I thought that pressing c would result in continue, i.e., moving to section2, but that was not the case. A Q&A ...


5

You can use dpkg -f (archive) (field name) to do exactly this. Example: dpkg -f archive.deb Version dpkg -f archive.deb Package To get possible field names: dpkg --info archive.deb


4

A Linux distribution consists of many pieces. All the pieces that are based on software licensed under the GNU GPL and other copyleft licenses must have the code source released. For example, if you ship something built on a Linux kernel, you must provide the Linux kernel source as well as any patch that you have made to the kernel source (however, for the ...


4

BSD-licensed systems (e.g. FreeBSD) do not require you to disclose source code, thus they might be a feasible choice. Also, there are comercial UNIXes like QNX, but they probably will be quite expensive. As for Red Hat, you are not paying for the distro per se, you are paying for support and consulting. The source code of all the packages is available for ...


4

First of all, a GNU/Linux distribution consists of many software packages, some of which are licensed under GNU GPL, but there are other licenses involved as well. For example, Perl is covered under the Artistic License or GPL — your choice, and Apache is covered by the Apache license. That said, the GPL is one of the strongest copyleft licenses that you'...


4

This issue annoyed the living daylights out of me earlier today since the update to the latest CentOS 7 release requires re-accepting the EULA, and the text interface for accepting the license is unintuitive to the point of being broken. Simple fix to make this go away permanently: Interrupt grub (press e) Add init=/bin/bash to the end of your kernel line ...


4

Of course it does, otherwise lots of basic hardware (i.e. network adapters) wouldn't work. Most of it — everything apart from two HighPoint drivers — is microcode. There is a mechanism to build the kernel without it — just define WITHOUT_SOURCELESS in /etc/src.conf and rebuild the kernel and world. As usual, it's all documented in the manual page


4

Packages' licenses are described in /usr/share/doc/${package}/copyright. This file is required to specify the main license of the package; many packages use a machine-readable copyright file which lists the licenses of every single file in the source package. For machine-readable files, you can use the License: line which introduces licenses: awk '/^...


4

From the article you are refering to (at the very bottom): nothing prevents a user from installing and using a modern GCC on their FreeBSD box themselves. So it is perfectly valid (legally speaking), for a specific user, to install a modern gcc on a FreeBSD 10.x then use it to compile and install Python. First install a modern gcc from the "ports" (...


3

ZDnet reports that CentOS will remain free: If your company is already using CentOS... Do Not Freak Out. Red Hat is not going to start charging you for using CentOS. CentOS will continue to be an independent distribution with community, not paid, support. Wired reports that the move will allow CentOS the ability to fix bugs in public view without ...


3

Yes. The GPL wouldn't prevent that. one contained embedded advertisements for a competing product This one seems odd (unless that other product somehow benefits the developers of the free version) but is perfectly legit. Note however that they must provide you (or allow you to get) the source code for the product, so you† could compile your own copy ...


3

I am not a lawyer, but I think the answer is yes. From GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Conveying Verbatim Copies. You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible