On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 01:35:00 +0200, metux IT consult wrote in message
<626f5214-191c-1f90-b806-652ae892cb38@???>:

> On 28.06.2017 01:24, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult (enrico.weigelt@???):
> >
> >> wait a second - these grsecurity folks are *selling* kernel
> >> patches ? how is that compatible w/ the gpl ?
> >
> > Please explain to me why I may not offer to sell a codebase subject
> > to GPLv[23] licence terms.
>
> By selling, I mean, you'll first have to pay before you get the code.

.."after" works too.

> But anybody republish it at will (as long as complying to GPL), so
> how can that business model work ?

..this goes anywhere from "common decency", "charity" to "profitable
business."

> > Please note that FSF itself has been selling collections of GNU
> > software for well over 30 years.
>
> Software *collections*, Distro. So, you're paying for the transport
> medium and the collection as a whole, not the individual packages.

..e.g. Red Hat sell their GPL binaries at a nice profit, AFAIK.

> Anybody can pick out individual source trees from commercial distros
> and redistribute them at will. You just can't do that with the
> distribution media 1:1.

..it depends, smart people would put their source on their
"1:1 binary:source" media and sell it all at once, dearly.
You only need to offer source code to those you distributed
GPL binaries to, AFAIU the GPLs.


--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.