Can I make a closed source Linux derivative ?

[oldtobor]

If I take an open source Linux kernel and modify it somewhat and then recompile it and link it to some other proprietary programs and release it as a closed source proprietary operating system, only the binaries, can I do it ?

Could anyone ever find out that it was derived from a previous open source linux since it is now only binary ? could the binary be reverse engineered or disassembled and discovered how much it looks alike to Linux ? And what is the limits, who can say it is the same or if it is just somewhat similar ?

Are there examples of closed source linux derivatives sold out on the market ? I think many compaines do these things, even if indirectly, you don't pay for the software, but the price is bundled in the price of devices...

 

[-Job-]

I think Linux is distributed under GPL, which means that you can modify it and distribute it, but it has to be free and open source.

You might be able to make some profit but there would probably be some fee you'd have to pay, I'm not sure.

As far as reverse engineering you'd have to go to great lengths to hide the fact that it's a Linux kernel.

 

[Crosson]

Study the GPL, get a lawyer if you are really serious.

Could anyone ever find out that it was derived from a previous open source linux since it is now only binary ? could the binary be reverse engineered or disassembled and discovered how much it looks alike to Linux ? And what is the limits, who can say it is the same or if it is just somewhat similar ?

The only way you could sell this software if by also offering it for free. Anything else is illegal, and I think you would be caught easily.

 

[MeJennifer]

If I take an open source Linux kernel and modify it somewhat and then recompile it and link it to some other proprietary programs and release it as a closed source proprietary operating system, only the binaries, can I do it ?

Technically yes, legally no.

Why would you even want to consider that? Linux is developed by people who make no money from it. Would you think it reasonable that someone simply takes that, puts his own name on it, and profit from it?

 

[oldtobor]

Because that is the reason why there are so few commercial applications for Linux. You can't statically link to the OS, but dynamically so this limits things you can design and sell.

And then most desktop, professional applications like CAD, Scientific were made for the proprietary unix, not linux, and many were not ported because of the GPL.

And linux open source community does not respect or buy proprietary software, they think it is a SIN, so no one will develop it and the result is mostly crappy, hack job applications, like open office that sucks and has a macro language broken that sucks and no one will ever fix it because there is no money to be made.

BSD seems the way to go, that is why MAC OS X chose that licensing.

I am convinced that Linux is really limiting commercial competition because of the GPL crap.

 

[MeJennifer]

Because that is the reason why there are so few commercial applications for Linux. You can't statically link to the OS, but dynamically so this limits things you can design and sell.

Few commercial applications? There are tons of commercial applications available.

What kind of applications did you have in mind that need to statically link to the OS?
And even if they do, you still do not have to distribute that as a separate OS.

And linux open source community does not respect or buy proprietary software, they think it is a SIN, so no one will develop it and the result is mostly crappy, hack job applications, like open office that sucks and has a macro language broken that sucks and no one will ever fix it because there is no money to be made.

I do not see a point in arguing these kind of strawman arguments.
Feel free to use another OS if you do not like Linux, it looks like it was not made for you.

 

[Anttech]

If I take an open source Linux kernel and modify it somewhat and then recompile it and link it to some other proprietary programs and release it as a closed source proprietary operating system, only the binaries, can I do it

As mentioned here you can't legally do it. However there are ways to use Linux in a closed sourced system. For example, Avaya PBX's are closed sourced and based use Linux.

 

[BoredNL]

If I take an open source Linux kernel and modify it somewhat and then recompile it and link it to some other proprietary programs and release it as a closed source proprietary operating system, only the binaries, can I do it ?

Could anyone ever find out that it was derived from a previous open source linux since it is now only binary ? could the binary be reverse engineered or disassembled and discovered how much it looks alike to Linux ? And what is the limits, who can say it is the same or if it is just somewhat similar ?

Are there examples of closed source linux derivatives sold out on the market ? I think many compaines do these things, even if indirectly, you don't pay for the software, but the price is bundled in the price of devices...

Linspire..

They don't stop with just the operating system though.. They sell people freeware programs for retail prices. Their excuse is that they are selling the service of transferring the program to the person's linspire machine. Screw linspire.

 

[BoredNL]

Because that is the reason why there are so few commercial applications for Linux. You can't statically link to the OS, but dynamically so this limits things you can design and sell.

And then most desktop, professional applications like CAD, Scientific were made for the proprietary unix, not linux, and many were not ported because of the GPL.

And linux open source community does not respect or buy proprietary software, they think it is a SIN, so no one will develop it and the result is mostly crappy, hack job applications, like open office that sucks and has a macro language broken that sucks and no one will ever fix it because there is no money to be made.

BSD seems the way to go, that is why MAC OS X chose that licensing.

I am convinced that Linux is really limiting commercial competition because of the GPL crap.

What about apache? It's only the most used webserver ever. Why are businesses including linux machines in their workgroups? There are a lot of applications for linux and there are tons of propriety software out there for linux.

 

[Crosson]

Linspire is a linux distro bundled with some proprietary software such as the installer, fonts, spell checker, Flash, Java, etc. I may be wrong, but I think the OP is interested in altering and redistributing the kernel under another license.

 

[BoredNL]

The last time I looked at linspire, they were offering an "easy 1-click install" system where users could purchase software. They would list open source freeware software alongside the shareware type software. For instance, they had VLC for.. I think $49.99. I don't know what they're doing now, but I think that shows how dishonest this company is.

 

[oldtobor]

Almost all the software are cheap, hack jobs, aside for the SERVER market where there is indeed a lot of stuff:

There are no top notch professional :

CAD software;

Scientific - engineering software;

CASE(computer aided software) tools;

High class desktop publishing;

Word processors with a macro language that works;

A way to record and playback mouse and keyboard strokes;

etc. etc.

1) it is a bit like these forums; who owns the messages ? so if someone used all my messages and made a book that sold millions, I could care less, I didn't do it for the money, so there is no reason to complain if someone uses it. Therefore the GPL is flawed because it contradicts itself, either you do it for the money, or you do it for fun and give it away and don't be envious if someone makes a buck on it.


2) How important is that dynamic versus static linking for linux ? maybe the drivers can't be used if they are proprietary ?


3) here you have another positive feedback loop, companies don't make commercial software for linux because they know that linux users are against proprietary software for ideological reasons, aside from being cheapskates that don't respect software work, hence no software. Actually Linspire seemed nice, but as usual the open source zealots condemn them as if making money by writing software is a SIN!


4) what is more astonishing is how little commercial software is available cosidering how easy it would have been to recompile and convert those hundreds of proprietary software packages that were made for the REAL UNIXes.

 

[Crosson]

1) it is a bit like these forums; who owns the messages ? so if someone used all my messages and made a book that sold millions, I could care less, I didn't do it for the money, so there is no reason to complain if someone uses it. Therefore the GPL is flawed because it contradicts itself, either you do it for the money, or you do it for fun and give it away and don't be envious if someone makes a buck on it.

Free software is not about money, it is about freedom. There is nothing contradictory about the GPL. Proprietary owners impose obstacles to cooperation. The goal of the GNU GPL is to make proprietary software obsolete.

 

[Thrice]

Linspire..

They don't stop with just the operating system though.. They sell people freeware programs for retail prices. Their excuse is that they are selling the service of transferring the program to the person's linspire machine. Screw linspire.

The whole point to the GPL was free as in speech, not beer. It only comes into play after you've made the exchange - at which point you're supposed to include the source for the other guy to tinker with & publish/sell his modifications at his terms.

 

[Thrice]

1) it is a bit like these forums; who owns the messages ? so if someone used all my messages and made a book that sold millions, I could care less, I didn't do it for the money, so there is no reason to complain if someone uses it. Therefore the GPL is flawed because it contradicts itself, either you do it for the money, or you do it for fun and give it away and don't be envious if someone makes a buck on it.!

If google doesn't prove that you can make tons of money from open source, I don't think anything will...

 

[oldtobor]

You guys just don't seem to understand! Now for example if you were the head of a department of CAD engineers who use the real CAD programs, and there was a proprietary CAD program available for Linux at maybe a 1,000 dollars would you buy it ? Remember the open source hack jobs available don't do even 1/10 of what a real CAD program does. That is because the open source programmers would get "bored" programming the really hard , detailed stuff.

Would you buy an MS Office suite for linux if a department worked very fast with those and you were the boss ?

It seems to me:

1) the open source guys never worked in real companies, they play around, they have no idea what it means;

2) By biasing against proprietary software they are doing Microsoft a great favor by not making companies design and sell their flagship products for Linux, therefore no software of any real worth for linux desktops and who wins ? MS Vista of course and MS thanks the open source community for their ideological purity;

3) Would any of you ever buy proprietary software even if it were very good, just to protect your ideological purity ?

4) can proprietary software even be made for linux ? is not the constraint of dynamic linking to libraries too much and too conditioning for flagship products (this I really don't know..)

 

[chroot]

1) the open source guys never worked in real companies, they play around, they have no idea what it means;

I gaurantee you that 95% of them have impressive resumes.

2) By biasing against proprietary software they are doing Microsoft a great favor by not making companies design and sell their flagship products for Linux, therefore no software of any real worth for linux desktops and who wins ? MS Vista of course and MS thanks the open source community for their ideological purity;

The majority of the world's web servers run Apache on Linux. If that's doing Microsoft a favor, I guess we have different concepts of the word 'favor.'

3) Would any of you ever buy proprietary software even if it were very good, just to protect your ideological purity ?

You seem to have this false dichotomy going: either you support only free software, or you support only commercial software. This isn't realistic at all. There's room in the world for both software models. I doubt you'll find any free-software proponent who thinks software like AutoCAD should be free.

4) can proprietary software even be made for linux ? is not the constraint of dynamic linking to libraries too much and too conditioning for flagship products (this I really don't know..)

There are, in fact, many commercial programs available for Linux.

- Warren

 

[Thrice]

That is because the open source programmers would get "bored" programming the really hard , detailed stuff.

Are you seriously thowing insults because people aren't charging you for their stuff?

 

[oldtobor]

1) How conditioning is the fact that you can't statically link to GPL code for anyone wanting to make proprietary software anyways, maybe for drivers (I admit, I am stupid and suck, I don't know many things but that's ok) ?

2) If I modify linux kernel or a set of gpl programs, up to what point can I simply say these are now completely different programs no longer derived from linux therefore my own and no longer gpl ? how on Earth can you set a measure of how much difference is derivative and how much is simply new and different ?

3) result today is that MS is a monopoly, linux can't get on desktops because no commercial software etc. so we are at a stalemate!

4) I find it astonishing that even a company like SUN with Solaris and they had many great commercial programs for their system didn't just decide a few years ago to attack the desktop and windows head on! why on Earth did they just open source solaris (which is by far the best possible UNIX) ? at least it is not gpl so I can maybe close it up and sell it ...

 

[MeJennifer]

If I modify linux kernel or a set of gpl programs, up to what point can I simply say these are now completely different programs no longer derived from linux therefore my own and no longer gpl ? how on Earth can you set a measure of how much difference is derivative and how much is simply new and different ?

You are seriously asking us on how you can profit from other people's voluntary work?

I am certainly not going to help you in any way or shape on this deplorable venture of yours, and I hope other members will have the same stance on this.

 

[-Job-]

I believe Open Source developers are usually some of the best in their field (certainly more devoted). Many of them work for Commercial software makers, and use their free time (or their Company's allocated time) for Open Source projects.
Many commercial companies support open source projects. For example, take a look at the list of Members for the Eclipse Foundation:
http://www.eclipse.org/membership/members/strategic.php"
http://www.eclipse.org/membership/members/add_in_provider.php"
http://www.eclipse.org/membership/members/associate.php"

 

[-Job-]

And FYI, there is the Mono project http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page" (supported by Novell and Suse) which enables .NET applications to run on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X and Unix.
You can run windows binaries compiled with Visual Studio in Suse Linux for instance, with Mono.

 

[BoredNL]

1) it is a bit like these forums; who owns the messages ? so if someone used all my messages and made a book that sold millions, I could care less, I didn't do it for the money, so there is no reason to complain if someone uses it. Therefore the GPL is flawed because it contradicts itself, either you do it for the money, or you do it for fun and give it away and don't be envious if someone makes a buck on it.

You agree to the terms of use when you join a forum which states who owns the messages and what can be done with them.

Also, you're setting up a straw man fallacy here by saying they "do it for fun." Well, if they have fun while doing it, that doesn't mean that is why they are doing it. Each individual programmer who works on the whole mess of linux software/drivers probably has more of a reason than simply "fun." You make it seem like they should be thrilled that someone is selling their software as though it were their own. VLC is a popular media player which has always been free and probably always will be. To pretend it is a product of your system and then sell it to someone for $50 is preposterous. Imagine if someone walked into your house and you offered them a piece of candy out of the candy dish, so they grab the whole candy dish, run out, and sell it. That would be a little rude wouldn't it? The candy cost a very small amount of money and took a small amount of your time really, so imagine someone doing this with something you spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours to procure.

I'm sure that linspire has all sorts of options in their derived linux, which is fine. Even selling their modified OS is ok to me, but when they claim credit for the work of others by having a program that simply downloads VLC and runs an install script then charges people $50 for the service, I have to say they are just as bad as theifs.

I also strongly doubt that anybody could make any amount of money from your posts. (I bet you love Microsoft's early tactics too, eh? Not much of a fan base for your special blend of BS though, sorry to say.)

3) here you have another positive feedback loop, companies don't make commercial software for linux because they know that linux users are against proprietary software for ideological reasons, aside from being cheapskates that don't respect software work, hence no software. Actually Linspire seemed nice, but as usual the open source zealots condemn them as if making money by writing software is a SIN!

Linux itself is applied in so many different applications I doubt I could ever build a list of devices that use it if I spent my lifetime searching. So, for you to sit here with an air of confidence (or should I say arrogance) and act as though linux and the ideology that drives it is bull****.. Well, I think you're just a little bit mistaken.

 

[russ_watters]

You seem to have this false dichotomy going: either you support only free software, or you support only commercial software. This isn't realistic at all. There's room in the world for both software models. I doubt you'll find any free-software proponent who thinks software like AutoCAD should be free.

I just read Stallman's book "Free as in Freedom" and I think he would - but he's pretty hard core about that. I got the impression that the main revenue source he advocated was from support, not programming.

I'm not an expert in the GPL model, but I got the impression it did have room for non-free open-source software. Ie, you pay for the software, but then have the access to customize it for your needs.

Idealistically, I like the free software movement, but I think Stallman's view is unrealistic. Microsoft is just too big and has too much money available to match (steal) features when they are thought-up. What Linux has most to offer is speed. And that's something that MS won't ever be able to match because their model ("feature"-stuffing) makes bloat an inherrent property of every piece of software they sell. So for apps where speed really matters (and btw, AutoCAD and other drafting/modeling tools is one where for many people it does...), Linux will always have a potential edge.

 

[Thrice]

I'm not an expert in the GPL model, but I got the impression it did have room for non-free open-source software. Ie, you pay for the software, but then have the access to customize it for your needs.

And the right to sell your customized version. It's pretty important, whether or not one might disagree with it as a consumer.

 

[-Job-]

I just took Mono for a test drive. Did a simple console app in C# then compiled to .exe and ran it using Mono in Linux (which in SUSE 10.2 equates to double-clicking the .exe file).
SUSE Linux will be a competitor to Windows in the coming years.

 

[russ_watters]

And the right to sell your customized version. It's pretty important, whether or not one might disagree with it as a consumer.

Actually, the way I understood it, you did not have the right to sell your customized version. That was a specific provision in the GPL to prevent exactly what oldtobor is proposing - essentially hijacking the software (a la MS and Java).

 

[Thrice]

Actually, the way I understood it, you did not have the right to sell your customized version. That was a specific provision in the GPL to prevent exactly what oldtobor is proposing - essentially hijacking the software (a la MS and Java).

Well I didn't mean hijacking - as in distributing only binaries for a fee. I meant you have the right to sell it so long as you distribute the source & allow others to sell etc

 

[-Job-]

You actually can charge people for your version of the software, or simply for redistributing it, but the software must be open source if you make it public:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html"

They mean free as in freedom, they say.

 

[fonik]

Q. Can you sell a proprietary copy of a Linux kernel.
A. No. No you can't. The GPL License was specifically made to prevent that kind of shenanigans. You might want to check out the BSD-licensed BSD kernels, though. Apple did precisely what you are asking about with the BSD Mach kernel.

Q. Could the Linux minions discover that you are violating their license?
A. Absolutely. Unless you make VERY MAJOR changes to every statically linked library in a program, it will be pretty obvious. And if you have to rewrite the whole thing to prevent lawsuits, why not just write your own?

Q. Are there closed-source Linux derivatives?
A. No. The GPL prevents any derivative of any GPL program from being closed-source.

If you are serious about selling a product made out of pre-written software without having to pay anyone, I'd suggest checking out BSD-licensed stuff. Linux guys don't like having their stuff ripped off.

 

[abdo375]

I've seen a lot of people bash Linux for being hard to use, but to hate Linux for ideological reasons for being free this is very strange.

You guys just don't seem to understand! Now for example if you were the head of a department of CAD engineers who use the real CAD programs, and there was a proprietary CAD program available for Linux at maybe a 1,000 dollars would you buy it ?

Why wouldn't you use the proprietary software, open source programmers might be against proprietary software but if the alternative is not available it's OK to use it.

Also open source software isn't about getting free programs, its about leaving the source code open for development, there are plenty of companies that sell Linux for money, and a lot of money that is, the only thing the GPL mentions is that the source code must be bundled with the software.

Remember the open source hack jobs available don't do even 1/10 of what a real CAD program does. That is because the open source programmers would get "bored" programming the really hard , detailed stuff.

So is programming a kernel and reverse engineering Nvidia's graphic driver not "really hard , detailed stuff.".

1) the open source guys never worked in real companies, they play around, they have no idea what it means;

Most of the leading programmers in the open source community would be paid a seven figure salary if they decided to work for proprietary software companies, including Microsoft.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?p=208

Other low-profile open source programmers just do it for fun, or to improve there programming skills, while working for proprietary companies.

4) can proprietary software even be made for Linux ? is not the constraint of dynamic linking to libraries too much and too conditioning for flagship products (this I really don't know..)

I don't understand what you mean by that, I'm using Suse Linux and I have MATLAB installed and using Nvidia'S proprietary driver.

 

[FulhamFan3]

Like some of the other people have said, if you want to make a closed source system based on open source work then do it off of BSD. GPL simply won't allow it. However I have read some misconceptions here. You are allowed to modify GPL's code and sell it. However you must include the source code and you can't prevent derivative works from it. It's completely legal for me to make CD's of Firefox or VLC and sell it. There's just no point in it because everyone can pretty much get it for free.

I have a lot of complaints about linux but it has nothing to do with it being open source. Just how it's basically for power users and installing software is a headache compared to windows. I know things are changing with Ubuntu and other products. If anything annoys me is the insistance that everything must be open source. I think truly free software should be able to run anything proprietary or not. If a company wants to develop software for a Linux based system and keep it proprietary then I say that's fine. I know software does exist like Maya and Mathematica but there always seems to be a grumble from the community when they have to put up with stuff like that. Even more so with drivers from NVidia and ATi.

 

[Thrice]

If a company wants to develop software for a Linux based system and keep it proprietary then I say that's fine.

Well yeah they're free to do it, but you haven't explained why I have to like it. I really value the ability to look into a program & perhaps use some of its technology.