how can lindows be commercial, and linux?
I don't see them using a derivative of the Linux kernel as the basis, for the following reasons, drawn from:
"If I add a module to a GPL-covered module, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?
The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.
But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The license list page gives a partial list of GPL-compatible licenses.
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. "
The linux kernel would be classified as being a GPL'ed module, therefore any other kernl modules or changes would also have to be GPL'ed, meaning that Lindows would have to release the source code for the whole OS base, even the "proprietary" bits, which they wish to keep closed. Furthermore:
"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you. "
Given that the software is being released to the public for a fee, they would have to release the entire source, not just the original GPL bits. Therefore, I sincerely doubt that they would be using Linux as a basis. Bear in mind that even if you charge someone for GPL'ed software, that user is permitted to turn around and distribute this software, as this is a basic tenet of the GPL.
"Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so."
I don't see them using a derivative of the Linux kernel as the basis, for the following reasons, drawn from:
"If I add a module to a GPL-covered module, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?
The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.
But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The license list page gives a partial list of GPL-compatible licenses.
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. "
The linux kernel would be classified as being a GPL'ed module, therefore any other kernl modules or changes would also have to be GPL'ed, meaning that Lindows would have to release the source code for the whole OS base, even the "proprietary" bits, which they wish to keep closed. Furthermore:
"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you. "
Given that the software is being released to the public for a fee, they would have to release the entire source, not just the original GPL bits. Therefore, I sincerely doubt that they would be using Linux as a basis. Bear in mind that even if you charge someone for GPL'ed software, that user is permitted to turn around and distribute this software, as this is a basic tenet of the GPL.
"Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so."