Solus on Ebay

brent

Was actually looking at Solus code readers for engine diagnostics (a whole other company) .
Then I modified my search:

LINK REMOVED BY CORE TEAM

I know there is nothing you can do about it, but the profiteers are truly everywhere....

N1X3L

WetGeek Your point is an appreciated, thoughtful, and potentially just one. I'd like to live in a world where such folks are truly providing a kindness wrapped in a service. However, I agree more with brent that it seems like unscrupulous profiteering, and (as Justin also highlighted) what could be a licensing issue. Also, I think selling a GNU/Linux distro, to someone who has essentially zero knowledge about what they're buying, is doing them a disservice. Every distro I've ever used necessitated I start using the CLI almost immediately. This isn't Windows, and anyone whose ever used a distro knows that. These profiteers aren't taking the training wheels off for their customers, they're shoving them out of a plane without a parachute to make a quick buck. That's why it looks like unscrupulous profiteering to me.

smoliva While it's said we increasingly — and frustratingly — live in a post-fact society, I don't subscribe to such a novel worldview. In other words, I'll happily defer to you here, and appreciate the expertise! Afterall, my cursory reading of the Wikipedia page intro. on the GNU GPL is very much not equal to the law bombs your law blog is lobbing. 😅

N1X3L

Technically, couldn't all these sellers and items be reported though? They are openly selling FOSS software, without even bothering to exploit the caveat that they're actually only selling media, which just happens to contain a live installer. I'm not an attorney, but it seems like this would be a clear violation of the GNU General Public License.

WetGeek

N1X3L exploit the caveat that they're actually only selling media

Think of someone whose only connection to the Internet is a slow DSL line. Or someone without the knowledge to download the software and create a bootable DVD or USB key. They might very well want to pay a small price for someone else to provide the software on a disc or USB key. Why should that not be available?

Is making Solus available to folks who want it, but would otherwise not be able to easily obtain it such a bad idea?

smoliva

N1X3L Technically, couldn't all these sellers and items be reported though? They are openly selling FOSS software, without even bothering to exploit the caveat that they're actually only selling media, which just happens to contain a live installer. I'm not an attorney, but it seems like this would be a clear violation of the GNU General Public License.

As I read the GPLv3, there is nothing that requires disclosure of such caveats. The GPL's primary concern is that when someone sells non-source code, the seller must also provide the buyer with some form of access to the source code. The GPL does not, however, prohibit or discourage the sale of licenses software. If there's an issue here, it's with sellers using the Solus logo--i.e., its trademarks--in connection with the advertisement and sale of their products.

Also, IANAL, but I have been writing legal blogs for 20 years.

Justin

WetGeek Is making Solus available to folks who want it, but would otherwise not be able to easily obtain it such a bad idea?

It's about licensing of software. You can sell the media and service but not the software (or something close to that). You have to mention that you're selling the service of putting the software on the media and be specific about it.

brent

N1X3L
Indeed, I love the hippie sentiment of WetGeek 's basic "more FOSS to the people, man. Anything to liberate the masses from MS trap--and grow Solus." (Yes wetgeek, 🙂 my interpretation only.)
I've been born again FOSS since about 3 years ago--I can dig it.
On smoliva's post: I share with you gratitude that this poster shared some legal insight--very valuable--- it's not illegal...but it's smelly (the subversion of the license I mean). It punishes foss for being foss. The nature of 25 people writing rules at once...

Profit-sharing with Solus seems the only moral thing to do. But that is not possible. (Solus still has a self-described absence of a "legal apparatus" for now.) N1X3L --you had such a great reply, as did Justin et. al. And I leave you with this:

I think it's been a post-fact world since the middle of last century. It's just ultra-refined now. Trust no fact merchant without a long look. There is a lot of truth to "there is no spoon."

I found all your responses fantastic. Thank you.

kyrios

smoliva A distribution is a collection of software each having their own license.
In theory anyone who wants to make a commercial use of Solus should ask the permission to the copyright holders.
https://getsol.us/branding/

Solus Project permits the usage of our brand assets, specifically the usage of the terms “Budgie Desktop”, “Solus”, and the associated Solus image(s) and/or logo(s) for non-commerical use only. The distribution of modified Solus ISOs, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, is not permitted. If you require access to a modified Solus ISO for a specific reason, e.g. distribution via magazine, then contact us for further discussion. Usage of our term(s) and/or associated image(s) / logo(s) does not and should not suggest endorsement or sponsorship by Solus Project. Solus Project reserves the right to cancel, modify, or change the permission in our policies at any time at its sole discretion.

smoliva

kyrios The branding guidelines are a function of trademark, not copyright. The GPL and similar open source licenses typically only address the latter, not the former. So it's perfectly reasonable for a project to restrict the use of its trademarks in a commercial application. Indeed, that's the whole point of trademarks. But that doesn't mean someone could not sell the underlying open source software commercially, assuming they removed all of the branding first.

DataDrake

smoliva The branding guidelines are a function of trademark, not copyright.

Well our logos and images are protected by copyright at least. So anyone using the Solus logo for pirate case badges and the like would be in violation there since we have only released them for non-commercial use.

smoliva assuming they removed all of the branding first.

Good luck with that 🤣

smoliva

DataDrake Well our logos and images are protected by copyright at least. So anyone using the Solus logo for pirate case badges and the like would be in violation there since we have only released them for non-commercial use.

True, the sailboat logo is protected by both copyright and trademark. The actual use of the word "Solus" in connection with the distribution or sale of a Linux-based operating system is the trademark. I'm approaching it from the standpoint of which you would likely use to bring legal action, which is obviously a hypothetical point. Trademark protection is typically broader than copyright, at least in the United States.

DataDrake

smoliva Yeah, I'm aware of most of that. Just figured I'd point out that it is one of the rare times you can use a DMCA notice to have an actual product removed from sale.

smoliva

DataDrake smoliva Yeah, I'm aware of most of that. Just figured I'd point out that it is one of the rare times you can use a DMCA notice to have an actual product removed from sale.

That's an interesting point. But I'd point out that the DMCA is a bit of a legal minefield. Let's say you send eBay a DMCA takedown notice. If the seller turns around and sends a counter-notice--i.e., they deny any copyright infringement--then the burden is on you to file a lawsuit. And in the U.S., a copyright must first be registered with the Copyright Office as a prerequisite to filing such a lawsuit. You can try and register the copyright after-the-fact, but then you run into the statute of limitations for DMCA claims, which is rather unforgiving.