As said; it is usually allowed to sell, but, for instance in the case of the GPL, if the buyer requests the source you *have* to give it and the buyer can put it open on the web. Many companies do it because they add a lot of stuff to the software and want to make money with that. I always ask for the source if it is GPL software and they, at least until now, gave it to me.
But not many people will buy something that can easily be obtained from another site for free, I guess that's why the open source movement is so succesfull. So, do you know any licence that allows me to make the product not connected to the original (debranding), so the buyers won't know that I sell something own, but think that it is mine? Are there any products or licences that allow it?
Sure there are; search on Google for rebrandable software ; there is quite a lot out there. What you can also do is take LGPL or BSD licensed software, add some extra 'features' to it and distribute it partly open, partly closed. That model is used quite a lot. Just buying rebrandable software is much easier though; you'll get active support and a complete product you can put your name on and sell.
If you read the license agreement, you will see exactly what you can and can't do, legally. That said, do you really want to make everybody hate you? It's not worth it - it's too easy to make money honestly.
Why would somebody hate me if I sell something that is allowed to be sold. That's why I open this thread and ask you buddies for your opinion and knowledge, so I don't make something wrong. If I sell something that is not allowed to be sold, I will most likely hate myself.
Selling drugs and weapons is no cool either, but if it was legal, everybody would switch to this business, because there is nothing easier and as profittable as them, but I was asking from a legal point of view. However, I already got my answers in the thread. You guys don't need to repeat over and over that it's unethical and I should check the license first, if I'm allowed to sell the product. I consider the issues solved and I will request the thread be locked now, unless somebody else has something else to add.
YOu don't have to De-Brand Open Source to make money and sell it ... Look what Red Hat did with Linux. The best thing to do is an an improvement and sell it under the terms of the license. Take a look at the following page: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
First off, selling GPL'd software (not specifically about other licenses) is completely legal and fine. You HAVE to release the source code if you give a binary only format and the buyer requests it. Nothing is stopping a group like CentOS to sell it's repacked Red Hat binaries... they don't because it is a) stupid since RHEL is already pay and b) someone would take their place and offer it for free again. Ohh c) it is most likely ethically against many people to take something that IS free (as in beer) and start charging for it. You're better off branding a custom solution around a piece of open source software of your choice and then selling a support contract which is really where the money is. Nothing says scammer like someone looking to rip people off... Think of the jerks that sell Ubuntu to unknowing people. I've seen CDs go for $6+S&H which wouldn't be that big of a deal if Canonical didn't give away CDs for free!
Clearly you don't read the threads ... did you not see my post linking to the official GNU stand on this? You're mistaken.
Not So ... I agree with that .... it's better all around. I don't think it's a rip off ... but that's my opinion. I always distribute source code even if it's not asked for, and I always try to "add value" ... it's better, but not 100% required.
What's "Not So ..." about my post? For GPL'd software that is released in BINARY form, it must have the source code available if requested.