12

They only list GNU/Linux distributions that follow the GNU FSDG (Free System Distribution Guidelines). That the software (as well as the documentation, fonts etc.) is licensed under an appropriate FSF-approved license is one condition, but it’s not the only one. That’s why even a GNU/Linux distribution that only ships with free/libre software/information ...


12

At the bottom of the page you linked is a link named "why we don't endorse some common distributions" There you will find this text: We're often asked why we don't endorse a particular system—usually a popular GNU/Linux distribution. The short answer to that question is that they don't follow the free system distribution guidelines. But since it isn'...


11

Remember that just Linux - the kernel - is not very useful. In order to use it, you need some programs. At the very least a shell, its utilities, an editor, and probably a compiler so you can write more programs. Many of these were already written seperately by the GNU project, or available as BSD-licensed code. So a minimal Linux system already includes ...


8

Distributions are older than Linux! Ever heard of BSD? The acronym stands for Berkeley Software Distribution. The original Berkeley Software Distribution was a collection of software developed at the University of California at Berkeley, which you could install on a Version 6 Unix system. The year was 1978. At the time, access to software sources was still ...


7

With regards to Which distributions were the first and when did these projects start? This is discussed at the beginning of Glyn Moody's book "Rebel Code", in Chapter 6, "Boot Then Root". He mentions the distribution from MCC (the Manchester Computing Center) as being a very early example, though perhaps not the first. However, the book does not mention ...


6

Under the normal circumstances that your question present (i.e. dynamic linking to a library assumed to exist on the user's system and thus not distributed with the program) the following part of the license text will save the day for any program using glibc: A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work ...


4

Merely aggregating different works on the same media is not an action that is covered by copyright. There is no copyright for the aggregation. Copyright only comes into play if the works are meshed together in a way that displays some originality — this is known as a derivative work. Bundling software on a single CD does not display any originality and is ...


4

It is OK, as long as no derivate software (or other product) derives from both. Distributing them together is another matter, and to be precise in the Open Source Definition it is clearly stated, that open source licenses cannot restrict bundling: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software ...


4

It is perfectly fine for you to make a non-GPL program that runs on Linux. With a somewhat similar result, Linux kernel modules are linked against LGPL code to prevent modules requiring to be GPL. Linus explained this back in 1995 as a deliberate design decision. When you say "embedded software", you could risk your software becoming part of a single ...


2

The Windows/MS-DOS licensing terms do not apply any conditions on the software that run under Windows/MS-DOS. That is useful if you want developers to write as much software as possible for your platform – and Microsoft certainly wanted that, especially in its early time where it was far from set to become the dominant OS for personal computers. This is in ...


2

Is it legal to install and run FOSS (free open source software) in a closed operating system like Windows? Absolutely yes. Even a strong copyleft license like the GNU GPL, which requires derivative works to be under the same GPL terms whenever they are distributed, does not extend to the operating system on which GPL-licensed userland software is run, ...


2

Whatever the glibc license is, it implements, as you note, standard C lib functions. That is, it implements a standard API. Consequently, a program which uses functions from the library (without modifying the library) cannot be considered a derivative work of the library (because you could replace the library by any other implementation of the same standard ...


2

Before jumping to any conclusions about GPL violations, I suggest that you start up the tablet and check Settings -> About device -> Legal information -> Open Source licenses (or something along those lines). In many cases you will there find a written offer to provide you with the source code. The details on how to contact the manufacturer for this purpose ...


1

Doesn't that mean that if I buy an android tablet the manufacturer has to make the kernel source available? Exactly right. The relevant text is section 3 of GPLv2: You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of ...


1

Your taking a hardware device and pre-installing an OS and then your software before selling it as a final package. Provided you comply with the terms of each software package you install, by providing access to the source code as needed and the licensing of your program doesn't conflict with other licenses you should be good. Commercial programs can be ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible