Jens Müller wrote: > > > Another example is Debian itself: There are some restrictions on what > can be > > > done with "official" and "non-official" ISO images (I think only the > logo > > > matters, but the principle is the same). I want something in that > direction. > > > > You can use similar restrictions as Debian. That does not inclue a > > restriction on distribution, whether for profit or not. > > > > What are Debian's restrictions? The use of the word "official"? I think the use of the logo destined for the "official" CD-ROMs. But there is a distinction of the "official" ISO images produced by Debian and other images produced with the content taken from the "official" images. > > > What can I do to stay compatible with the mostly GPL-ed content of ISO > > > images ? Do I have the possibility to say "use it in any way, do with > > > the content what you want but do not sell CD-ROMs produced with the > > > official Gibraltar ISO-images" ? > > > > I suspect (and hope) you can't stay compatible with GPL software if you > > restrict distribution of the collection. If your work is seperable from > > all GPL stuff in such a way that you can simply treat your work as > > no-charge proprietary software, you can write whatever license you want, > > but it's not free software, and it's not GPL-compatible. > I suspect the same, and I think it's not fair to make profit of programs > others gave away for free. Giving support for your project and taking a fee > is not to be considered "profit-making" IMO. That is exactly what I mean: if somebody sells his knowledge, his time by selling support then he does not directly make profit with the ISO images that are distributed freely. He/she makes his profit because others use the freely distributed ISO images and he/she has the knowledge about configuring it. And that is totally ok. But it is something other than profiting directly by only selling the CD-ROMs.
best greets, Rene
