Is using Mint for commercial purposes allowed?

[sonicdawg]

I am new to Mint, but if I'm not mistaken, it is not purely GPL. I looked at versions of Mint prior to 17, and noticed that a version "without codecs" is distributed. This reminded me of certain software whose license agreements prohibit commercial use. I do not have enough information to know whether the version distributed with codecs prohibits commercial use.

What are the differences between the Mint version that includes codecs and the Mint version that doesn't? Does either version prohibit me from using Mint for commercial purposes (e.g. within my company)?

[xenopeek]

That really depends on how exactly you intend to use it commercially. I'll give a multi-part answer.

The no-codecs version will be released later. It is intended for distributors in USA, Japan, and other countries that have software patents. Some of the software included with Linux Mint is known to infringe on software patents in certain countries. To avoid legal trouble for distributors of Linux Mint (magazines, computer shops, etc.) there is a no-codecs version that at least doesn't include those pieces of software.

BTW, also released later is a version intended for OEMs (where user account setup is done upon first boot after installation instead of during installation).

If you want to use Linux Mint as the operating system on the workstations at your company, that is allowed. Linux Mint is gratis software.

If you want to include Linux Mint in a commercial offering, e.g., some service or product that you will be offering with or using Linux Mint, then that is probably also allowed. Linux Mint is trademarked worldwide, and parts are copyrighted. So you aren't allowed to use the Linux Mint name, branding, or identity commercially without permission from Clement Lefebvre (Linux Mint founder and project lead). Linux Mint has many partnerships and companies using Linux Mint as part of their marketing campaigns, so I'd say when in doubt contact Clement to work out the details and get permission You can contact him by email (see email address for the development team here: http://www.linuxmint.com/contactus.php), or if you are comfortable with it you can find him ("clem") on IRC in #linuxmint-dev on irc.spotchat.org.

Lastly, if you want to make a customized release of Linux Mint, or create a new distribution based on Linux Mint, you are allowed to do so as long as you either remove the Linux Mint name, artwork, branding, and other identity elements; or again you get permission from Clement to use the Linux Mint name and identity.

[sonicdawg]

The quality and detail of that response far exceeded any of my expectations. It's even better than the official description (the one that was on Mint 16's download page). Amazing! However, let me clarify my situation, so that I can see how to apply that information properly.

I only want to use Mint in a home, but it might be bordering on commercial use because I work from home. When I started doing this, I had to quit using a lot of software that was previously free. For example, my situation prevents me from using most antiviruses because their licenses only allow for personal use (which mine, strictly speaking may not be). Fortunately, antivirus isn't really necessary in Linux, but I had to explore the question of whether itself Mint itself came with such restrictions against my type of commercial use.

I became concerned with the question of commercial use because when installing some video codec a few weeks ago (probably MP4?), I saw language that said the codec could not be used to produce video in certain commercial ways, so I thought this "no codec" version was intended for commercial use while the version with codecs was intended for personal use only. Is this concern at all relevant?

If I understand you correctly, Mint is completely free for my type of commercial use. It also sounds like the "no-codecs" version has nothing to do with personal/commercial use, but instead is a restriction on distribution of the software.

Assuming all that is correct, I do live in the US, so my last concern is what patents exactly Mint infringes upon?

[xenopeek]

If I understand you correctly, Mint is completely free for my type of commercial use. It also sounds like the "no-codecs" version has nothing to do with personal/commercial use, but instead is a restriction on distribution of the software.

Your understanding is correct. I have nothing to add

Assuming all that is correct, I do live in the US, so my last concern is what patents exactly Mint infringes upon?

I don't have a list of software patents exactly infringed on in your country, but for example how to play MP3 files is patented in the US and you need to pay a license fee to use it. I'm not a US software patent expert / lawyer, so I can't advise as to what you as a "work from home user" can and can't do in this regard. My understanding is that it is clear distributors should only use the no-codecs version. You can buy a codecs pack for Linux from Fluendo, which includes the license fees for any software patents: http://www.fluendo.com/

[sonicdawg]

It sounds like the patent issue could be a problem. By the way, are users who install VLC and use it to play their own music CDs breaking the law? VLC can play so many different types of files, so I assume it includes a codec to play MP3s, which means it infringes on a patent, right?

[xenopeek]

Probably: https://www.videolan.org/press/patents.html

[kurotsugi]

AFAIK the patent related issue was the codec :3
specifically it's the codec used to decode dvd and some propietary media files. in my understanding, the law said that linux distro should not distribute these codecs in US. but user is still permitted to install these codec if they want. the codec is packaged as 'libavcodec-extra-<xx>' the default installation is using 'libavcodec-<xx>' without propieatry codecs. there is also libdvdcss package which forbidden for US citizen. as long as you didn't have this package then you're not breaking any law.

[sonicdawg]

If the current long term support version was anything like previous versions, I would easily solve this problem by simply downloading the no codec version, but for some reason Mint 17 doesn't have any "no codec" versions available. I was going to stick with 16, but then I realized that support for it ends in 1 month!

I wonder if there are any plans to release no codec versions of Mint 17?

[WinterTroubles]

No codec versions in test as we speak http://community.linuxmint.com/iso, well one of them is anyway and the others will follow

[turtlebay777]

If you are using Mint in a commercial situation and in doing so you are saving the cost of an expensive Mac or Windows operating system, as Linux relies on donations, however small or large, I'm sure Clem would appreciate a small gratis 'thank you' offering.

Somewhere I saw a list of recent donations for the system, some as little as 1$, others of slightly larger amounts, and yet others of more generous amounts. Clem provides this wonderful system without asking for payment, it's up to us all to consider showing our gratitude.

Just my humble opinion!

[tadaensylvermane]

If you are using Mint in a commercial situation and in doing so you are saving the cost of an expensive Mac or Windows operating system, as Linux relies on donations, however small or large, I'm sure Clem would appreciate a small gratis 'thank you' offering.

Somewhere I saw a list of recent donations for the system, some as little as 1$, others of slightly larger amounts, and yet others of more generous amounts. Clem provides this wonderful system without asking for payment, it's up to us all to consider showing our gratitude.

Just my humble opinion!

I don't think this can be overstated. I don't personally use Mint but I do try to make donations for whatever developers accept them for software I use on linux. Yes it is technically free but if you like it, use it, save a ton of money on proprietary licensing because of it... one should really consider sending some of that saved money to the people who make it possible for you to do so. It will further development quicker and it's just better all around for the open source world in general.

[sonicdawg]

Yes, I agree as well that donations help the cause of free software. Given the choice between proprietary and open source, I generally choose open source if the capabilities of both meet my needs, but the choice is not because of money, but because the license gives me the freedom to modify the software as I see fit without having to ask for permission from the developer. If I buy proprietary software, I am supporting a company, but if I donate to the developer of open source software, I am partly giving to the community instead.

[WinterTroubles]

The no codecs versions of LM17 MATE and Cinnamon have been approved for stable release and should be available for downloads in the next few days

[sonicdawg]

Sounds great!

While we're on the topic, I noticed that some of the wallpapers that come with Mint are very nice. What permissions have the artists for those images given to the public? Is commercial use acceptable?

[xenopeek]

I believe Linux Mint has licensed those. The wallpapers are still copyrighted by their authors so you can't resell them without acquiring a license from the authors yourself for that purpose.

Let's try and establish some way to discuss these things without keeping it unclear what you are talking about:
- Taking Linux Mint or parts of it, and selling or leasing those as part of a product or service --> commercial use
- Using Linux Mint as the operating system on your work computers (laptop, desktop, server) --> business use

Commercial use is restricted as Linux Mint is trademarked and portions are copyrighted. You need permission for commercial use.

Business use is unrestricted, except for if you live in a country that has software patents you may have to consider whether to use the no-codecs version. You otherwise don't need permission for business use.

[sonicdawg]

So only Mint has licensed those wallpapers? In other words, if I want to use the wallpapers on another operating system, I'll have to contact the authors for permission?

[xenopeek]

How is that commercial use?

Anyway, a little digging finds you the file /usr/share/backgrounds/linuxmint-qiana/Credits. That covers the source & licenses of the images and what you can and can't do.

[sonicdawg]

Thanks! It looks like just about everything in that folder is Creative Commons licensed. The only pictures I have no license information now are the 2 Mint wallpapers. No offense or anything, but I'm not too worried about those when there are such nice, scenic wallpapers that are Creative Commons.

[turtlebay777]

Personally, I don't use any of the provided wallpapers. I only use my own photographs I have taken with my own camera, usually in jpg format. Or sometimes a screen grab from a streaming cam on the internet.

Just open the picture you desire, place the mouse cursor over the picture, right click and click 'set as desktop background'. That way there can be no worries about licences or royalties as I own my own photos.

[sonicdawg]

Ok, I know I ruled this out earlier, but I still want to know the permissions for the 2 pictures in the folder that do not have licenses: the 2 wallpapers with the words "Linux Mint". I can imagine situations in which I might want to use the 2 wallpapers outside Mint, such as on a Windows computer to help promote Mint, assuming it is allowed of course.

I checked the licenses for every picture in that folder, and every one is a variation of Creative Commons except for the 2 Mint pictures, which I cannot find any information on.