"Linux Mint is not copyrighted." --- really?

Post by **clem** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:03 am

What is meant there is that we do not want to participate in restricting people's usage of what we do. We don't have any claims in copyright, licensing and "as far as we're concerned" we don't really care what people do with it and how they use it.

Now of course, we distribute other people's software and people have to follow these software licenses.

I suppose it could be rephrased alright. I'm not exactly an expert when it comes to that (and to be perfectly honest I don't really like spending time on defining conditions, restrictions and other stuff I don't believe in.). If there's any taker or suggestions, we'll replace the above-mentioned text.

Clem

900i · Post by **900i** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:30 am

Hows this sound Clem

Linux Mint is based on GPL code and as such this code is protected by the GPL, However some of the Linux Mint additions to the code are not GPL and therefore not copyrighted. Linux Mint is free of charge (thanks to your donations and adverts on the website). Linux Mint comes with no warranty. You can use it, modify it, distribute it and do whatever you want with the Linux Mint part of the code, and the remaining code as outlined in the GPL. This is our idea of freedom and we hope you'll enjoy it.

Post by **clem** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:31 am

It sounds good. Some of the mint additions are GPLed though (I'm thinking of mintConfig and mintMenu for instance).

Clem

scorp123 · Post by **scorp123** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:41 am

Linux Mint is not copyrighted.

Linux Mint is (for the most part) released under the GNU General Public License; it his therefore free to copy and distribute. For ease-of-use for you the end-user and in order to give you a complete desktop experience we have included a few proprietary software pieces (e.g. codecs). As far as we know these few proprietary portions do not violate the spirit of the GPL or the GPL itself (e.g. they are not linked against GPL software) and are OK to be (re-) distributed.

Our goal is to make your Linux experience as enjoyable and complete as possible without imposing unnecessary restrictions.

You can use it, modify it, distribute it and do whatever you want with it. This is our idea of freedom and we hope you'll enjoy it.

You can use it, modify it (following the rules of the various licenses each software piece was released under, e.g. GPL), distribute it and we hope you find it useful. Our idea of freedom is to give you -as far as this is possible- a complete desktop experience without imposing unneccessary and ideologically motivated restrictions upon you as the end-user. We therefore hope you enjoy it.

900i · Post by **900i** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:37 am

If were not careful it just gets longer and longer and more confusing I think.

Post by **clem** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:27 am

Else I could remove the footer altogether...

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:57 am

Well generally a website footer with its copyright is only for the website. This information belongs on a separate page. In which case it can get long and confusing

. Examples for the page could be "Terms of Use, Distro Policy, etc..". Its fair to keep a free copyright for the website its self. Such as: This website is copyrighted under the GPL.. Nice and simple.

Husse · Post by **Husse** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:01 am

Quote from the present:
You can use it, modify it, distribute it and do whatever you want with it. This is our idea of freedom and we hope you'll enjoy it.
Why not:
You can use it, modify it, distribute it and do whatever you want with it, if you follow the rules of the various licenses each software piece was released under, e.g. GPL.
This is our idea of freedom and we hope you'll enjoy it.
The "if you follow..." is from scorp123

Sorensei · Post by **Sorensei** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:09 am

IANAL, but copyright and license (including the GPL) are two different things.

As I understand it, everything released under the GPL is copyrighted - the holders are the code developers - but they grant permission to use, modify, etc. the code through the license.

Clem, I know this is pretty boring stuff, but sometimes being specific in terms may spare a few headaches later - as they say, the devil is in the details.

So if anyone is more knowledgeable in these matters, phrasing the paragraph carefully would be a good thing...

NiksaVel · Post by **NiksaVel** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:59 am

I agree with carlos on this one

Sorensei · Post by **Sorensei** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:36 pm

Er..., but you cannot copyright something under the GPL - you can only licence it...

I've had a look at what other distros/sites put, most indicate the year of copyright and some have a link on the license terms, or mention it.

They also mention that Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torwalds.

For what it's worth and if you want to keep it short, I'd put something like that... but IANAL.

Copyright 2006-2007. Licensed under the GPL

Post by **clem** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:21 pm

EDIT: Somebody answered that post without realizing he was logged in as me (shared computer). The post was deleted. If you read the "get a life" comment, please disregard it (obviously that person doesn't understand the importance of licensing/GPL).

Clem

scorp123 · Post by **scorp123** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:50 pm

Uncle Bob wrote:Apart from the GPL-stuff, think of of it in terms of FREE BEER. So STFU

He he he .... I totally second that. It's clear, precise and totally expresses everyone's feelings

Linux Mint Forums

"Linux Mint is not copyrighted." --- really?

Could this do it?