Can exclusive rights be assigned to Linux code?

    Today, quite by accident I found out about the next domestic Linux distribution. Somewhat discouraged by the message posted on the download page:
    On our FTP servers you will find a DVD-image of the system (1.6 GB), which can be written to a DVD-ROM for installation.
    After installing Linux XP Desktop, you will have a 30-day trial period to evaluate the comfort of working in the system and to make a purchasing decision.
    After the end of the 30-day period, in order to continue working with the system, you must enter a unique activation key, which can be purchased by contacting one of our partners.

    Not only is there not a word anywhere that you can download the source somewhere, the demo distribution only works for a month and then requires money, which is quite exotic for Linux.

    How this model is consistent with the spirit of Linux and specifically - the concept of the GPL - the question remains open. Actually, I was struck by the user agreement declaring the developer of the distribution kit the owner of exclusive rights to the entire distribution package "as a whole, and to its individual components":

    1.1. “Rightholder” - “TrustVers” Limited Liability Company, OGRN
    1087746380776, ..., which is the copyright holder of all exclusive rights to the
    Software Product.
    1.3. “Software Product” (“Linux XP Desktop 2008 Operating System”) is an objective set of data and instructions intended for the functioning of the Software Product and other computer devices in order to obtain a specific result, including preparatory materials obtained during the development of the Software Product and the audiovisual displays it generates.
    2.2. All provisions of this License Agreement apply both to the entire
    product as a whole and to its individual components.

    Despite the fact that the next section of the agreement (“Copyrights”) mentions in passing that “Many of the Programs that make up the Software Product are distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (“ GPL ”) and similar license agreements,“ it seems to me an unlawful declaration by the developer that he owns exclusive rights to the distribution code, and the wording of the agreement itself is contradictory.

    Recently, I witnessed a case where a roguish web developer, under the guise of his own development (he even invented his own “brand,”) sold the open source engine, removing the copyright notices and the GPL license file from the code. This incident was recalled now because in both situations, the developers formally appropriate the labor of others, taking advantage of the ignorance of the client.

    Here we cannot but recall Linspire, which, like Linux XP, is positioned as a simple and affordable alternative to Windows for inexperienced users. Only, unlike the domestic manufacturer, Linspire does not appropriate exclusive rights and honestly displays licenses for all used components.

    I would like to hear the opinion of the habrasociety regarding the legality and moral purity of this license agreement and the Trastversa business model itself

    Also popular now: