RHEL makes its money selling support and updates, security patches and user-specific customizations. NOT the software. The software AND all its sources are freely (after a free registration) available. That's why we have the RHEL-copy distros, CentOS and Scientific linux.01micko wrote: I have no problem with anyone attempting to market open source. Shuttleworth does it, Red Hat have been doing it for eons and they are a multi-million dollar business .. as have countless others tried for better or worse results.
Many users are of the opinion that if it isn't worth paying for it isn't worth having.
(Of course much more so, the same applies to Canonical/Ubuntu.)
RHEL does that not because they are "good" but because is illegal not too. If you are using GPL, GLP2 and even more so GPL3 material you are legally bound to "share alike".
So is perfectly legal to sell "Studio on the stick" for whatever price you see fit. (BTW $10 +$10 for the stick(?) is very reasonable. Save you the hassle and the trouble of doing it yourself).
However, not making freely available a GPL,2,3-based software and source, is illegal.
Actually if someone brings this to the attention of the FSF he/she may get in trouble...
Regarding the time that someone invests on a Pupplet/distro/software, just consider how much time has been invested in all the underlining software that is actually included for free, in the final "restricted product".
Few month or even years work of a single person is actually less than 1/1000 of the total (just consider than only the kernel is 20 years in development by hundreds of people).
To that extend many users have the option that should not pay one person for the free work of others.
If Studio was charging just for support and troubleshooting would be perfectly acceptable. Charging for the actual physical stick with the software is also perfectly acceptable, provided that the option of a free download is also available. But charging for the free code of (vastly) others?... Not so sure.