On Friday 19 January 2007 15:41, Harsh Busa wrote:
On 1/19/07, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Friday 19 January 2007 12:31, Harsh Busa wrote:
On 1/18/07, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Friday 19 January 2007 11:16, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Are you sure? Since he is asking for *OpenSUSE* and not SLES, what you are saying may be incorrect. Please refrain from FUD.
:-)
I AWAYS read before shooting off my mouth. But for those who havent
with due respect to fellow luggers emotions fedora eula does not read very different http://fedora.redhat.com/licenses/eula.html
fedora is a trademark of RH. which means it is a collaborative work of redhat (correct me if i m wrong ). if you change any software is changed they need to remove fedora trademark individual app license supersede overall license.
can somebody compare eula from other linux based os vendors ?
That is completely different from not allowing reuse or distribution oeither whole or in parts the software WITHOUT the trade mark. What this is trying to do is protect the trade mark so that newbie or crookedbie does not creat crap package and ship it as fedora core.
Nowhere does it say that u cant distribute for money or bundle with other services, or reuse in part or whole or that the intellectual property refers to patents. Infact the above specifically says that intellectual property refers to copyright. However the googly is "other laws". Which is still not explicitly patents. As opposed to Novell which states "Intellectual Property rights" without clarification which would automatically include (as understood in the US) copyright and patents.
IMO RH is sitting very close to the fence and Novell with the likes of lindows (or whatever it's called) have crossed over to the darkside.And it does not matter what brain dead expalnations the distro makers give. The licence says it all. Contrast the above with this http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
And you can do everything legally doable using Debian (add other known good disto here).