Dear All,
Can anyone arrange one set of OpenSUSE 10.2 Distribution CD's? I need it for testing purpose.
I am ready to swap the blank cd's and pickup the set from any location within Mumbai/ New Mumbai.
I shall be thankful to the person who can help.
Thanks,
Amol K.
On Thursday 18 January 2007 19:16, Amol Kshirsagar wrote:
Dear All,
Can anyone arrange one set of OpenSUSE 10.2 Distribution CD's? I need it for testing purpose.
Are u aware of the licensing - actually patent - issues. Any one redistributing to you will be in violation of Novell's patent deal with M$. M$ has the right to sue you and any other free-beer downloaders and users of the distro. Download at your own risk.
Dear Terrence,
On 1/19/07, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Can anyone arrange one set of OpenSUSE 10.2 Distribution CD's? I need it for testing purpose.
Are u aware of the licensing - actually patent - issues. Any one redistributing to you will be in violation of Novell's patent deal with M$. M$ has the right to sue you and any other free-beer downloaders and users of the distro. Download at your own risk.
Are you sure? Since he is asking for *OpenSUSE* and not SLES, what you are saying may be incorrect. Please refrain from FUD. :-)
-- Rgds JTD
With regards,
Hi,
On 1/19/07, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
Are u aware of the licensing - actually patent - issues. Any one redistributing to you will be in violation of Novell's patent deal with M$. M$ has the right to sue you and any other free-beer downloaders and users of the distro. Download at your own risk.
Are you sure? Since he is asking for *OpenSUSE* and not SLES, what you are saying may be incorrect. Please refrain from FUD. :-)
I completely agree to this, there is no reason for saying things against the OpenSUSE folks.
Cheers!
Pradeepto
On Friday 19 January 2007 11:41, Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Hi,
On 1/19/07, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
Are u aware of the licensing - actually patent - issues. Any one redistributing to you will be in violation of Novell's patent deal with M$. M$ has the right to sue you and any other free-beer downloaders and users of the distro. Download at your own risk.
Are you sure? Since he is asking for *OpenSUSE* and not SLES, what you are saying may be incorrect. Please refrain from FUD. :-)
I completely agree to this, there is no reason for sayingthings against the OpenSUSE folks.
Really?. Read this: Carefully http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.htm
And if u missed it
"You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service)"
My earlier mail rsponding to Dinesh seems to be stuck in mailman.
jtd wrote:
Read this: Carefully http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.htm
And if u missed it
"You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service)"
From what you have posted above, how is it illegal if I just make copies of the CDs without any modification or any consideration ? I think that is what the original poster of this thread wanted - copies of Opensuse 10.2. If I make copies for him, without any consideration or modification, I don't see how it violates the above quoted part of the eula where it is explicitly allowed to make unlimited copies of the software.
I would like, if you can explain properly to layman like us, how it is illegal to make copies since you think that some (like me) on this list can't understand "the invisible gotchas" and how it violates the eula. As I said I am a layman and wouldn't understand technicalities, so can you elaborate your point.
Secondly, how come magazines like PCQuest and Linuxforu ( and many more other mags in other countries) are distributing OpenSuse with their issues if it is illegal to make copies ?
Rajen.
On Friday 19 January 2007 14:23, Rajen M. Parekh wrote:
jtd wrote:
Read this: Carefully http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.htm
And if u missed it
From what you have posted above, how is it illegal if I just make copies of the CDs without any modification or any consideration ? I think that is what the original poster of this thread wanted - copies of Opensuse 10.2. If I make copies for him, without any consideration or modification, I don't see how it violates the above quoted part of the eula where it is explicitly allowed to make unlimited copies of the software.
U missed one point completely. The gpl DOES NOT allow u to place restriction on use or distribution. So this company is effectively robbing everybody else to fatten themselves. The restriction are stated in the other parts. Read my other mail.
Secondly, how come magazines like PCQuest and Linuxforu ( and many more other mags in other countries) are distributing OpenSuse with their issues if it is illegal to make copies ?
They could have signed an agreement with Novell. If they havent they are violating the eula. By advertising the cd the mag is bundling the distro with some other service - the sale of the mag. Ofcourse the gpl V2 permits you to do the above, but does not specifically state that by distributing patented gpl software the same rights extend to the patent. And Novell explicitly state that they grant u a non transferable right to use patented stuff in there. Does use cover distribution?. Does use cover modification and reverse engineering as allowed by the gpl? So get wise and use a distro which encourages to reuse and distribute in the true GNU spirit or Hire a lawyer and dance on a skewed foor to the tune of these pied pipers who pretend that the miniscule portions of crap in there are what makes your systems work.
On Friday 19 January 2007 11:16, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Dear Terrence,
On 1/19/07, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Can anyone arrange one set of OpenSUSE 10.2 Distribution CD's? I need it for testing purpose.
Are u aware of the licensing - actually patent - issues. Any one redistributing to you will be in violation of Novell's patent deal with M$. M$ has the right to sue you and any other free-beer downloaders and users of the distro. Download at your own risk.
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
From http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html
"The Software is a collective work of Novell. You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service). The term "Organization" means a legal entity, excluding subsidiaries and affiliates with a separate existence for tax purposes or for legal personality purposes. An example of an Organization in the private sector would be a corporation, partnership, or trust, excluding any subsidiaries or affiliates of the organization with a separate tax identification number or company registration number. In the public sector, an example of Organization would be a specific government body or local government authority."
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
From http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html
"The Software is a collective work of Novell. You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service). The term "Organization" means a legal entity, excluding subsidiaries and affiliates with a separate existence for tax purposes or for legal personality purposes. An example of an Organization in the private sector would be a corporation, partnership, or trust, excluding any subsidiaries or affiliates of the organization with a separate tax identification number or company registration number. In the public sector, an example of Organization would be a specific government body or local government authority."
whats wrong with the except from eula ? can you explain by example how we can be killed or put behind bars in any court of law
--
Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
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
From http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html
"The Software is a collective work of Novell. You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service). The term "Organization" means a legal entity, excluding subsidiaries and affiliates with a separate existence for tax purposes or for legal personality purposes. An example of an Organization in the private sector would be a corporation, partnership, or trust, excluding any subsidiaries or affiliates of the organization with a separate tax identification number or company registration number. In the public sector, an example of Organization would be a specific government body or local government authority."
whats wrong with the except from eula ? can you explain by example how we can be killed or put behind bars in any court of law
- You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do
not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service).
Which means that u cant sell AND u cant run YOUR software on the users machine. But that is the visible part. What about the invisible?
You may not: (1) reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software except and only to the extent it is expressly permitted by applicable law or the license terms accompanying a component of the Software; or (2) transfer the Software or Your license rights under this Agreement, in whole or in part. So no reuse and no distribution. And if some component of a package is licencsed differently, U are governed by the different terms of that component. And what are those? search the distro, then find out what are M$ and Novell patented stuff amongst those. Why? They tell u so here
OWNERSHIP RIGHTS
No title to or ownership of the Software is transferred to You. Novell and/or its licensors owns and retains all title and ownership of all intellectual property rights in the Software, including any adaptations or copies. You acquire only a license to use the Software.
The first sentence is about coyright ownership? No it's about software IP. That's what the next sentence says. And the next tells u that you have a licence only to use. And hence not to redistribute any patented stuff. Why this particular section? cause in an earlier sections they say that u can distribute some of the software which permit such distribution.
What does it all mean?. If you are keen on taking a panga get a lawyer serve a notice and findout. If u want to distribute use any distro that allows you to do so. And anyone who says Novell is great has no idea of what he's yaking about. I have better things to do in life than sit and analyze crap company's crap licence.
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 ?
HRB
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).
Dear Terrence,
On 1/19/07, jtd wrote:
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).
So do you imply that ALL GNU/Linux users should dump all other distros and stick with and only use Debian for being COMPLETELY FREE?
I will STOP using GNU/Linux the day I find that I have ONLY ONE DISTRIBUTION. :-)
-- Rgds JTD
My two bits... With regards,
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).
So do you imply that ALL GNU/Linux users should dump all other distros and stick with and only use Debian for being COMPLETELY FREE?
When you use Debian, READ what Debian states - 'Tis your freedom to use or not to use Debian. Debian believes in its freedom. Effectively using Debian enchourages you to have more choice.
The inspiration for and creation of Ubuntu is a fine illustration of the same.
JTD is simply telling you of what Debian stands for, and why its important. i don't think anyother distro(i haven't used gnewsense yet) asserts that.
I will STOP using GNU/Linux the day I find that I have ONLY ONE
DISTRIBUTION. :-)
again, your choice :-)
Regards,
- vihan
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:23:25 +0530, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in said:
On Friday 19 January 2007 15:41, Harsh Busa wrote:
can somebody compare eula from other linux based os vendors ?
The licence says it all. Contrast the above with this http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
I would like to draw attention to one distinction: the social contract governs Debian, and not the end users; Debian does not have an end user license agreement.
The debian installer, and the cd's created, have a regular GPL license, but I doubt that can be called an EULA in the sense that SUSE/Red Hat impose on their end users.
While I shan't get into the religious jihads of whose distro is bigger; I am compelled to note that Debian is a fundamentally different beastie when it comes to freedom issues (which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective).
manoj
On Saturday 20 January 2007 11:57, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:23:25 +0530, jtd
jtd@mtnl.net.in said:
On Friday 19 January 2007 15:41, Harsh Busa wrote:
can somebody compare eula from other linux based os vendors ?
The licence says it all. Contrast the above with this http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
While I shan't get into the religious jihads of whosedistro is bigger; I am compelled to note that Debian is a fundamentally different beastie when it comes to freedom issues (which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective).
Many on the list are not aware of the issues in licensing. Once u are aware do as u please. That apart it peeves me no end that companies like Novell are doing exactly what the gpl wanted to prevent - bottling up knpwledge and creating artifical scarcity. And even worse the people in the foss community actually thinking that somehow this is a good thing.
On 20-Jan-07, at 2:38 PM, jtd wrote:
the people in the foss community actually thinking that somehow this is a good thing.
which people in the foss community?
Are u aware of the licensing - actually patent - issues. Any one redistributing to you will be in violation of Novell's patent deal with M$. M$ has the right to sue you and any other free-beer downloaders and users of the distro. Download at your own risk.
i guess we ought to start a switch off Suse campaign. That ought to send a message to Novell.
How many Suse users here would be willing to migrate to say Debian or Fedora or anything else that is Free as in Freedom?
Don't worry guys apt and yum and give yast a real run for its money :-)
Regards,
- vihan
Hi,
On 1/19/07, Vihan Pandey vihanpandey@gmail.com wrote:
Are u aware of the licensing - actually patent - issues. Any one redistributing to you will be in violation of Novell's patent deal with M$. M$ has the right to sue you and any other free-beer downloaders and users of the distro. Download at your own risk.
i guess we ought to start a switch off Suse campaign. That ought to send a message to Novell.
No, OpenSUSE has caused no harm. And its a community project.
How many Suse users here would be willing to migrate to say Debian or Fedora or anything else that is Free as in Freedom?
Don't worry guys apt and yum and give yast a real run for its money :-)
Heh, yum is no way close to apt in first place. And trust me Yast is good, the problem ( something which I personally heard SUSE devs/employees say ) is that Yast doesnot tell the user much what it is doing. But from what I understand Yast just *does* its job, which I thinks is pretty good enough.
Btw, I am Kubuntu user ( maybe a bit unhappy Kubuntu user at times, thanks to *optimisations* by them, I wonder why I don't build the whole thing from svn, since as it is I am building a large part of it daily. Time to change soon maybe ) .
Cheers!
Pradeepto
On Friday 19 January 2007 11:49, Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Hi,
On 1/19/07, Vihan Pandey vihanpandey@gmail.com wrote:
Are u aware of the licensing - actually patent - issues. Any one redistributing to you will be in violation of Novell's patent deal with M$. M$ has the right to sue you and any other free-beer downloaders and users of the distro. Download at your own risk.
i guess we ought to start a switch off Suse campaign. That ought to send a message to Novell.
No, OpenSUSE has caused no harm. And its a communityproject.
HA HA. Are u a joking.
Read my earlier mail and the link again. Very carefully.
And these are the visible gotchas. The bigger problem is the invisible. Implied by several clauses in the eula. Go read and figure or get screwed.
Rgds JTD
Hi
On 1/19/07, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Friday 19 January 2007 11:49, Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Hi,
On 1/19/07, Vihan Pandey vihanpandey@gmail.com wrote:
Are u aware of the licensing - actually patent - issues. Any one redistributing to you will be in violation of Novell's patent deal with M$. M$ has the right to sue you and any other free-beer downloaders and users of the distro. Download at your own risk.
i guess we ought to start a switch off Suse campaign. That ought to send a message to Novell.
No, OpenSUSE has caused no harm. And its a communityproject.
HA HA. Are u a joking.
Read my earlier mail and the link again. Very carefully.
And these are the visible gotchas. The bigger problem is the invisible. Implied by several clauses in the eula. Go read and figure or get screwed.
Well, I am no license lawyer, so I just go an ask people who know about it or who know somebody who knows about it.
So that's what I did, ask somebody. I asked a KDE\SUSE dev. So he spoke to his product manager or some such and got back with this -
" there are 2 versions: the boxed version and the internet version the boxed version has OSS and non OSS on one DVD, and the CD set the internet version has an OSS DVD, an OSS CD set, and a non-OSS CD.
all the internet media are redistributable
but the non-OSS CD must be distributed as a whole ie you can't remaster it without XYZ and call it openSUSE.
the internet version is freely redistributable by any means
the non-OSS internet media may not be; that is part of the conditions by which SUSE are allowed to include them on the distro
i hope i've made it clear that the non-modification applies to the non-OSS CD "
So I am guessing, its ok if somebody downloads OpenSUSE 10.2 [1] [2] ( internet version - oss ), copies it and gives it to Amol. Amol can do the same with the copy he got. If you don't modify it nothing and if you do there's no point in called it OpenSUSE.
I think I have enough commits to the mailing list for the day, I really didnot mean to get involved in a flamewar ( if this is one ).
[1]http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/10.2/iso/dvd/openSUSE-10.2-GM-DVD-... [2]http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/10.2/iso/torrent/openSUSE-10.2-GM-...
Cheers!
Pradeepto
On Friday 19 January 2007 17:16, Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Well, I am no license lawyer, so I just go an ask peoplewho know about it or who know somebody who knows about it.
So that's what I did, ask somebody. I asked a KDE\SUSEdev. So he spoke to his product manager or some such and got back with this -
" there are 2 versions: the boxed version and the internet version the boxed version has OSS and non OSS on one DVD, and the CD set the internet version has an OSS DVD, an OSS CD set, and a non-OSS CD.
all the internet media are redistributable
How very nice and kind of these fellas. Then why is the licence the way it is?. As i said it doe not matter what anybody in the company has to say. Your clicking on "I Agree" is the final word.
but the non-OSS CD must be distributed as a whole ie you can't remaster it without XYZ and call it openSUSE.
the internet version is freely redistributable by any means
the non-OSS internet media may not be; that is part of the conditions by which SUSE are allowed to include them on the distro
i hope i've made it clear that the non-modification applies to the non-OSS CD "
Point me to a location on their website that says so. That would be official confirmation of what they mean in the licence.
No, OpenSUSE has caused no harm. And its a community project.
OpenSuse has not, but Novell has :
<quote> The Software is a modular operating system. Most of the components are open source packages, developed independently, and accompanied by separate license terms. Your license rights with respect to individual components accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms; nothing in this Agreement (including, for example, the "Other License Terms and Restrictions," below) shall restrict, limit, or otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license terms.
While the license terms for a component may authorize You to distribute the component, You may not use any Novell marks (e.g., SUSE and openSUSE) in distributing the component, whether or not the component contains Novell marks. </quote>
Also,
<quote>
OTHER LICENSE TERMS AND RESTRICTIONS
The Software is protected by the copyright laws and treaties of the United States ("U.S.") and other countries and is subject to the terms of this Agreement. The Software is licensed to You, not sold.
The Software may be bundled with other software programs ("Bundled Programs"). Your license rights with respect to Bundled Programs accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms; nothing in this Agreement shall restrict, limit, or otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license terms.
Novell reserves all rights not expressly granted to You. You may not: (1) reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software except and only to the extent it is expressly permitted by applicable law or the license terms accompanying a component of the Software; or (2) transfer the Software or Your license rights under this Agreement, in whole or in part.
</quote>
The last paragraph is especially disgusting.
Heh, yum is no way close to apt in first place.
i was simply giving the Suse user two of the most promising tools he/she could use :-)
Btw, I am Kubuntu user ( maybe a bit unhappy Kubuntu user
at times, thanks to *optimisations* by them,
like which ones?
I wonder why I don't
build the whole thing from svn, since as it is I am building a large part of it daily.
Very true, you and your Krew :-)
That sounds pretty neat, you name some KDE package / channel / list after it - Krew :-)
Just say you heard it here 1st(unless someone has already done it).
Time to change soon maybe ) .
'Tis your freedom to decide so :-)
Thanks JTD for posting the link :
http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html
Regards,
- vihan
-
Amol Kshirsagar -
Dinesh Shah -
Harsh Busa -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Manoj Srivastava -
Pradeepto Bhattacharya -
Rajen M. Parekh -
Vihan Pandey