On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 00:16, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2004, at 8:52 PM, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> 
> I guess we just have to disagree here. I think that using an 
> emotionally loaded word like 'freedom' is inherently an attempt to 
> present the issue as if it had ethical significance comparable to 
> feeding a hungry child. I think it even gets to you a little bit 
> although you try to resist it. I think the YaST license is a case in 
> point. Go back the the definition as ask yourself "Does the YaST 
> license comply? Can I use the program for any purpose, study the source 
> code, modify the program to improve it and distribute the program back 
> to the community?" The answer to these questions is clearly 'Yes'. So 
> we have to conclude that from the point of view of an actual human 
> user, the YaST License and the GPL are pretty much the same. The big 
> difference is that from the corporate viewpoint, the GPL allows resale 
> for a profit and the YaST license doesn't.
> 
> So if you want to say "From the point of view of the individual user 
> the YaST license and the GPL are pretty much identical but from the 
> corporate viewpoint the YaST license sucks." I'll have to agree that 
> you hit the nail on the head. If you talk about Freedom you just 
> confuse the issue unless you specify that you mean "Corporate Freedom".
---
isn't the 'individual' user of Red Hat or xyz distro losing out by the
restriction that their distro isn't free to borrow or use the YAST code?

doesn't the impact of the YAST license restrictions actually extend
beyond just the sale for profit?
---
> >
> > I could say I find it underhanded that companies like SuSE (and many
> > others) play to the community in menial ways to try to bait them that
> > they are not like their proprietary counterparts.  The very companies
> > that many users are trying to flee.  When in actuality they are almost
> > pulling a bait and switch.
> >
> > That said, I do not find SuSE repulsive, useless or downright evil.  I
> > simply stated that it was not heart warming to see them via for top
> > position in the Linux distribution market.
> 
> As an actual human user, I get the same rights under the YaST license 
> as I would under the GPL. Now if you want to say: "Red Hat puts out 
> Anaconda under the GPL so SUSE can use it but SUSE won't reciprocate by 
> putting YaST under the GPL so Red Hat can use it; therefor Red Hat is a 
> better member of the community than SUSE." I'll agree with you. I have 
> been convinced that RH, Debian et al do hold the ethical high ground 
> here. But to try to characterize SUSE as some kind of opponent of 
> 'Freedom' just wont wash.
---
The distinction is or at least should be important to people. 

Let's not forget that the corporate world has been a most integral part
of development under the GPL and compatible license software. The GPL
license has undoubtedly been a catalyst for this if for no other reason
than the overall API doesn't rest in the hands of a corporation whose
direction may change at any moment. We have been witnessing the impact
of this for many years now.

Craig