On Jan 17, 2004, at 7:37 AM, Craig White wrote:

> 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?

Sure, at least to the extent that YaST is actually superior to the 
GPLed alternatives. I already conceded that Red Hat was a better member 
of the community than SUSE. That doesn't make SUSE the devil. Note that 
a non-profit distro like Debian can use YaST if they want.

> The distinction (between the GPL and YaST licenses) 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.

Sure it's important. It's just not, in my opinion, important enough to 
justify using emotionally loaded words like 'Freedom' to characterize 
one side. By granting users a right to redistribute the GPL guarantees 
that *in practice* nobody is going to make a pile of money reselling 
FOSS. SUSE just goes the extra step of denying de jure what the GPL 
denies de facto. And while Red Hat may forgo the use of copyright law 
to try to differentiate their product, they don't hesitate to use 
trademark law to achieve the same ends.

So I agree that the distinction should be important to people but I 
also think that  it has been overstated here and elsewhere. It is not 
as big as difference as those among the GPL, the RPL and the BSD 
license, for example. And certainly the GPL, the RPL, the YaST license 
and the BSD license are a lot more like each other than any of them are 
like a typical EULA.