On Jan 17, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Derek Neighbors wrote:

> No one has called SuSE the devil.

Certainly *you* haven't. I think some others have come pretty close.

>> Sure it's important. It's just not, in my opinion, important enough to
>> justify using emotionally loaded words like 'Freedom' to characterize
>
> I thing you are too emotionally hung up on the word based on prior
> grievances.

This is possible. I certainly do believe that the FSF, in advocating 
for goals that I share, has resorted to methods that I find deceptive. 
I don't think they started out intending to be deceptive but I think 
that the egos of some folks at FSF won't let them see that there is a 
loophole in the GPL. I have corresponded with people who tell me that 
the whole impetus behind the RPL came when RMS himself went into 
complete denial about the very possibility that there could be a 
loophole in the GPL. I think that in many ways RMS is an admirable 
person but he is just too invested in a particular piece of text, the 
GPL, to consider how it could be improved.
>
>> 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
>
> It doesn't guarantee it, but certainly it makes it difficult.
>
>> 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
>
> If it is so guaranteed, then why do they feel it necessary to put it in
> writing?

This is a question that I have asked myself and the only answer that I 
can come up with is that they are simply being pig headed. Red Hat put 
anaconda under the GPL and it hasn't hurt them any. I don't see how any 
commercial advantage that accrues to SUSE could possibly outweigh the 
bad publicity.