Chris Gehlker said:
> On Jan 16, 2004, at 1:39 AM, Mike wrote:
>
>> Actually from what I know SuSE has control over Yast, which is thier
>> "system manager" It is just a little less flexible than Hardrake in
>> Mandrake. So they are keeping part of thir code hidden. Yes I
>> understand
>> that sounds like what MSFT has done, however, I feel that could change
>> in future distros.
>
> There was a link posted to SUSE's YaST license and while it is neither
> GPL nor OSI approved, it is far from closed. See for yourself:
> <http://www.suse.de/en/private/support/licenses/yast.html>
I haven't reviewed it in a while, but last time I had looked it was not
Free Software. Meaning it violated one or more conditions of the
definition[0].
# The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
# The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
this.
# The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
# The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to
the source code is a precondition for this.
A quick look states on the Free Software Foundation's licesning matrix[1]
shows that it's still non-free software.
<snip>
This is not a free software license. The license prohibits distribution
for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software to be included in
the many CD-ROM free software collections that are sold by companies and
by organizations such as the FSF.
There may be another problem in section 2a, but a word seems to be missing
there, so it is hard to be sure what meaning is really intended.
</snip>
I hope you can understand why developers of Free Software find this
irrating. They want to be able to take our hard work and bundle it with
their work and distribute it for money. However, they do not want us to
be able to bundle their work with our work and distribute it for money?
To be clear this is a very one way street. If I can't get you to
understand why this seems like an unfair proposition, then I have no hopes
of getting you to admit there is a problem with their license. :)
Furthermore, your presumption that you get the code makes it good is the
exact reason why calling something Open Source is misleading. As a
government employee I can obtain Microsoft source code. However, just
because I can get the source, doesn't make it a good agreement. In the
same way just because a company gives you source code doesn't mean they
give you freedom. More rights perhaps than companies that don't give you
source code, but certainly not true freedom.
This is why it is important to talk in terms of freedom and not access to
source code.
-Derek
[0]
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[1]
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
(text/plain)