Novell and SuSE

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.