snip: As always, you could call Novel/SuSE and negotiate (read pay) for =
custom=20
license terms.
Thanx again. That was another question answered.
fhd
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Trent Shipley" <
tcshipley@earthlink.net>
To: <
plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Novell and SuSE
> On Saturday 2004-01-17 18:44, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> > 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.
>=20
> First, I think you need to realize hackers and Linux nerds are a very=20
> different population from most biz-folk. The MBA set are educated NOT =
to=20
> care about their license terms. They care about TCO, being owned by=20
> proprietary software (eg. all our infrastructure runs on Oracle, we =
cant=20
> change. The cost would ruin the company.), and clauses in an EULA =
that might=20
> keep them from doing business (some MS clauses that rip holes in =
security=20
> come close).
>=20
> If a CIO the YAST license wouldn't bother me one little bit -- =
remember almost=20
> everyone *uses* software. A good CIO buys software and tries hard not =
to=20
> write software. As a CIO you do not want to waste time reading GPL =
code --=20
> you *don't care* if you cand read the source code, if you have =
employees=20
> reading source code then you've already done something incompetent.
>=20
> From the Novel/SuSE POV there are good reasons they have the YAST =
License. =20
>=20
> 1) There is comercial exclusion. It is illegal to make 1000 copies =
of SuSE=20
> and sell them. Disgruntled employees cant take SuSE call it not-SuSE =
and=20
> sell it cheap to all your customers. Under GPL they could, and you =
would=20
> subsidize your competition. Subsidizing competition is generally=20
> contra-indicated.
>=20
> 2) Even if I hack SYL licensed stuff, the result is SYL in perpetuity.
>=20
> 3) There is recaputure. If you modify SYL code, you cannot sell the =
code, but=20
> SuSE can. In essence by basing your work on YAST you give SuSE a not=20
> exlusive, no restriction rights to any intellectual content you =
created so=20
> long as it is based on or includes any SYL content.
>=20
> As always, you could call Novel/SuSE and negotiate (read pay) for =
custom=20
> license terms.
>=20
> In effect, SYL is hostile to commercial software developers but NOT to =
persons=20
> who don't care about personal gain or organizations who will use, but =
not=20
> modify, the software.
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
(text/plain)