I was just wondering...

[Vergil83]

Why is there this Eula? Some of it is just liabilty stuff, but some is standard proprietary software stuff (protection of intellectual property rights). Suse is getting money out of using free and open source software.

The people who wrote the software and released it under the GPL knew that the license does not prohibit reselling of their work. It's not the fault of Novell that they're packaging freely-available software and making a profit. The same could be said about Mandriva, Xandros, or Linspire (the last 2 have closed-source software as well).

That not what I am talking about. They are making money off of FOSS. Good for them! Why don't they also release all their software as FOSS? Clearly you can release a program as FOSS and make money off of it. The puzzlement is why they want to keep their code closed and included such junk as intellectual property rights when they clearly don't have to. They can make money without it..... they are already in fact doing it!

This may not be a problem now, but what about 20 years from now? Read: This isn't about money, but about Novell locking up their code. Simple as that.

What exactly is Novell locking up? The only program Novell has license for themselves is YaST2 (the precursor to which they've released under the GPL). The rest of the software they give with their distro is owned by other companies. I don't see your point.

As I said above, this Eula is a different thing than what YaST2 is licensed under.

Most of the components are open source packages, developed independently, and accompanied by separate license terms. Your license rights with respect to individual components accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms

This Eula is for the entire thing, Suse10 itself (not an individual program). That is how I read it, although perhaps others have different ideas.

When MS does it, we cry foul, but when Novell does it we defend them. (sometimes things are black and white)

Don't go there. You can't possibly compare product activation, limited computer licenses and forced upgrade policies with Novell's need to legally admonish themselves from stupid users.

The fact that MS do stupid things like product activation makes they far, far worse than Novell, I agree. But (I don't mean you) there are plenty of Linux fanboys that will ***** and scream about MS being closed source, but they will defend Suse. My example

Bob: I hate MS. There software sucks and they won't make anything open source.
Me: Um, Novell has closed source software too.
Bob: That is ok, they are just trying to make money.

MS is just trying to make money too.

[a thing]

This is why I urge people not to use SuSE, Mandriva, Xandros, Linspire et cetera. Just about every distro is all FOSS.

Also their claims of "Open"SuSE being open source is a lie if you can't distribute copies for a fee (which is the first section of the OSI's definition). It's not free software either (the paragraph right after the list proves this).

If you choose Fedora, don't be frightend by the EULA after you install it. It pretty much just says don't use the Fedora trademark in misleading ways and US export controls (which the community and RedHat can't control).

[Cabhan]

Here's the thing, though.

When you go out and buy SuSE off the shelf, you are paying for tech support and some proprietary software.

When you download SuSE from the website, you are not paying, because you are not receiving the proprietary software.

Software released under the GPL is available for ANYBODY. It can be included with non-GPL software. Novell is not charging you for GPL software (as evidenced by the Eval version), but rather for the proprietary software that they package in.

Closed-source vs. open-source is not necessarily an indication of good vs. bad. Yes, I like the philosophy of open-source software. I think that opening up your source code is generally a good thing.

Java is closed-source. I have Java installed on my computer. I program in Java, I use the Internet, I need Java.

Perl, on the other hand, is open. I have Perl installed on my computer. I program in Perl, so I use it.


And my beef with Microsoft is not their being closed-source. Rather, it is the fact that they provide an inferior product and stifle other OS's. If they were a fair competitor and actively improving their product instead of simply shooting down others, I would have no problem with it.

I do believe it was Linus Torvalds who said that he'll use whatever software he wants, no matter what license it is.

Ah yes, here it is:

And the same thing goes for users. Anybody who tells me I can't use a
program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested.
99% of that I run tends to be open source, but that's _my_ choice, dammit.

-- http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/lin...10.3/1101.html

[CodeRoot]

Thanks to all for your replies - especially if you helped to answer my questions.

The sky is not falling, and this is not the apocalypse.

Amusing...

The EULA is absolutely nothing like Microsoft's.

You are most definitely right about that...

Debian and Slackware don't have them (at least last time I checked).

Thank you - this is the specific kind of information I was looking for...

This isn't about money...

You are correct! Thank You. Vergil83, I believe you understand, at least in part, where I am coming from on this issue. It is not about money -- it is a matter of principle!

This may not be a problem now, but what about 20 years from now?

Good... Looking ahead... Insight... Considering the result of our actions... How it will affect us later... This is mature, responsible thinking...

ISOS, I recommend Debian. Their social contract gives a good idea what they believe in.

Thank you - I will check into it...

The Eula is for Suse Linux 10.0 as a entity itself, or am I mistaken?

I do not think you are mistaken - that is my interpretation, also.

Don't go there. You can't possibly compare product activation, limited computer licenses and forced upgrade policies with Novell's need to legally admonish themselves from stupid users.

admonish ? themselves ?? Are you sure this is the right word for the meaning you intended? :P (I think I get the general idea.)
The thing is, if they would just let it be (FOSS), they wouldn't have this problem - they invite it upon themselves - they should let FOSS licenses take care of this for them...

I agree that the comparison you speak of [in the quote] would be a very disparate one - but, you are talking about gray areas -- Vergil83 is talking about black and white --- Ultimately, the issue is not about what they are doing, but why they are doing it...

As I said above, this Eula is a different thing than what YaST2 is licensed under.

Exactly! I see you noticed that...

I will continue to watch this thread for a while - I appreciate any answers to my questions and [related] insights -- please reply.

[techieMoe]

I agree that the comparison you speak of [in the quote] would be a very disparate one - but, you are talking about gray areas -- Vergil83 is talking about black and white --- Ultimately, the issue is not about what they are doing, but why they are doing it...

Ok. Well if you're talking about the philosophy that all software should be free (as in beer), that's strictly a religious debate that I don't want to get into. As I've said before, I do not subscribe to the idea that commercial, closed-source software has no place in the world. No single philosophy (in computers or otherwise) has ever been successful in winning over everyone, and I don't think OSS is any different.

[CodeRoot]

Well if you're talking about the philosophy that all software should be free (as in beer), that's strictly a religious debate that I don't want to get into.

I can respect that... I am not looking to get into any debates on this issue, either.

(But, I was not suggesting that all software should be free [as in beer] - in all of my statements, I was actually talking about free [as in freedom].)

[genesus]

Here's the thing, though.

When you go out and buy SuSE off the shelf, you are paying for tech support and some proprietary software...

Not according to the Suse EULA which has the stipulation

MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT

Novell has no obligation to provide maintenance or support for the Software.