I was just wondering...

**CodeRoot** · 10-12-2005

I have been using SuSE for some time now (3 years?). All in all, it has worked out quite well. It has not been a priority to keep my PC "cutting edge" with the "latest and greatest" SuSE version. I started with 8.0 and have only upgraded once since then. After watching this forum for a while, I decided it might be good if I upgraded to 9.3 at this time. So, I went out and got me a copy of SuSE 9.3 (upgrade version) - and started to install it.

Lo and behold, up comes a window with a text box and two buttons: 'I agree' and 'I disagree'.

What???!!! :o

"This is open source software - why is this here?"

This is one of the reasons (among many others) I wanted to get away from Windows. It's one of the reasons (among many others) I like Linux/OpenSource. With Linux/OpenSource, I don't have to "sign my life away" JUST to use the OS. It's what OpenSource is all about - FREEDOM. (I feel real joy every time I install Linux and don't see ["not one single button"] with 'I agree' on it.)

So I read the text, just to see what they had to say. Yeah, they sorta-kinda try to say that they can't touch the individual licenses that the individual software programs/packages/applications/etc. are under -- but, for everything else -- "ours is covered and yours is wide open..." - reminds me of Microsoft - I'm thinking I feel pretty sure some of that text actually violates the GNU GPL (Read Carefully...)

I know that SuSE wrote YaST, etc., etc... - and still never seemed to need the kind of legal contraption that Novell has now come up with. This tells me (in a big way) that even though the software is OpenSource, Novell is "thinking" and "operating" in a proprietary context/mode! This simply is not good for OpenSource! This is the first step to a very bad thing... In time, this could "run against" and work to undermine OpenSource.

I believe I will now search for a distro with an OSOS (Open Source Operating System) and absolutely NO proprietary software bundled with it - and, of course, NO "sign my life away" contracts/agreements.

So - I was just wondering...

Code:

1. What is the *real* difference between SuSE 9.3 Upgrade and Full versions?
   I could find very little difference between the two &#40;on the boxes&#41;.

2. What other distros require the user to "agree to" some kind of license legalese &#40;for the distro, not individual apps&#41;?
   Do any other distros do this too, or is Novell the first to pull this stunt?

3. What distros exist that are *completely* OpenSource and have absolutely *NO* proprietary software bundled with it.
   Do I have to write my own operating system to get away from this political dung-heap &#40;proprietary software/attachments&#41;?

Thank You

**techieMoe** · 10-12-2005

The sky is not falling, and this is not the apocalypse. If the fact that SuSE has a license agreement (Yoper, Xandros, Linspire and a few others do too, by the way) bothers you so much, don't use it. I for one don't mind it. The EULA is absolutely nothing like Microsoft's. It does not limit the number of copies you can install, it does not dictate how and when you can reproduce, sell, or give away the OS, and it does not time out if you don't activate it in 30 days.

**bryansmith** · 10-12-2005

Originally Posted by techieMoe

It does not limit the number of copies you can install, it does not dictate how and when you can reproduce, sell, or give away the OS, and it does not time out if you don't activate it in 30 days.

If I remember correctly, you can not sell it/make profit from it.

That's besides the point here. Don't like license agreements, don't use distros that have them. Debian and Slackware don't have them (at least last time I checked).

Bryan

**smolloy** · 10-12-2005

If you dislike license agreements then you could use suse10 OSS. As far as I know, this is a completely open source version of the OS. The eval version contains the proprietary software that you don't like.

**Vergil83** · 10-12-2005

Well, since everyone is on the Eula bandwagon (a joke :P ) I will have to disagree. It is more than just "if you don't like Eula's, don't use them." It goes to the very heart of FOSS.

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. Why don't they do the same to theirs? Hasn't the sucess and strenght of GNU/Linux shown us that closed licenses hurt development. 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.

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

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

**bryansmith** · 10-12-2005

Originally Posted by Vergil83

Hasn't the sucess and strenght of GNU/Linux shown us that closed licenses hurt development.

All the OSS in Suse is released as source code to comply with their corresponding licenses. Java, Flash, RealPlayer... all those you can't get source code for anyway no matter what distro you use.

Bryan

**Vergil83** · 10-12-2005

Originally Posted by bryansmith

Originally Posted by Vergil83

Hasn't the sucess and strenght of GNU/Linux shown us that closed licenses hurt development.

All the OSS in Suse is released as source code to comply with their corresponding licenses. Java, Flash, RealPlayer... all those you can't get source code for anyway no matter what distro you use.

Bryan

but as I read the Eula, they were not talking about those third party software packages.

The Software is a modular operating system. 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; nothing in this Agreement (including, for example, the "Other License Terms and Restrictions," below) shall restrict, limit, or otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license terms.

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

**techieMoe** · 10-12-2005

Originally Posted by Vergil83

Well, since everyone is on the Eula bandwagon (a joke :P ) I will have to disagree. It is more than just "if you don't like Eula's, don't use them." It goes to the very heart of FOSS.

I'm not of the opinion that all software can and should be open-source. There are usefulnesses for both the closed-source and open-source models.

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).

Why don't they do the same to theirs? Hasn't the sucess and strenght of GNU/Linux shown us that closed licenses hurt development.

No. It hasn't. If anything, past history has shown us that the more proprietary and closed-source a company is, the more profitable they are (i.e. IBM, Microsoft, Sun). Closed-source licenses have valid applications. There is no such thing as one software license to rule them all.

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.

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.

**Oxygen** · 10-12-2005

Like it matters! I don't have to pay money for it, if Novell are making money from it, then that's the problem of the people who make the software, if they were so botherd about it. They would change the license.

Novell is just a company making money, they are not trying to wipe themselfs over the entire market!

**techieMoe** · 10-12-2005

Originally Posted by Oxygen

Like it matters! I don't have to pay money for it, if Novell are making money from it, then that's the problem of the people who make the software, if they were so botherd about it. They would change the license.

Novell is just a company making money, they are not trying to wipe themselfs over the entire market!

I agree.

Thread Tools

Display

I was just wondering...

Posting Permissions