[Gloucs] SUSE licence

[Mick Brooks]

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 04:23:57PM +0000, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 04:10:10PM +0000, Mick Brooks wrote:
> 
> > Is this true? I know that there is an 'FTP' version of SUSE (still
> > called FTP, even though they provide an ISO now), but what about some
> 
> It's not a "version" -- let's get that straight.

I'd love to get it straight. You seem to have forgotten the bit of your
message where you back up your assertion and help us get it straight.

For what it's worth - SUSE has this on their website:

       	SUSE LINUX download

	SUSE offers the possibility to install SUSE LINUX free of charge
	directly from the FTP server. The function scope of FTP versions
	is virtually the same as that of the "normal" version. Merely a
	few program packages have been excluded due to license reasons.
	The installation support is not included either. 

They call it a "version".

It's not clear if the FTP 'not-a-version-but-something-else' is really
different to the boxed set 'not-a-version...(yawn)', since they
contradict themselves elsewhere on the site.

> Yast went open source,

Ah, okay - I thought I'd heard something about that. What is the
licence now?

> so it is fully applicable that you can distribute
> it -- and even if it still wasn't open source, that wouldn't stop you
> from distributing it.

The issue isn't about whether it's open source or not, but whether its
licence allows redistribution (and it certainly can not allow it, in
fact, that's the default). Previously, its licence did allow
distribution provided it was not charged for.

> > I think the DVD in the box set is licensed differently, so that we
> > can't even copy it and give it away, let alone sell it.
> 
> That's incorrect

I'm not sure it is incorrect - as I said, I'd love to get to the bottom
of this because lots of people are clearly mistaken about it.

> and if that is the case, SuSE are in violation of
> the GPL.

If it is the case, SUSE are *not* in violation of the GPL. A
distribution is a collection of software. In SUSE's case, some of it
is GPL, some not. The GPL'd software doesn't infect the other software
just because it's put on the same disk. In order to satisfy the GPL,
SUSE just have to provide the source code to the GPL'd parts when asked
(which, of course, they do). The other software may well prevent you from
distributing the ISO - YaST certainly prevented you in the past, maybe other
software is now responsible.

I'm sure nobody would mistake my rambling for the advice of a L, but it
seems fashionable to say IANAL here.

-- 
Mick Brooks
michael.brooks at physics.ox.ac.uk