[Gloucs] SUSE licence

[John Kilgour]

The following link

www.mandrake.tips.4.free.fr/reviewsuse92.html

describes the position that Novell takes. You will need to go to the bottom of 
the long page to see the relevant bit.

As I understand it you CAN copy the software but NOT make a profit - even a 
free pint!

In any case a SuSE 9.2 professional DVD is attached to the current Linux 
Format as a freebie! and the files are available for download on FTP servers 
including source code. The only problem with this is file size. My broadband 
does 3MB per minute and 3 or 4 GB will take 1000 minutes so it seems a £6.49 
DVD plus additional on line updating may be the way to go.

John Kilgour


On Saturday 05 March 2005 17:31, Mick Brooks wrote:
> 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.