From ilug-admin@linux.ie Tue Aug 13 10:28:49 2002
Return-Path: <ilug-admin@linux.ie>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CAC4412A
for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 05:21:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:21:45 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by
dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7CNfmb06779 for
<jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:41:48 +0100
Received: from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA13159; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:40:34 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: lugh.tuatha.org: Host root@localhost [127.0.0.1]
claimed to be lugh
Received: from web13901.mail.yahoo.com (web13901.mail.yahoo.com
[216.136.175.27]) by lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA13130
for <ilug@linux.ie>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:40:26 +0100
Message-Id: <20020812234021.17803.qmail@web13901.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [159.134.176.75] by web13901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:40:21 CEST
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:40:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Paul=20Linehan?= <plinehan@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ILUG] SUSE 8 disks? (thread changed slightly)
To: ilug@linux.ie
In-Reply-To: <20020812204603.GK25331@linuxmafia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: ilug-admin@linux.ie
Errors-To: ilug-admin@linux.ie
X-Mailman-Version: 1.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Irish Linux Users' Group <ilug.linux.ie>
X-Beenthere: ilug@linux.ie
Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> a écrit:
> > I'm confused. I thought it was GPL'ed and that
> > the money you paid SuSE was for your 60 day
> > support or whatever?
> Yes, you're confused.
I *_was_* confused.
> A Linux distribution (_any_ Linux distribution)
> contains lots and lots of separate codebases.
> Some are under the GNU GPL. Many are not.
Indeed - that I actually had understood prior
to all this - for example commercial entities
with trial/limited/crippled editions.
Which is no problem - I don't see why that should
be a problem for SuSE though - surely the
more the merrrier as far as they're concerned.
> Are you clear on this point, now?
Vide supra.
> This is my second try.
Mighty white of you, old bean.
> One suspects that you actually understand
> perfectly, but just don't like it.
One can suspect what one likes. What I didn't
understand was that SuSE had proprietary
extensions that it wasn't prepared to allow
people to use under the GPL or even under a
FreeBSD style licence.
I thought that the model for the likes of
SuSE was selling support and customisation,
rather than what I thought of as the core
"product". I thought that the likes of Yast
came under core - maybe it worked in the glory
days before, say, 2001 - I can understand that
they might want to make more money, but the way
in which they have done it, seems to me, to be
be against the spirit of the GPL.
> You're further confused if you think the GNU
> GPL gives you the right to get covered software
> for free. It does not.
All I want is the OS and GNU apps. I was under
the impression that for *_those_* all one
needed was to pay for the media and not for the
code itself?
Ai-je tort?
> It provides that _if_ you've lawfully received
> a copy of the covered binary version, you have
> rights to also receive the matching source code.
My understanding was that binaries or whatever
could be received for the cost of the media plus
a token of one's appreciation (the latter being
subject to agreement between the parties) - I was
offering a bottle of wine plus maybe a pint or two
and a chat for a copy - I don't know what the going
rate is.
If I wanted support from SuSE, that would be a
different issue, and one for which I would be
willing to pay.
> > I don't particularly need support, so I'm
> > no really interested in purchasing a set of
> > disks with 4 billion apps which I'll never use.
> Then, if you nonetheless want a SuSE boxed set's
> contents, the only way you can do that without
> copyright violation _and_ without having to pay
> the purchase price is to get someone to _give_
> (not "lend" or duplicate) you his copy.
I have a friend with 7.3 - I think that I'll
end up doing that!
Seems to me to go against the spirit of
the GPL though.
> > Yes, thanks for your input. Anyway, I've a
> > friend with 7.3 pro, so I'll just ask him.
> Ask him _what_? If you're asking him to "lend" or
> duplicate his CDs, then you'll be ripping off SuSE
> Linux AG illegally.
I have now realised this, thanks to your kind
explanations. I can borrow them, but not
copy them? That's fine - IMHO, it goes against
the spirit of the GPL though.
> Don't like SuSE's product licensing? Write your
> own distribution.
And why not my own OS, while I'm at it?
> You can even grab most of what you need
> _from SuSE_. All you have to do is heed the
> licensing terms on the individual pieces.
And, as I've tried to explain, is not the licence
terms on, say, trials for commercial company x
to which I object, it is the way SuSE appears,
at least to my I.T. peasant self, to have
mixed up proprietary and open stuff.
> What, you think that's too much work? Then,
> try a different distribution.
Hence my "To hell with SuSE" post...
> Clue: _Not_ one packaged in a retail
> boxed set. Even RH 7.3 retail boxed sets include
> non-freely redistributable applications on
> the Star office 5.2 CD and the Productivity
> Applications CD, among others.
And I have no problem with people sticking trial
editions along with GPL'ed stuff. Why you
can't pass those on though, is beyond me.
Paul...
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
--
Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie
http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information.
List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie