Michael Matz wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Ovcharov Dmitry wrote:

...

Our company is software developer. Our software is proprietary RDF database. We would like to include our software package in the official Linux distribution repository. What do we need for this? A special license? Should we open source codes?

The process for including software without an OSI approved license into openSUSE is described at the bottom of https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_application_blacklist

Basically you need to request an exception (via bugreport), and the software would then be put into the openSUSE:*:Non-Free projects. But note that exceptions are really _exceptions_, with good justification, like "many users will want to have this", which is the case for flash-player for instance. Such a case is hard to make for a RDF database, so you're probably not getting the exception. It doesn't hurt to ask, but don't be too disappointed if the answer comes back negative.

Actually I don't think there is any policy. Dimitry also asks for something that hasn't been asked before. Here the copyright owners of the software want to maintain their packages in our distro *themselves*. That's quite a different case from the repackaged stuff we have so far where the upstream company doesn't care at all. So while an open source license would of course be preferred, I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to distribute their software via our repos. Of course the package needs to adhere to the packaging guidelines etc like any other package as well. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

* Henne Vogelsang [2013-07-31 18:47]:

Hey,

On 31.07.2013 17:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote:

...

So while an open source license would of course be preferred, I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to distribute their software via our repos.

Because we are a community that provides free and easy access to Free and Open Source Software. We are working as part of the worldwide Free and Open Source community and we value free software an open development process and openness.[1]

A.K.A. we don't distribute closed source software that doesn't care about software freedom.

We do in openSUSE:*:NonFree as Mariusz already pointed out. Valuing free software does not preclude making additional non-free leaf packages available. We also value our users who e.g. may consciously choose to install a non-free browser plugin so they can watch funny cat videos... -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Henne Vogelsang wrote:

On 31.07.2013 17:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote:

...

So while an open source license would of course be preferred, I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to distribute their software via our repos.

Because we are a community that provides free and easy access to Free and Open Source Software. We are working as part of the worldwide Free and Open Source community and we value free software an open development process and openness.[1]

A.K.A. we don't distribute closed source software that doesn't care about software freedom.

As others have pointed out our current practice contradicts that conclusion. So either we are already violating our own guidelines or you are interpreting something into them that isn't that black and white. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Hello again, On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Ludwig Nussel wrote:

So while an open source license would of course be preferred, I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to distribute their software via our repos.

Actually there is a very good reason to not allow companies to distribute commercial software via our servers. At least not with a specific contract stating the rights and obligations of both sides. And that reason is liability. That goes both sides (these examples are constructed, and I'm not claiming at all that Dmitrys company or us would do anything like that, but it does point out the problems as soon as money is involved): a) What happens if our servers for some reason have problems delivering the software to customers. The company might be sueing us for compensation for lost revenue. b) The software might be found to infringe on some 3rd party rights by some court, and the holders of those might seek damage compensation. As we helped to distribute it, they might hold SUSE partly accountable and seek compensation also from us. I'm pretty sure nothing of the above could currently really be prevented with the contracts (non-existent) or disclaimers, except by knocking on wood and saying "it'll work just fine". Distributing free software has inherently similar problems of course. But case (a) above is immaterial because there can't be lost revenue. We still are in danger of (b) and try to mitigate this with certain rules, disclaimers and policies. But the _risk_ is still with us. We choose to take this risk for various reasons, among them because we want to further free software. But it's unclear why we should assume this distributors risk for commercial software when we don't see corresponding revenue. Ciao, Michael. P.S. as pointed out multiple times already, we do of course assume these risks for some closed software, as well justified exceptions. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org