Pascal Bleser wrote:

That's "SUSE Linux 10.0-RC1"

right. But I think there will still be a (small) problem. Novell's corps said (if I understand well) that the boxed SUSE 10.0 could include some proprietary applications (main actor, like in preceding versions, for example, mp3...?), not only support and printed manual. If the boxed version is not to be _exactly_ the same one as the download one, it should probably better to have a different name. I would give as example OpenOffice.org. OpenOffice.org is an opensource project driven by SUN and if the sun corps went away from openoffice, the open source group would be in trouble. And there IS a "staroffice" official SUN version, nearly the same as opensource one, plus some proprietary elements as a proprietary spell checker, etc. one can also quote the Novell's/Mozilla project, proving that if the company behavior changes, the open source project may survive. jdd -- pour m'écrire, aller sur: http://www.dodin.net http://valerie.dodin.net http://arvamip.free.fr

Am Samstag, 10. September 2005 19:12 schrieb Christoph Thiel:

This difference is indicated by the OSS in SUSE Linux _OSS_ (compared to SUSE Linux).

BTW, what does OSS mean? -- Siegmar Alber

...

BTW, what does OSS mean? It's just an abbreviation for Open Source Software.

The confusion will just get worse if we don't fix it now. I have followed this thread with interest, and I think it has highlighted some very important points. If the users on this list, some who I know have been active on this list for weeks, are confused about what openSUSE is, how is anybody else expected to understand? The confusion is quite simple as we have received all of the following statements: 1. Novell wants to sell a product called SUSE Linux. No "Pro" or "Personal", just SUSE Linux. 2. SUSE Linux is a distribution created and maintained by the openSUSE project. 3. SUSE Linux OSS is an Open Source Software edition of SUSE Linux. What I don't understand is why SUSE Linux OSS is not just called openSUSE Linux, which means that in 6 months time we could have: SUSE Linux 10.0 in shops. openSUSE Linux 10.0 (stable) on mirrors to download openSUSE Linux 10.1 RC1 (development) on mirrors to download. It has to be clear by using name only (not by reading a wiki - though I do love them) what the hell we are all doing here. Peter "Pflodo" Flodin

On Sunday September 11 2005 8:39 am, Peter Flodin wrote:

The confusion will just get worse if we don't fix it now.

I have followed this thread with interest, and I think it has highlighted some very important points.

If the users on this list, some who I know have been active on this list for weeks, are confused about what openSUSE is, how is anybody else expected to understand?

The confusion is quite simple as we have received all of the following statements: 1. Novell wants to sell a product called SUSE Linux. No "Pro" or "Personal", just SUSE Linux. 2. SUSE Linux is a distribution created and maintained by the openSUSE project. 3. SUSE Linux OSS is an Open Source Software edition of SUSE Linux. To that list let me add:

4-Also, remember openSUSE isn't a "Novell product". It's a community Linux, that is supported by the Linux community. 5 There are two names and distro's : openSUSE and Novell SUSE. 6- That's right, openSUSE isn't a product at all, it's a development project that feeds into the product that is SUSE Linux. 7- openSUSE 10.0 is inexistent. It's SUSE Linux 10.0 OSS, which will very soon supersede the "stable release" SUSE Linux Professional 9.3.

What I don't understand is why SUSE Linux OSS is not just called openSUSE Linux, which means that in 6 months time we could have: SUSE Linux 10.0 in shops. openSUSE Linux 10.0 (stable) on mirrors to download openSUSE Linux 10.1 RC1 (development) on mirrors to download.

It has to be clear by using name only (not by reading a wiki - though I do love them) what the hell we are all doing here.

Peter "Pflodo" Flodin

I agree with you 100%. People shouldn't be expected to look elsewhere for an explanation of what the distro is or is not. And finally let me add if the OSS in SUSE 10.0-OSS stands for open source software, Does that mean that SUSE 10.0 is not open source? ?? It continues to be very confusing to me! Is SUSE Linux open source or is it not? I know that it includes some less than open source software but so do most other distros. So that is not my question. Rather it is: Is the basic distro, SUSE Linux, open source or is it not? If it is, then what does the OSS on SUSE Linux 10.0-OSS really mean?? All commercial distros with which I have any experience have a retail version and a download version (which is minus some proprietary stuff) of the same product. Isn't that what we have in SUSE Linux 10.0 and SUSE Linux 10.0-OSS. What is more open source about SUSE Linux 10.0-OSS than the soon to be released SUSE Linux 10.0, other than some omitted proprietary apps, drivers, etc? Again, thanks for your indulgence. -- LTR bulloved@nitline.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:

...

Is SUSE Linux open source or is it not? I know that it includes some less than open source software but so do most other distros. You just answered your question: it includes some proprietary packages (such as Opera, Real Player, Text Maker, Plan Maker, Acrobat Reader) hence it isn't open source. The same could be said about those "other distros" that you claim also include proprietary software. That said, I think it would be very easy to create an open source version of SuSE Linux, removing all proprietary components (which, AFAICT, are all optional).

More confusion around... Please use the mailing-list archive to read previous mails of this thread, I think it has been answered extensively, especially by Christoph Thiel, Peter Flodin and Andreas Jaeger: http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse/2005-Sep/0588.html http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse/2005-Sep/0594.html http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse/2005-Sep/0653.html http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse/2005-Sep/0591.html There already _is_ an opensource version of SUSE Linux: that's the one you downloaded the ISOs on the internet, it's the "SUSE Linux OSS" distribution. It does _not_ include proprietary packages like Opera, Realplayer, ... The "other" distribution is "SUSE Linux", sold as a boxed set (soon for 10.0, has been announced recently). It's actually the same as "SUSE Linux OSS" + some proprietary packages like Realplayer and Java. Note that for the "SUSE Linux OSS" distribution, you can still install Java and similar stuff, but you have to download the packages from the Internet, separately, as they are not included in the ISOs. Actually, just add the "inst-source" and "inst-source-java" directories on HTTP or FTP mirrors (they're at the same place you downloaded the ISOs from) as installation source in YaST2 and then you have access to them. Although it may sound like a few of us are splitting hairs, please please please be careful with the terms that you use. There are 3 different things: - - openSUSE: it's _not_ the distribution, it's the community effort, the wiki, etc... - - SUSE Linux OSS: the SUSE Linux version you can download on the internet, that only includes OpenSource software - - SUSE Linux: the retail version that you can buy as a boxed set, that's SUSE Linux OSS + some non-opensource packages included (Java, Realplayer, Acrobat, ...) cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDJRzHr3NMWliFcXcRAlqDAJ9Gcw5i+45jR9dshB93TTvFuhUxmQCgro7j cnKQLlvUjcm9nXQZaJfzRkg= =gnew -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Peter Flodin wrote:

On 12/09/05, Pascal Bleser wrote:

...

More confusion around... This is very egotistical but :-) On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 11:39:05PM +1000, Peter Flodin wrote: The confusion will just get worse if we don't fix it now. I have created a Request for Votes page on this topic here: http://www.opensuse.org/index.php?title=OpenSUSE_%26_SUSE_Linux_confusion In other words go to the page & add your voice, and lets see where the numbers fall.

My comments where not "egotistical" (whatever that means, but I guess I know ;)), it's the current naming scheme as applied by Novell/SUSE. So, to me, that's quite likely to be the correct one, don't you think ? ;) cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ _\_v ===> FOSDEM 2006 -- February 2006 in Brussels <=== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDJTXhr3NMWliFcXcRAq2pAKCo1leNx6f3+KTfb25Co3WbBtwlEgCfS9gp KA2bnZBROc7VoXTgfvLSn0w= =msb6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Pascal Bleser wrote:

There already _is_ an opensource version of SUSE Linux: that's the one you downloaded the ISOs on the internet, it's the "SUSE Linux OSS" distribution. It does _not_ include proprietary packages like Opera, Realplayer, ...

Yep, that was so since years. SuSE Linux comes on ftp for free download, 3 month after selling, without some proprietary packets. In the last SuSE 9.3 there also the Kernel rpm's are splitted in GPL and non GPL packages. And now that is OpenSUSE you can get on ftp, bevor it's selling in shops, and the comunity can help to develop it.

The "other" distribution is "SUSE Linux", sold as a boxed set (soon for 10.0, has been announced recently). It's actually the same as "SUSE Linux OSS" + some proprietary packages like Realplayer and Java.

Ciao Marco.

On 12/09/05, Christoph Thiel wrote:

I recall having had very lively discussion on the naming earlier this year. However, this thread proofs that we will have to go over this again... ;) But for now (for the 10.0 release) we'll have to stick with the current naming.

This I absolutely understand, something I touched on in a different thread, was that the "community" is treating the openSUSE core team as though you have a 3 year plan with every step meticulously planned, I have a hunch that while you have a general game plan, it is not the case. ;-) Peter "Pflodo" Flodin

jdd writes:

Pascal Bleser wrote:

...

That's "SUSE Linux 10.0-RC1"

right.

But I think there will still be a (small) problem.

Novell's corps said (if I understand well) that the boxed SUSE 10.0 could include some proprietary applications (main actor, like in preceding versions, for example, mp3...?), not only support and printed manual.

If the boxed version is not to be _exactly_ the same one as the download one, it should probably better to have a different name.

The packages available on both are exactly the same. We do use already different names "SUSE Linux" and "SUSE Linux OSS", the "SUSE Linux" version contains some additional packages as you mentioned, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 07:14:12PM +0200, jdd wrote:

Christoph Thiel wrote:

...

Let me give you a short explanation on the naming and the openSUSE project:

- openSUSE is the development project to open up the development process used to create SUSE Linux to the community. - The distribtuion that we all are working on is called SUSE Linux. - SUSE Linux is available in two "flavors": * SUSE Linux OSS - a version of SUSE Linux that only contains open source software. This version is available for download on all the mirrors our there. * SUSE Linux - that's the retail version: It can be regard as a superset of SUSE Linux OSS, which also contains some proprietary bits, binary-only drivers and stuff like that. Not to mention end-user documentation, installation support and MP3 playback support. - Note: The packages that are in SUSE Linux OSS and SUSE Linux are binary-identical.

Very good :-)

this very text should be on a wiki page (if not already :-), probably right here

http://www.opensuse.org/Project_overview

No [edit] for that page, so somebody else needs to do it. I think it should also be included in the FAQ on question one: What is the openSUSE project?

recurrent discussion proves that the FAQ is not enough

Indeed and as my wrong answers indicated, there needs to be more clearity. houghi -- Quote correct (NL) http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/ Zitiere richtig (DE) http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren Quote correctly (EN) http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:04:15PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:

I'll make sure to get those pages updated next week.

What Next week? Next we have to believe you have a life outside openSUSE (or just a life outside. Period.) Seriously, thanks. houghi -- Quote correct (NL) http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/ Zitiere richtig (DE) http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren Quote correctly (EN) http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:

Shouldn't MP3 playback support be included in the OSS version? AFAIK, Thompson's patents on MP3 allow royalty-free distribution of free decoders.

Tell me where on this page: http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html ...you find where it says "royalty-free distribution of free decoders." If you find that magic phrase, let me know and we'll drop mp3 support into Fedora Core tomorrow. :) --g _____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:17:42PM -0500, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:

...

Tell me where on this page:

http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html

...you find where it says "royalty-free distribution of free decoders."

What makes you think you need to agree to those royalties for a *decoder*?

The fact that your country isn't the ONLY one on Earth and that each one has it's own laws?

Those royalties are for a series of patents that seem to apply to encoders, not decoders. You can find a listing in:

http://www.mp3licensing.com/patents/index.html

My understanding is that you only need to license this patents if you distribute an *encoder*. If you need to license those patents, you also have to agree to some per-decoder fee, but that doesn't mean you need to license them for a decoder. This has been througly discussed in debian-legal and other mailing lists.

...

If you find that magic phrase, let me know and we'll drop mp3 support into Fedora Core tomorrow. :)

I'd settle for an IQ test before being allowed to sign up on these lists. But what the hell you opened the can: Instead of dropping MP3 support IN, why not drop up2date into a blender like in the Pink Floyd video? I've used every release to date and none seem to be able to handle more than a few downloads of patches at a time and most of the time it fails out of the box. It reminds me of when I update XP, you have to do it one at a time or it freezes up. Out of the box.

I believe you should do that. Debian, after discussing the legal status of doing so, has decided to include MP3 *decoding* support (not *encoding*) and there are many free software decoders around, whose authors have never licensed any of Thomson patents.

And Debian isn't a company or corporation. Therefore Debian has less to worry about by doing so. Novell is a business, they have to actually worry about these types of things.

It seems this was discussed in Slashdot at some point in 2003 when a report claimed it wasn't legally allowed to distribute free decoders anymore. At this point many distributions decided to drop MP3 support. However, it seems this report was bogus, as reported in:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/30321

I bet I could find news reports saying they found intelligent life once at a Republican convention. Doesn't make it true.

I hope this helps.

Alejo. http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/

---=( Comunidad de Usuarios de Software Libre en Colombia )=--- ---=( http://bachue.com/colibri )=--=( colibri@bachue.com )=---

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 03:43:45AM -0500, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:

...

The fact that your country isn't the ONLY one on Earth and that each one has it's own laws?

This is irrelevant. If you want to disagree, name one country where the laws allow a patent holder to require a license from those who distribute inventions where the patent doesn't apply.

...

And Debian isn't a company or corporation. Therefore Debian has less to worry about by doing so. Novell is a business, they have to actually worry about these types of things.

There are many corporations who distribute Debian or derivatives and work on their creation. They are businesses. They have to worry about those things just as much as Novell does. Some example ones are Progeny and Canonical. Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I do know about them, but you see, that's not the problem. Even a guy from RedHat asked you to confirm that and I don't see MP3s in Fedora today. The fact remains, DEBIAN IS NOT A BUSINESS. Novell, is.

...

...

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/30321

I bet I could find news reports saying they found intelligent life once at a Republican convention. Doesn't make it true.

Yes, whatever.

I would invite others to actually read the article; it does include a statement by Thomson explaining their policy.

Alejo. http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/

---=( Comunidad de Usuarios de Software Libre en Colombia )=--- ---=( http://bachue.com/colibri )=--=( colibri@bachue.com )=---

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org

On 14/09/05, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:

See the multiple discussions Debian has been having about the legal status of distributing MP3 decoders: http://www.google.com.co/search?q=site%3Alists.debian.org+mp3+patent&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial

If you read them, these discussions confirm that MP3 support could never be included in SUSE Linux OSS. They do raise the possibility that it could be legal to have a non-free (as in GPL) component distributed for free (as in beer). Which is pretty close to the situation we have now, with the additional repositories available. Peter 'Pflodo' FLodin

Novell is a business, yes. Debian is not a business: yes. Redhat is a business: yes

I consider all these irrelevant. Novell and Redhat shouldn't be compared with Debian but rather with Canonical/Progeny. Debian could be compared with SuSE Linux OSS or Fedora. Some are distributions, other are businesses. I don't see anything separating the situation of Debian and Canonical/Progeny from the situation of SuSE Linux OSS and Novell (or Fedora and Redhat). Thus, I consider these facts irrelevant.

Debian has MP3: irrelevant Fedora doesn't have MP3: irrelevant.

The only reason I consider this slightly relevant is that Debian people tend to be *extremely* careful in not violating the law. Some would say paranoid. They even have a list devoted explicitly to this (and, as you can see in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/threads.html , it has quite a bit of traffic; in this month it has distributed more than half as many messages as this list!). Yet they haven't found any reasons to remove the MP3 decoders from their distribution.

Alejandro, what you are saying is against common understanding of MP3 licensing, can you please find some supporting documents or discussion elsewhere, and not just a link to the large number of patents controlled by Thomson. Until Alejandro has done that, move along, there is nothing to see here......

Well, for the discussion you could browse their archives. A good starting point, while not the only one, could be: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00226.html I would consider the “common understanding” rather subjective. I would, instead, be inclined to think that MP3 decoders should be included unless anyone can find a patent that can apply to a decoder. Alejo. http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/ ---=( Comunidad de Usuarios de Software Libre en Colombia )=--- ---=( http://bachue.com/colibri )=--=( colibri@bachue.com )=---

Quoting Peter Flodin :

On 14/09/05, Allen wrote:

...

RedHat asked you to confirm that and I don't see MP3s in Fedora today. The fact remains, DEBIAN IS NOT A BUSINESS. Novell, is.

Ok, while MP3 support has hijacked this thread, lets just summarise, so that we can get to a definite answer, stick that on the FAQ, so that when this comes up again, we can say go and look at the FAQ. Novell is a business, yes. Debian is not a business: yes. Redhat is a business: yes Debian has MP3: irrelevant Fedora doesn't have MP3: irrelevant.

What does matter is whether Thomson does or does not control and license a patent for MP3 decoders.

Let's say that Thomson only had a patent for encoders. It would be in their interest to confuse the issue and ask for MP3 licensing for all devices.

Alejandro has made a statement that his belief is that decoders do not require a license.

Alejandro, what you are saying is against common understanding of MP3 licensing, can you please find some supporting documents or discussion elsewhere, and not just a link to the large number of patents controlled by Thomson.

Until Alejandro has done that, move along, there is nothing to see here......

Peter 'Pflodo' Flodin

I've seen this debate go back and forth now (almost) since the existance of this mailing list. It's getting old in a hurry - the community and Novell BOTH ought to determine what the solution is, and choose it. Arguing over something that essentially is out of our control isn't getting us anywhere - instead, it has fragmented us into two different camps. Why is the inclusion of mp3 support in other distros irrelevant? Out of the box mp3 support is something we should try to include, if we say that we want to gain users and mindshare, is it not? Won't Joe User want mp3 support out of the box, and not have go to find it via forums and mailing list archives? (And none of that elitist "Well, if they can't figure it out, tough sh!t. Linux isn't for idiots" - I came across that in a discussion with someone and I cringed. ) The goal is to give the user an OS that is as painless to operate as possible, right? -Chris

...

Tell me where on this page:

http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html

...you find where it says "royalty-free distribution of free decoders."

If you find that magic phrase, let me know and we'll drop mp3 support into Fedora Core tomorrow. :)

Well Greg, if we had that magic key, we would already have mp3 support in SUSE Linux OSS ;) Nevertheless, the retail version supports mp3 playback out-of-the-box(TM).

Chris, those royalties are for licensors of their patents. It is my understanding that they don't apply to MP3 *decoders*, so you could distribute one without licensing their patents. The list of patents is available in http://www.mp3licensing.com/patents/index.html Just because they charge a per-decoder fee doesn't change things. They could, for example, charge a third fee based on, hmm, the number of radios sond by your corporation. That would not, by any means, imply that radio makers now have to license their patents. I believe the case with decoders is the same. Unless Novell also wants to distribute MP3 *encoders*, it has no need to license these patents. So you don't need no "magic key", just to review their patents and notice the extent to which they apply to MP3 *decoders* (which, I believe, is none). Thanks. Alejo. http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/ ---=( Comunidad de Usuarios de Software Libre en Colombia )=--- ---=( http://bachue.com/colibri )=--=( colibri@bachue.com )=---

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:

...

* SUSE Linux - that's the retail version: It can be regard as a superset of SUSE Linux OSS, which also contains some proprietary bits, binary-only drivers and stuff like that. Not to mention end-user documentation, installation support and MP3 playback support.

Just minor nitpicks:

Shouldn't MP3 playback support be included in the OSS version? AFAIK, Thompson's patents on MP3 allow royalty-free distribution of free decoders.

Unfortunately it's not that easy - but we already had a lengthy thread on this topic. As always, don't expect anyone to comment on this, as this is a very delicate issue.

Won't end-user documentation be included in the OSS version?

I should have written "printed manuals" instead ;) Regards Christoph