Hello! Could you please tell me if it's legal to give away SuSE 9.0 minimal auto-install CD copies (250MB or so...) - not to sell, but give away, actually, because we sell only our proprietary software. I want to sell my proprietary software but I need a back-end for my product - and, being a SuSE fan, I would like to promote SuSE, too - without interfering into the SuSE product, obviously - I intend to sell a complete separate and client-oriented product. Thank you Radu
In a previous message, "Radu Voicu"
Could you please tell me if it's legal to give away SuSE 9.0 minimal auto-install CD copies (250MB or so...) - not to sell, but give away, actually, because we sell only our proprietary software.
Ask SUSE/Novell? It would be a good idea to let them know, anyway, if it is part of a commercial project... John -- John Pettigrew Headstrong Games john@headstrong-games.co.uk Fun : Strategy : Price http://www.headstrong-games.co.uk/ Board games that won't break the bank Fields of Valour: 2 Norse clans battle on one of 3 different boards
Hi, Am Montag, 17. November 2003 19:31 schrieb Radu Voicu:
Could you please tell me if it's legal to give away SuSE 9.0 minimal auto-install CD copies (250MB or so...) - not to sell, but give away, actually, because we sell only our proprietary software.
I want to sell my proprietary software but I need a back-end for my product - and, being a SuSE fan, I would like to promote SuSE, too - without interfering into the SuSE product, obviously - I intend to sell a complete separate and client-oriented product.
I'm afraid this is not ok. To give away copies of SUSE LINUX for free is actually fine, but as soon as money starts entering the scene it becomes difficult. As you say yourself: you *need* something as a base or back-end for your product which you want to sell (and earn money). So the back-end or whatever you would call it would actually be part of the solution that you offer to your customers. Another example of what would *not* be ok: you might be selling hardware. Selling a computer and having SUSE LINUX installed as a goodie for your customers (or even just as a teaser in order to show them an alternative to the pirate copy of Windows that they otherwise would likely install on their just bought computer) would not be ok. Anything where it's not obvious that you *don't* earn money by distributing SUSE LINUX needs special agreement. You might want to check our partner programm or consider enquiring about the possibility to use SUSE LINUX as an OEM product. For our partner program please check: http://www.suse.com/us/partner/become_partner/index.html Greetings from Bremen hartmut
Harmut, Could you please point me to the legal sources of your statements listed below. In the link you've provided there is nothing said that you can't use SuSE distribution as a back end for your commercial software. I don't believe that SUSE is paying to all the developers whose GPL applications you're binding with your distribution. Therefore, how in legal terms you can impose any limitations or restrictions on people who use SUSE distribution for whatever business purposes? Isn't it a contradiction to GPL? Regards, Alex
To give away copies of SUSE LINUX for free is actually fine, but as
soon as
money starts entering the scene it becomes difficult.
As you say yourself: you *need* something as a base or back-end for your product which you want to sell (and earn money). So the back-end or whatever you would call it would actually be part of the solution that you offer to your customers.
Another example of what would *not* be ok: you might be selling hardware. Selling a computer and having SUSE LINUX installed as a goodie for your customers (or even just as a teaser in order to show them an alternative to the pirate copy of Windows that they otherwise would likely install on their just bought computer) would not be ok.
Anything where it's not obvious that you *don't* earn money by distributing SUSE LINUX needs special agreement.
You might want to check our partner programm or consider enquiring about the possibility to use SUSE LINUX as an OEM product.
For our partner program please check:
http://www.suse.com/us/partner/become_partner/index.html
Greetings from Bremen hartmut
On Monday 17 November 2003 17:04, Alex Daniloff wrote:
Harmut, Could you please point me to the legal sources of your statements listed below. In the link you've provided there is nothing said that you can't use SuSE distribution as a back end for your commercial software. I don't believe that SUSE is paying to all the developers whose GPL applications you're binding with your distribution. Therefore, how in legal terms you can impose any limitations or restrictions on people who use SUSE distribution for whatever business purposes? Isn't it a contradiction to GPL?
I don't know about SuSE in particular, but I've studied the GPL. The distinction is that distributions are not incorporating the GPL'ed applications into other non-GPL'ed applications, and technically they are charging money for the packaging, distribution, support, installer scripts, etc. and not for the GPL'ed applications themselves. If you link your non-GPL'ed application against GPL'ed libraries, you are in clear violation. If you use GPL'ed programs as separate binaries along with your non-GPL'ed application, a case can be made for this not violating the GPL. Where you will run into trouble with what you want to do are the SuSE installer scripts, and other contributions by them. You might have better luck either pulling down a bunch of CVS trees and making your own distribution, or at least starting with something like gentoo where there's not much there but actual GPL applications and a few shell scripts. ------------------------------------------------------------------- DDDD David Kramer http://thekramers.net DK KD There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The DKK D knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground DK KD and miss. All it requires is simply the ability to throw DDDD yourself forward with all weight, and the willingness not to mind that it's going to hurt. That is, it's going to hurt if you fail to miss the ground. Douglas Adams, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 17 November 2003 07:18 pm, David Kramer wrote:
Where you will run into trouble with what you want to do are the SuSE installer scripts, and other contributions by them.
Actually, the YaST license only covers YaST itself. Most of SUSE's contributions are GPL: linuxrc, hwinfo, sax2, mrproject, etc.
You might have better luck either pulling down a bunch of CVS trees and making your own distribution, or at least starting with something like gentoo where there's not much there but actual GPL applications and a few shell scripts.
Using a source distro such as Gentoo on a production machine is a really stupid idea. Don't do it. - -- James Oakley Engineering - SolutionInc Ltd. joakley@solutioninc.com http://www.solutioninc.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/uiYn+FOexA3koIgRAp8TAJ45GJYqCXaC4nfWFmX+/ogV6rIyQQCgjd5s pDkY2+JqYdMJka3ghoJoa5U= =N7HO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James Oakley wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Monday 17 November 2003 07:18 pm, David Kramer wrote:
Where you will run into trouble with what you want to do are the SuSE installer scripts, and other contributions by them.
Actually, the YaST license only covers YaST itself. Most of SUSE's contributions are GPL: linuxrc, hwinfo, sax2, mrproject, etc.
You might have better luck either pulling down a bunch of CVS trees and making your own distribution, or at least starting with something like gentoo where there's not much there but actual GPL applications and a few shell scripts.
Using a source distro such as Gentoo on a production machine is a really stupid idea. Don't do it.
Using a source distro such as Gentoo on a production machine is a really stupid idea. Don't do it. Why is this not a good idea? This is a serious question and not intended to be inflamatory. Your resaoning concerning this will be interesting and benefit users of this list.
Because if a security problem was found in a large, complex package, say glibc, the effort and time involved in getting the patch in place and the machine secure again would be huge. There's probably other reasons, but that was the first that came to my mind. --
eatapple core dump
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 22 November 2003 05:52 am, LW999 wrote:
Using a source distro such as Gentoo on a production machine is a really stupid idea. Don't do it.
Why is this not a good idea? This is a serious question and not intended to be inflamatory. Your resaoning concerning this will be interesting and benefit users of this list.
Many reasons: - - Gentoo's security update policy is "build the new version and perform minimal testing." New versions introduce new bugs and API changes. This can break dependant software. Remember the last OpenSSH problem? SUSE and Red Hat fixed the shipped version and Gentoo upgraded to the new version, which introduced a new bug. Gentoo had to release a new version - - Installation/configuration time is much longer. Imagine if a production server suffers a total failure. How long is it going to take to recreate the OS install + configuration + data? SUSE does this in no time with Autoyast and Yast backup/restore - - Remember all of those trojaned Makefiles a while back? - - I don't put compilers, downloading tools, etc on systems that don't need them. If you've done any forensics, you'll notice that the first thing a cracker does is download and compile something. This makes their life very difficult and increases the chances that you will catch them before they do something bad. They may also just give up, if they are of average intelligence for a script kiddie. (aside: It's also a good idea to block outgoing connections to any machine other than an update server that you control) - - SUSE does a *lot* of testing on all of their packages. By building them once they eliminate problems introduced by certain external factors such as libraries and build tools - - RPM gives you some great security benefits such as md5sums on all package files (great for detecting root kits) and GPG signatures - -- James Oakley Engineering - SolutionInc Ltd. joakley@solutioninc.com http://www.solutioninc.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/whps+FOexA3koIgRAosfAJ0cxxYearSEOjAGIrR15BDBnk57wQCggD56 65LV2GCXEqnSiMRQgBUjrU4= =mKag -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James Oakley wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 22 November 2003 05:52 am, LW999 wrote:
Using a source distro such as Gentoo on a production machine is a really stupid idea. Don't do it.
Why is this not a good idea? This is a serious question and not intended to be inflamatory. Your resaoning concerning this will be interesting and benefit users of this list.
Many reasons:
- - Gentoo's security update policy is "build the new version and perform minimal testing." New versions introduce new bugs and API changes. This can break dependant software. Remember the last OpenSSH problem? SUSE and Red Hat fixed the shipped version and Gentoo upgraded to the new version, which introduced a new bug. Gentoo had to release a new version
- - Installation/configuration time is much longer. Imagine if a production server suffers a total failure. How long is it going to take to recreate the OS install + configuration + data? SUSE does this in no time with Autoyast and Yast backup/restore
- - Remember all of those trojaned Makefiles a while back?
- - I don't put compilers, downloading tools, etc on systems that don't need them. If you've done any forensics, you'll notice that the first thing a cracker does is download and compile something. This makes their life very difficult and increases the chances that you will catch them before they do something bad. They may also just give up, if they are of average intelligence for a script kiddie. (aside: It's also a good idea to block outgoing connections to any machine other than an update server that you control)
- - SUSE does a *lot* of testing on all of their packages. By building them once they eliminate problems introduced by certain external factors such as libraries and build tools
- - RPM gives you some great security benefits such as md5sums on all package files (great for detecting root kits) and GPG signatures
- -- James Oakley Engineering - SolutionInc Ltd. joakley@solutioninc.com http://www.solutioninc.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/whps+FOexA3koIgRAosfAJ0cxxYearSEOjAGIrR15BDBnk57wQCggD56 65LV2GCXEqnSiMRQgBUjrU4= =mKag -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James, Thank you for a very considered and thoughtful answer. These issues were not apparent to me and perhaps to other members of this list. Dereck Fountains' earlier contribution was useful as well. Regards. LW999
Hi, Am Montag, 17. November 2003 23:04 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
Harmut, Could you please point me to the legal sources of your statements listed below. In the link you've provided there is nothing said that you can't use SuSE distribution as a back end for your commercial software. I don't believe that SUSE is paying to all the developers whose GPL applications you're binding with your distribution. Therefore, how in legal terms you can impose any limitations or restrictions on people who use SUSE distribution for whatever business purposes? Isn't it a contradiction to GPL?
Sorry, I have hardly any time right now. It's about YaST and the YaST license. Your're right about GPL licensed packages - you could freely distribute them, but if you want to distribute the whole SUSE distribution (or parts of it, but including YaST), you have to also take care of the YaST license. I don't have a link handy, but I assume if you sarch for "license" on our home page you should find it. If not: it will be on your installed system. Greetings from Bremen hartmut
Hi Harmut, Carefully studying YaST license: http://www.suse.de/us/private/support/licenses/yast.html with my lawyer, we came to the following conclusions: This license doesn't contain any limitation to re-distribute SUSE Linux distribution free of charge. It's perfectly legal to install SUSE Linux on any of my clients' computers free of charge as a back bone OS, and then sell them any commercial software which has no reliance on YaST installation and configuration tool. It is the same if you buy commercial Vmware package and install it on your computer as a stand alone application. Would you be able to attach YaST license to Vmware then? Therefore, most of restrictions you've listed in your previous post have no legal merits. Kind regards, Alex On Monday 17 November 2003 09:03 pm, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
Hi,
Am Montag, 17. November 2003 23:04 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
Harmut, Could you please point me to the legal sources of your statements listed below. In the link you've provided there is nothing said that you can't use SuSE distribution as a back end for your commercial software. I don't believe that SUSE is paying to all the developers whose GPL applications you're binding with your distribution. Therefore, how in legal terms you can impose any limitations or restrictions on people who use SUSE distribution for whatever business purposes? Isn't it a contradiction to GPL?
Sorry, I have hardly any time right now. It's about YaST and the YaST license.
Your're right about GPL licensed packages - you could freely distribute them, but if you want to distribute the whole SUSE distribution (or parts of it, but including YaST), you have to also take care of the YaST license.
I don't have a link handy, but I assume if you sarch for "license" on our home page you should find it. If not: it will be on your installed system.
Greetings from Bremen hartmut
Hi, Am Dienstag, 18. November 2003 07:22 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
Carefully studying YaST license: http://www.suse.de/us/private/support/licenses/yast.html with my lawyer, we came to the following conclusions: This license doesn't contain any limitation to re-distribute SUSE Linux distribution free of charge. It's perfectly legal to install SUSE Linux on any of my clients' computers free of charge as a back bone OS, and then sell them any commercial software which has no reliance on YaST installation and configuration tool. It is the same if you buy commercial Vmware package and install it on your computer as a stand alone application. Would you be able to attach YaST license to Vmware then? Therefore, most of restrictions you've listed in your previous post have no legal merits.
Pragraphs 2b and 3 are the relevant parts for this question - I believe. However, I suggest you contact our legal department, because clearly, your and your lawyers view on this contradict our own. Greetings from Bremen hartmut
<top posting corrected> On Monday 17 November 2003 09:03 pm, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
Hi,
Am Montag, 17. November 2003 23:04 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
Harmut, Could you please point me to the legal sources of your statements listed below. In the link you've provided there is nothing said that you can't use SuSE distribution as a back end for your commercial software. I don't believe that SUSE is paying to all the developers whose GPL applications you're binding with your distribution. Therefore, how in legal terms you can impose any limitations or restrictions on people who use SUSE distribution for whatever business purposes? Isn't it a contradiction to GPL?
Sorry, I have hardly any time right now. It's about YaST and the YaST license.
Your're right about GPL licensed packages - you could freely distribute them, but if you want to distribute the whole SUSE distribution (or parts of it, but including YaST), you have to also take care of the YaST license.
I don't have a link handy, but I assume if you sarch for "license" on our home page you should find it. If not: it will be on your installed system.
Greetings from Bremen hartmut
Alex Daniloff wrote:
Hi Harmut,
Carefully studying YaST license: http://www.suse.de/us/private/support/licenses/yast.html with my lawyer, we came to the following conclusions: This license doesn't contain any limitation to re-distribute SUSE Linux distribution free of charge. It's perfectly legal to install SUSE Linux on any of my clients' computers free of charge as a back bone OS, and then sell them any commercial software which has no reliance on YaST installation and configuration tool. It is the same if you buy commercial Vmware package and install it on your computer as a stand alone application. Would you be able to attach YaST license to Vmware then? Therefore, most of restrictions you've listed in your previous post have no legal merits.
Kind regards,
Alex
If a company selling software is of the opinion that a practice is in breach of its licence or that it would not like others to follow, users should respect that. Giving away "free" a version of SuSE linux with commercial offerings is not in the spirit of the terms under which SuSE supplied its Linux distribution. Under such circumstances an agreement should be sought SuSE, which would not act unreasonably. Just my 0.02p worth. LW999
Carefully studying YaST license: http://www.suse.de/us/private/support/licenses/yast.html with my lawyer, we came to the following conclusions: This license doesn't contain any limitation to re-distribute SUSE Linux distribution free of charge. It's perfectly legal to install SUSE Linux on any of my clients' computers free of charge as a back bone OS, and then sell them any commercial software which has no reliance on YaST installation and configuration tool. It is the same if you buy commercial Vmware package and install it on your computer as a stand alone application. Would you be able to attach YaST license to Vmware then? Therefore, most of restrictions you've listed in your previous post have no legal merits.
Kind regards,
Alex
If a company selling software is of the opinion that a practice is in breach of its licence or that it would not like others to follow, users should respect that. Giving away "free" a version of SuSE linux with commercial offerings is not in the spirit of the terms under which SuSE supplied its Linux distribution. Under such circumstances an agreement should be sought SuSE, which would not act unreasonably.
Just my 0.02p worth.
LW999
What I think about suse reasons of: Give not a 'free' version. Well if you try any 'free' version is not easy of configure if you try any 'free' version do not have usefull 'GPL-less' software But suse has YaST with a very special license, and non-free software, and non-GPL software that makes SuSE in the best Distro knowed for me. If they distribute a 'free-version' without non-..... Software we are goingo to get a non successfull distro. Something like that happend with Linex, a Extremadura Linux, they have in his first distro non-free, non-GPL software, but you cand download it from internet, and in the wish of get a really free distro (Linex was created to be used by the Extremadura Government originally, then if you get the original Prod is wonderfull) they amputated all the non-..... Software and today, well today are a lot of complains of all that claimed We want a Distro without non-free, non-GPL software! Who understandthem?
On Saturday 22 November 2003 12:19 am, LAW999 wrote: <snipped>
If a company selling software is of the opinion that a practice is in breach of its licence or that it would not like others to follow, users should respect that. Giving away "free" a version of SuSE linux with commercial offerings is not in the spirit of the terms under which SuSE supplied its Linux distribution. Under such circumstances an agreement should be sought SuSE, which would not act unreasonably.
Just my 0.02p worth.
LW999
If it's so, then you have to respect SCO's opinion and buy a license to use Linux directly from them. Company opinion or "spirit of the terms" has to be legally outlined in the software license itself. If it hasn't been done properly, then it's just a private opinion without legal merits. All license ambiguities and uncertainties go against the licensor not the licensee. In case with YaST - there are limitations on its usage if and only if you are reselling SuSE distribution for profit. If you give it away for free, then you're not bound by these limitations. That is why a business schema when you optionally install SuSE, Red Hat or other distro for free, and then sell a client your commercial software is perfectly legal. Because your profit comes not from selling SuSE or Red Hat Linux distribution, but your software which is independent of YaST, other proprietary installation tools, and distribution itself. It can be installed on Red Hat, Debian and other distros with the same functionality. You can even charge your client a consulting fee for installing Linux and be legally out of YaST license bounds. SuSE consists on 99.9% of GPL software derived from the public domain. Even RPM, on which YaST relies to operate, was created by Red Hat and GPLed. Practically SuSE=YaST. Alex
Hi, Am Samstag, 22. November 2003 23:10 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
It can be installed on Red Hat, Debian and other distros with the same functionality. You can even charge your client a consulting fee for installing Linux and be legally out of YaST license bounds.
You're *well* off here. Pure ignorance :-( hartmut
* Hartmut Meyer (hartmut.meyer@web.de) [031122 14:58]:
Hi,
Am Samstag, 22. November 2003 23:10 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
It can be installed on Red Hat, Debian and other distros with the same functionality. You can even charge your client a consulting fee for installing Linux and be legally out of YaST license bounds.
You're *well* off here.
Pure ignorance :-(
Umm. No he's not. You can charge a client a consulting feel to install software an pay no mind to the license that governs the software. As long as that client has purchased that software legally and has a license. You wouldn't have to pay SUSE another license fee because you installed it for someone else. In fact if I were to go to Fry's and purchase a SUSE box then take it to a client site. I could charge them for installation of said software, reimbursement for picking up the software for them and for the boxed software itself as long as I didn't charge them more then the retail store charged me. If I can do this Microsoft software and I have done this with their software and not get in trouble for it then I doubt SUSE would have grounds to stand on. Now if I ordered a large amount of SUSE boxes from SUSE and resold them to individuals at a profit that would be wrong. If I made copies and sold them at a profit with other software I produced then I could see that being shaky but just to charge a client a consulting fee to install software isn't / wouldn't be violating anything. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===--- #147972 ---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org -- Why do we bother with a suicide watch when someone is on deathrow? " Keep an eye on this guy. We're gonna kill him, and we don't want him to hurt himself."
Hi, Am Sonntag, 23. November 2003 00:08 schrieb Ben Rosenberg:
* Hartmut Meyer (hartmut.meyer@web.de) [031122 14:58]:
Am Samstag, 22. November 2003 23:10 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
It can be installed on Red Hat, Debian and other distros with the same functionality. You can even charge your client a consulting fee for installing Linux and be legally out of YaST license bounds.
You're *well* off here.
Pure ignorance :-(
Umm. No he's not. You can charge a client a consulting feel to install software an pay no mind to the license that governs the software. As long as that client has purchased that software legally and has a license. You wouldn't have to pay SUSE another license fee because you installed it for someone else.
In fact if I were to go to Fry's and purchase a SUSE box then take it to a client site. I could charge them for installation of said software, reimbursement for picking up the software for them and for the boxed software itself
Yes.
as long as I didn't charge them more then the retail store charged me.
Maybe even that (if your client is willing you more than what he would have had to pay in the shop ...)
If I can do this Microsoft software and I have done this with their software and not get in trouble for it then I doubt SUSE would have grounds to stand on. Now if I ordered a large amount of SUSE boxes from SUSE and resold them to individuals at a profit that would be wrong. If I made copies and sold them at a profit with other software I produced then I could see that being shaky but just to charge a client a consulting fee to install software isn't / wouldn't be violating anything.
Maybe I misunderstood him. Of course, if you you sell the box to your client that's fine. You may make any extra margin you want with services or whatever. But if you buy a box for yourself and then install SUSE LINUX on your clients computer without selling him the box as well, then you're not covered by the YaST license. I understood that was was Alex is promoting. Greetings from Bremen hartmut
Hartmut, If you can't legally back up your statement given below, how dare you to call me ignorant? My good advise to you is to get some legal classes or consult a lawyer. Otherwise it's just a blab. Alex On Saturday 22 November 2003 02:49 pm, you wrote:
Hi,
Am Samstag, 22. November 2003 23:10 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
It can be installed on Red Hat, Debian and other distros with the same functionality. You can even charge your client a consulting fee for installing Linux and be legally out of YaST license bounds.
You're *well* off here.
Pure ignorance :-(
hartmut
On Saturday 22 November 2003 7:46 pm, Alex Daniloff wrote:
Hartmut, If you can't legally back up your statement given below, how dare you to call me ignorant? My good advise to you is to get some legal classes or consult a lawyer. Otherwise it's just a blab.
<Snipped stuff> Well Alex, as long as you are telling folk off for what you percieve as rude. Stop the farqing top posting please. It can't be the first time you've heard it. I know you've been here long enough to have read it applied to other folk's postings It comes up every few weeks. BTW *some* "legal classes" qualifies you to sort mail in the mailroom at most firms. And *blab* that aint !
Hi again, Am Samstag, 22. November 2003 23:10 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
Company opinion or "spirit of the terms" has to be legally outlined in the software license itself. If it hasn't been done properly, then it's just a private opinion without legal merits. All license ambiguities and uncertainties go against the licensor not the licensee. In case with YaST - there are limitations on its usage if and only if you are reselling SuSE distribution for profit. If you give it away for free, then you're not bound by these limitations.
So if I sell copies of the SUSE CD and charge only for the CDs themself, say $10 and claim that it's not for the software but just for my work and for the material, then you think that would be covered by the YaST license? It's not.
That is why a business schema when you optionally install SuSE, Red Hat or other distro for free, and then sell a client your commercial software is perfectly legal. Because your profit comes not from selling SuSE or Red Hat Linux distribution, but your software which is independent of YaST, other proprietary installation tools, and distribution itself. It can be installed on Red Hat, Debian and other distros with the same functionality. You can even charge your client a consulting fee for installing Linux and be legally out of YaST license bounds. SuSE consists on 99.9% of GPL software derived from the public domain. Even RPM, on which YaST relies to operate, was created by Red Hat and GPLed. Practically SuSE=YaST.
Alex: do you have anything like that on offer? Could you point me to it (URL or pricelist or the like)? hartmut
* Hartmut Meyer (hartmut.meyer@web.de) [031122 15:01]:
Hi again,
Am Samstag, 22. November 2003 23:10 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
Company opinion or "spirit of the terms" has to be legally outlined in the software license itself. If it hasn't been done properly, then it's just a private opinion without legal merits. All license ambiguities and uncertainties go against the licensor not the licensee. In case with YaST - there are limitations on its usage if and only if you are reselling SuSE distribution for profit. If you give it away for free, then you're not bound by these limitations.
So if I sell copies of the SUSE CD and charge only for the CDs themself, say $10 and claim that it's not for the software but just for my work and for the material, then you think that would be covered by the YaST license?
It's not.
Um. Unless SUSE changed their policy then it's always been ok to charge someone for the cost of the CD's that one uses to burn a copy to give it to them. If it costs you 0.50 cents per cd times 5 cd's then you can tell the person you've made a copy for that they should give you $2.50 because that's not selling for a profit. It's reimbursement for matirials. This subject has been discussed here 100's and 100's of times. It was discussed when I worked at SUSE in Oakland and what you've said above is sheer bullshit. :)
That is why a business schema when you optionally install SuSE, Red Hat or other distro for free, and then sell a client your commercial software is perfectly legal. Because your profit comes not from selling SuSE or Red Hat Linux distribution, but your software which is independent of YaST, other proprietary installation tools, and distribution itself. It can be installed on Red Hat, Debian and other distros with the same functionality. You can even charge your client a consulting fee for installing Linux and be legally out of YaST license bounds. SuSE consists on 99.9% of GPL software derived from the public domain. Even RPM, on which YaST relies to operate, was created by Red Hat and GPLed. Practically SuSE=YaST.
Alex: do you have anything like that on offer? Could you point me to it (URL or pricelist or the like)?
Why would you ask Alex for a pricelist of something like this that he offers? Thinking of bringing a lawsuit against him? Again, if you charge a client a fee to install a piece of software that they have obtained..it doesn't even have a thing to do with the software itself if it has been legal purchased from a legal reseller. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===--- #147972 ---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org -- Why do we bother with a suicide watch when someone is on deathrow? " Keep an eye on this guy. We're gonna kill him, and we don't want him to hurt himself."
Hi, Am Sonntag, 23. November 2003 00:14 schrieb Ben Rosenberg:
* Hartmut Meyer (hartmut.meyer@web.de) [031122 15:01]:
Hi again,
Am Samstag, 22. November 2003 23:10 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
Company opinion or "spirit of the terms" has to be legally outlined in the software license itself. If it hasn't been done properly, then it's just a private opinion without legal merits. All license ambiguities and uncertainties go against the licensor not the licensee. In case with YaST - there are limitations on its usage if and only if you are reselling SuSE distribution for profit. If you give it away for free, then you're not bound by these limitations.
So if I sell copies of the SUSE CD and charge only for the CDs themself, say $10 and claim that it's not for the software but just for my work and for the material, then you think that would be covered by the YaST license?
It's not.
Um. Unless SUSE changed their policy
Policy hasn't changed.
then it's always been ok to charge someone for the cost of the CD's that one uses to burn a copy to give it to them. If it costs you 0.50 cents per cd times 5 cd's then you can tell the person you've made a copy for that they should give you $2.50 because that's not selling for a profit.
Exactly ;-)
It's reimbursement for matirials. This subject has been discussed here 100's and 100's of times. It was discussed when I worked at SUSE in Oakland and what you've said above is sheer bullshit. :)
That's why I said $10 and not $2.50. Beacuse then it would be obvious that you're trying to earn money with it, which is exactly the point that the YaST license does not allow (unless you are selling the box to him - see my other mail). Greetings from Bremen hartmut
Has the human intellect dropped so significantly while I wasn't looking, or what? this is all really common sense. Copyright, means the Right to Copy. Which incidentally, does not mean you cannot make backup copies for yourself, you are not allowed to copy for the purpose of distributing. Weather that is for profit or not. This is covered by the SuSE YaST license, part 3. And in the case of Linux, it's GPL'd. Which means General Public License, often referred to as free software. However, the word free means: "Free as in speech, not as in beer". So, unless SuSE starts creating a per-workstation licensing for YaST, the rest is just common sense. On Sunday 23 November 2003 08:52, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
Hi,
Am Sonntag, 23. November 2003 00:14 schrieb Ben Rosenberg:
* Hartmut Meyer (hartmut.meyer@web.de) [031122 15:01]:
Hi again,
Am Samstag, 22. November 2003 23:10 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
Company opinion or "spirit of the terms" has to be legally outlined in the software license itself. If it hasn't been done properly, then it's just a private opinion without legal merits. All license ambiguities and uncertainties go against the licensor not the licensee. In case with YaST - there are limitations on its usage if and only if you are reselling SuSE distribution for profit. If you give it away for free, then you're not bound by these limitations.
So if I sell copies of the SUSE CD and charge only for the CDs themself, say $10 and claim that it's not for the software but just for my work and for the material, then you think that would be covered by the YaST license?
It's not.
Um. Unless SUSE changed their policy
Policy hasn't changed.
then it's always been ok to charge someone for the cost of the CD's that one uses to burn a copy to give it to them. If it costs you 0.50 cents per cd times 5 cd's then you can tell the person you've made a copy for that they should give you $2.50 because that's not selling for a profit.
Exactly ;-)
It's reimbursement for matirials. This subject has been discussed here 100's and 100's of times. It was discussed when I worked at SUSE in Oakland and what you've said above is sheer bullshit. :)
That's why I said $10 and not $2.50. Beacuse then it would be obvious that you're trying to earn money with it, which is exactly the point that the YaST license does not allow (unless you are selling the box to him - see my other mail).
Greetings from Bremen hartmut
Hello, On Saturday 22 November 2003 02:55 pm, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
Hi again,
<snipped>
Alex: do you have anything like that on offer? Could you point me to it (URL or pricelist or the like)?
hartmut
We're developing and providing paremetric test builder software and engineering data analysis tools for Hight Tech industry. Since each package is a custom built software model upon our customers specifications, I can't provide you with the general price list options. If you're interested, we can talk off list on this matter. Kind Regards, Alex
Hi, Am Sonntag, 23. November 2003 01:35 schrieb Alex Daniloff:
We're developing and providing paremetric test builder software and engineering data analysis tools for Hight Tech industry. Since each package is a custom built software model upon our customers specifications, I can't provide you with the general price list options. If you're interested, we can talk off list on this matter.
As Ben has pointed out I may have gotten you wrong. And if I did I'm sorry for that and for the fuzz I made. If you're handing over the SUSE LINUX box to the customer then you're obviously fine. That would simply be reselling the box. Greetings from Bremen hartmut
Dear Alex, So you are completely comfortable with your customers knowing that your business practices include using the SUSE distro in a way that SUSE has asked you not to? You must think your customers are as unscruple-less as you are. During my business career I found that the good will of your suppliers and customers is the most important thing one needs to prosper. Why not use the ftp version that SUSE willing and freely offers? SUSE is in no position to negotiate permission for you to commercially offer the commercial products that they supply to their customers according to carefully agreed upon conditions with the owners of those commercial products. You mention SCO; do you want the community of potential customers to have the same regard for you and your practices? Take a while to think this over. PeterB On Saturday 22 November 2003 04:10 pm, Alex Daniloff wrote:
On Saturday 22 November 2003 12:19 am, LAW999 wrote: <snipped>
If a company selling software is of the opinion that a practice is in breach of its licence or that it would not like others to follow, users should respect that. Giving away "free" a version of SuSE linux with commercial offerings is not in the spirit of the terms under which SuSE supplied its Linux distribution. Under such circumstances an agreement should be sought SuSE, which would not act unreasonably.
Just my 0.02p worth.
LW999
If it's so, then you have to respect SCO's opinion and buy a license to use Linux directly from them. Company opinion or "spirit of the terms" has to be legally outlined in the software license itself. If it hasn't been done properly, then it's just a
-- Proud to use SuSE Linux, since 5.2 Loving using SuSE Linux 8.2 MyBlog http://vancampen.org/blog/ Nothing is as perfect as a Cultured Diamond There was never any Blood on a Cultured Diamond --
On Saturday 22 November 2003 23:10, Alex Daniloff wrote:
[...]
SuSE consists on 99.9% of GPL software derived from the public domain. Even RPM, on which YaST relies to operate, was created by Red Hat and GPLed. Practically SuSE=YaST.
Well, most of the above is more or less obvious. But, in the above case, you forgot to mention the *hard* case of licenses. The Microsoft License, where they *sell* you the right to use their software. Which, of course, is a void license. If, a company like Microsoft, can get away with selling their software on the shelves of stores. Where it's not really *it* being sold, only the illusion of *it* or the *non physical right to use*, which of course is *not a public commercial practice*, then I think we better be careful in our steps. We have all seen the facts, that courts and justice is not about individual rights, but rather being able to afford the services of the law itself. And although we all love to sit by the TV and watch the actors in the movie, showing us the heartbreaking stories about how justice, truth and integrity won in the end. The fact, that we had to rent or buy the movies in the stores, merely to get this brief feeling of wellbeing by watching that theatric performance. Should be more than enough for every intelligent being, to check out reality. So, while it is true that SuSE = YaST. Most users buying SuSE, including myself. Use this distribution, because of YaST. It does a darn good job, and incidentally ... if you do install this on your client machines for free, I do think that the use of YaST would have to be excluded. Which, of course, is quite hard to do. :)
Alex
On Saturday 22 November 2003 4:10 pm, Alex Daniloff wrote: Is this violating SUSE's license agreement? Line item #1 SUSE 9.0 Pro $79.99 Line item #2 Installation on 2 servers, 10 workstations 2hours @ $150/hr $300.00 Line item #3 Training 2hours @ $150/hr $300.00 Total billed to customer $679.99 I purchase one copy of SUSE 9.0 Pro for the customer online, shipped to my business address. I install it at my customer's site for 2 servers and 10 workstations (I'm really good and use AutoYast, etc). My customers are almost as bright as me and take to SUSE very well. I leave the one package of SUSE 9.0 Pro with the customer. Is this violating any license? Thanks, Stan
On Saturday 22 November 2003 08:32 pm, Stan Glasoe wrote:
On Saturday 22 November 2003 4:10 pm, Alex Daniloff wrote:
Is this violating SUSE's license agreement?
Line item #1 SUSE 9.0 Pro $79.99 Line item #2 Installation on 2 servers, 10 workstations 2hours @ $150/hr $300.00 Line item #3 Training 2hours @ $150/hr $300.00
Total billed to customer $679.99
I purchase one copy of SUSE 9.0 Pro for the customer online, shipped to my business address. I install it at my customer's site for 2 servers and 10 workstations (I'm really good and use AutoYast, etc). My customers are almost as bright as me and take to SUSE very well. I leave the one package of SUSE 9.0 Pro with the customer.
Is this violating any license?
Thanks, Stan
Ok, so $300 for the installs, $300 for training, and $79.99 for the SUSE pro box set. What's the problem. Your just an intermediary. You did not take a cut from the box set, which would have meant increasing the price, for argument sake... say $100 for the SUSE box set then you would have had made twenty bucks and that would have most likely have led to a violation. but your not reselling it. You're simply acquiring it for a patron and the patron is reimbursing you, you make no financial profit other than that of your time. Considering that one can go to the software store to buy the box set for $79.99 and it is assumed that the retail store didn't pay $79.99 per box because there would be no profit in it. They most likely get a volume discount. Your not doing that either so no problem AFAICT. The whole thing revolves around middle men jacking the price, like I mentioned before, say $100. This could potentially hurt SuSE because someone could be coerced to jack the price of the box set so much that sales would suffer, either for greed sake or a sly deal set up by a competitor that wants to drive market share down. Just an observation. Cheers, Curtis.
* Stan Glasoe (srglasoe@comcast.net) [031122 20:34]:
On Saturday 22 November 2003 4:10 pm, Alex Daniloff wrote:
Is this violating SUSE's license agreement?
Line item #1 SUSE 9.0 Pro $79.99 Line item #2 Installation on 2 servers, 10 workstations 2hours @ $150/hr $300.00 Line item #3 Training 2hours @ $150/hr $300.00
Total billed to customer $679.99
I purchase one copy of SUSE 9.0 Pro for the customer online, shipped to my business address. I install it at my customer's site for 2 servers and 10 workstations (I'm really good and use AutoYast, etc). My customers are almost as bright as me and take to SUSE very well. I leave the one package of SUSE 9.0 Pro with the customer.
Is this violating any license?
I don't see how it could. You basically bought a copy of SUSE and recouped your money from them. You didn't charge them more then you paid. You were basically a deliveryman in this instance. As far as charging them to install software and train said people on the software..that's your time and your knowledge they were paying for. I'm sure SUSE's Professional services would love to have done it. But remember quite clearly when I worked for SUSE in Oakland that the Prof. Services Manager called a $2000 sendmail server install an config a "waste of time" and "small potatos". So in this instance what really got paid for was you. So they have nothing to say about it. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===--- #147972 ---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org -- Why do we bother with a suicide watch when someone is on deathrow? " Keep an eye on this guy. We're gonna kill him, and we don't want him to hurt himself."
* Ben Rosenberg;
charging them to install software and train said people on the software..that's your time and your knowledge they were paying for. I'm sure SUSE's Professional services would love to have done it. But remember quite clearly when I worked for SUSE in Oakland that the Prof. Services Manager called a $2000 sendmail server install an config a "waste of time" and "small potatos". So in this instance what really got paid for was you. So they have nothing to say about it.
Just my 0.02 € ( yeah no more Turkish Lira). My understanding is SUSE wants people to either become a reseller or business partner so they will have another source of income from selected resellers and partners in the mean time having some sort of control on the quality of their partners as well [1] if they are interested in reselling SUSE software packages. On the other hand however it is the customer who drives the marketplace. Taking the example Ben gives, the customer will go to either a partner who is intersted in making the business or someone who has the knowledge, skills to do the job though not necessarily a reseller nor a partner of SUSE. Whether he buys the SUSE software or the consultant buys is not in the SUSE's ball park now. Having to control the business environment to much does have a boomerang effect. Just remember to protect our fingers or they are chopped away [1] http://www.suse.de/en/partner/become_partner/index.html Mfg. from Stuttgart -- Togan Muftuoglu Unofficial SuSE FAQ Maintainer http://susefaq.sf.net
* Togan Muftuoglu (toganm@dinamizm.com) [031122 22:25]:
Having to control the business environment to much does have a boomerang effect. Just remember to protect our fingers or they are chopped away
So your saying that only SUSE can be professional services for their distro? No one else can make consulting fees from using their knowledge of the software? hmm... Very interesting. :) -- Ben Rosenberg ---===--- #147972 ---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org -- Why do we bother with a suicide watch when someone is on deathrow? " Keep an eye on this guy. We're gonna kill him, and we don't want him to hurt himself."
The Sunday 2003-11-23 at 00:18 -0800, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
Having to control the business environment to much does have a boomerang effect. Just remember to protect our fingers or they are chopped away
So your saying that only SUSE can be professional services for their distro? No one else can make consulting fees from using their knowledge of the software? hmm... Very interesting. :)
No, I think he means that SuSE want intermediaries to join their partner program. SuSE gets revenues, and the partners get software, brochures, contacts, whatever, for a yearly fee. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
* Carlos E. R.;
The Sunday 2003-11-23 at 00:18 -0800, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
Having to control the business environment to much does have a boomerang effect. Just remember to protect our fingers or they are chopped away
So your saying that only SUSE can be professional services for their distro? No one else can make consulting fees from using their knowledge of the software? hmm... Very interesting. :)
No, I think he means that SuSE want intermediaries to join their partner program. SuSE gets revenues, and the partners get software, brochures, contacts, whatever, for a yearly fee.
Yes looks likes I missed an important letter "y" which made the sentence to mean something else. It should be like below meaning if businesses imply to much control on their business environment in the long run they themselves become the one missing their opportunities. So it is better to help create business rather then destroy it while the former is difficult the later is very easy. Having to control the business environment to much does have a boomerang effect. Just remember to protect your fingers or they are chopped away Now back to unpacking where the hell is my Linux related cartoons -- Togan Muftuoglu Unofficial SuSE FAQ Maintainer http://susefaq.sf.net
Just an observation. You all are acting like a bunch of jailhouse lawyers. This list is NOT the place to get legal advice. Even if you find someone who will tell you what you want to hear, that won't do you a bit of good in a copyright infringement lawsuit. You either need to read the license carefully and make your own decisions about what is allowed OR you need to consult an attorney, whose advice you CAN legally depend upon. Just my 0.02$US worth. Don Henson
Howdy!
People, thank you for your help, I found the solution... the customers will
have to buy their own licence for the SuSE product and I will sell my
products separately... OK? :))
That's because I cannot afford right now to become a SuSE OEM partner...
YET.
Thank you and I hope this will cease that thread :)
Greetings from Romania (to quote our " list colleague" - Hartmut Meyer - I
hope this is not offending his copyright) :))
Radu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Henson"
Just an observation. You all are acting like a bunch of jailhouse lawyers. This list is NOT the place to get legal advice. Even if you find someone who will tell you what you want to hear, that won't do you a bit of good in a copyright infringement lawsuit. You either need to read the license carefully and make your own decisions about what is allowed OR you need to consult an attorney, whose advice you CAN legally depend upon. Just my 0.02$US worth.
Don Henson
Hi, Am Sonntag, 23. November 2003 18:58 schrieb Radu Voicu:
Greetings from Romania (to quote our " list colleague" - Hartmut Meyer - I hope this is not offending his copyright) :))
Certainly not. As long as you're not earning money with it ;-) Greetings from Bremen hartmut
The Sunday 2003-11-23 at 06:54 -0700, Donald Henson wrote:
Just an observation. You all are acting like a bunch of jailhouse lawyers. This list is NOT the place to get legal advice. Even if you find someone who will tell you what you want to hear, that won't do you a bit of good in a copyright infringement lawsuit. You either need to read the license carefully and make your own decisions about what is allowed OR you need to consult an attorney, whose advice you CAN legally depend upon. Just my 0.02$US worth.
Another observation :-) If we need a lawyer to tell us what a text means... The license could be accompanied by clear text, real world, examples of what we can do and what we can not do, in plain English (and plain Spanish, French, German, etc, etc). if these questions - and they are about SuSE license, so I guess they are on topic - arise, it must be because the wording of the license is not clear enough. And anyway, a lawyer loves litigation, so he will find holes, and make money out of them, doesn't he(she)? :-) -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
Le Monday 17 November 2003, 21:42:21 ou environ Hartmut Meyer
Hi,
Am Montag, 17. November 2003 19:31 schrieb Radu Voicu:
Could you please tell me if it's legal to give away SuSE 9.0 minimal auto-install CD copies (250MB or so...) - not to sell, but give away, actually, because we sell only our proprietary software.
I want to sell my proprietary software but I need a back-end for my product - and, being a SuSE fan, I would like to promote SuSE, too - without interfering into the SuSE product, obviously - I intend to sell a complete separate and client-oriented product.
I'm afraid this is not ok.
To give away copies of SUSE LINUX for free is actually fine, but as soon as money starts entering the scene it becomes difficult.
As you say yourself: you *need* something as a base or back-end for your product which you want to sell (and earn money). So the back-end or whatever you would call it would actually be part of the solution that you offer to your customers.
Another example of what would *not* be ok: you might be selling hardware. Selling a computer and having SUSE LINUX installed as a goodie for your customers (or even just as a teaser in order to show them an alternative to the pirate copy of Windows that they otherwise would likely install on their just bought computer) would not be ok.
Anything where it's not obvious that you *don't* earn money by distributing SUSE LINUX needs special agreement.
You might want to check our partner programm or consider enquiring about the possibility to use SUSE LINUX as an OEM product.
For our partner program please check:
http://www.suse.com/us/partner/become_partner/index.html
Greetings from Bremen hartmut
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
As I understood, YAST was proprietary but not the software delivered with the SuSE-CD's. Am I wrong? -- Alain Barthélemy cassandre@bartydeux.be http://www.bartydeux.be Linux User #315631
participants (20)
-
Alain Barthélemy -
Alex Daniloff -
Ben Rosenberg -
Carlos E. R. -
Cuitlahuac Gomez Labougle -
Curtis Rey -
David Kramer -
Derek Fountain -
Donald Henson -
Hartmut Meyer -
James Oakley -
jfweber＠bellsouth.net -
John Pettigrew -
linuxworld999 -
LW999 -
Peter B Van Campen -
Radu Voicu -
Stan Glasoe -
Togan Muftuoglu -
Örn Hansen