Ben, Shirama et al I am sorry - this is a bit technical. At this stage the license affects those of us who have provided services based on Suse. Home usage and proper business bought copies, of Suse 10 are not affected. Berni

On Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:09, Berni Elbourn wrote:

Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Tuesday 11 October 2005 13:17, Berni Elbourn wrote:

...

I have downloaded both flavours of 10.0 I still find that OpenSuse and Suse Linux are copyrighted

As far as I know, everything ever produced is copyrighted, whether it says so or not. Unless it explicitly relinquishes copyright (public domain) it will always be copyrighted. You know that the GPL is a copyright based license, right?

GPL does not limit distribution but positively encourages it. It seems Suse and Open suse are copyright Novell so technically everthing is claimed by Novell.

Did you read what I wrote? *Everything* is copyright. Even GPL software. The fact that something is copyrighted means nothing because absolutely everything in the whole world, unless it has been explicitly put under the public domain is copyrighted by someone. The only thing that matters is the copyright license, and the things written by SUSE that used to be non-distributable has been put under the GPL by Novell, such as YaST. Note that it is still copyright Novell, Inc., but licensed under the GPL. Note that even emacs is copyrighted. Yes, even the FSF flagship. Please take the time to read a few articles by Eblen Moglen about the nature of copyright. Also please take the time to understand that without copyrights, the GPL would be useless, as its legal foundation is copyright law

...

...

and distribution limited according the the installation procedure.

Doesn't it say something like "not all software included can be distributed freely"? Things like software not produced under the GPL or by Novell?

No it does not. The Novell license says we can not distribute Suse to our customers.

Do you have the text? I don't have it available right now, so it's difficult to comment, but I haven't heard anything about restricted distribution, other than for the software not actually controlled by Novell, such as Real Player, Acrobat Reader and other third party commercial software

Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 19:31 samaye Berni Elbourn alekhiit:

You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service).

The main question for me as a service provider is to ask if I can provide downloaded Suse to my customers as part of an installation or support service?

Can you elucidate this? Do you run a computer service company which answers support calls and runs out to the customer's site and fixes their problem? You wish to convert your customers to SUSE Linux along the way? Now I am no lawyer, and certainly not Novell/SUSE's lawyer, but what exactly would "bundle or combine" mean? In my layperson viewpoint, the second clause is inserted to avoid a possible loophole in the first clause. The first clause only says that one must not receive consideration for giving someone a copy of SUSE Linux. Company XYZ says: "**Free** SUSE Linux along with our Annual Maintenance Contract". It contends that it is not receiving any consideration for the SUSE Linux part. But it is using SUSE Linux as a carrot attached to its AMC to lure customers in. IMHO this is what Novell is trying to prevent. You must neither sell copies of SUSE Linux for money, nor include SUSE Linux as a part of any package which you sell for money, **even if** the SUSE Linux part of the package is advertised as free. So unless we know the exact nature of your service and how SUSE Linux is connected with it, we cannot comment further on your situation, I am afraid. Shriramana.

houghi wrote:

I think he want comment from Novell, not from us. Even if sombody here would state whatever and that person would not be related to Novell, it would mean nothing.

The SSUSE people will probably try to ignore this tread, as they could say something that is not 100% in line with company policy. I understand this.

What ticks me of was the way the OP posted his remarks. If he would just have asked, he could get a normal convesation. Now it sounded extremely trollish and I now realize I should not have replied. I am sorry that I did reply to the OP.

houghi

yes, you're really right about that ! In fact, who wants to base a complete serious business like him ? Giving things for free, try to compete in price instead of quality, service etc... I don't want to buy anything there I don't think that the prices of Windows OEM and SUSE are really that different... And even then we are not talking about all the extra software you'll need to buy in Windows (antivirus, firewall, office etc.). So yeah, I think it's pure trolling. greetz F

On Tuesday 11 October 2005 17:55, Berni Elbourn wrote:

Hopefully someone from Novell or Suse will reply soon.

Someone has. But if you want an official reply regarding the legalities, this is hardly the right forum. You need to contact the Novell sales/partners people, they should be able to give you the lowdown

Shriramana Sharma wrote:

Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 19:31 samaye Berni Elbourn alekhiit:

...

You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service).

The main question for me as a service provider is to ask if I can provide downloaded Suse to my customers as part of an installation or support service?

Can you elucidate this? Do you run a computer service company which answers support calls and runs out to the customer's site and fixes their problem? You wish to convert your customers to SUSE Linux along the way?

Now I am no lawyer, and certainly not Novell/SUSE's lawyer, but what exactly would "bundle or combine" mean? In my layperson viewpoint, the second clause is inserted to avoid a possible loophole in the first clause. The first clause only says that one must not receive consideration for giving someone a copy of SUSE Linux. Company XYZ says: "**Free** SUSE Linux along with our Annual Maintenance Contract". It contends that it is not receiving any consideration for the SUSE Linux part. But it is using SUSE Linux as a carrot attached to its AMC to lure customers in. IMHO this is what Novell is trying to prevent. You must neither sell copies of SUSE Linux for money, nor include SUSE Linux as a part of any package which you sell for money, **even if** the SUSE Linux part of the package is advertised as free.

So unless we know the exact nature of your service and how SUSE Linux is connected with it, we cannot comment further on your situation, I am afraid.

Shriramana.

I don't believe this to be correct. You might want to contact Novell, but AFAIK you CAN *give* OpenSUSE away but not charge for it. You can also give it away separately, and then charge for support separately. RP

Okies, here's my short comment on this issue: 1. Berni, you work for non profits, so do I. The license says: "You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within Your Organization." I say: Get someone from that non profit to download OpenSUSE for use within their organization. You will provide the additional value added services that will allow them to make proper use of OpenSUSE. It's a simple business model that I realize you guys have failed to think of. In my opinion it falls very nicely under the license quoted below. I will do the same for my non profits. Stop whining and think. Why would you provide OpenSUSE as part of your support if you provide it freely? If you provided it freely anyways, why would you care if it's you downloading the software and distributing it within that organization or is someone from that organization doing it within the legal boundaries of that organization? You offer your installation/support service anyway and charge for it and this part doesn't change regardless of the way that OpenSUSE reaches within that organization. And another one: If you wanna make Novell/SUSE part of your business, benefit from its branding and from its added value, simply become an authorized Novell Business Partner. This will allow you to use the Novell/SUSE brand and also to re-sell it. Daniel Berni Elbourn wrote:

Here's the statement which everyone must agree to while installing:

"The Software is a collective work of Novell. You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service). The term "Organization" means a legal entity, excluding subsidiaries and affiliates with a separate existence for tax purposes or for legal personality purposes. An example of an Organization in the private sector would be a corporation, partnership, or trust, excluding any subsidiaries or affiliates of the organization with a separate tax identification number or company registration number. In the public sector, an example of Organization would be a specific government body or local government authority."

The main question for me as a service provider is to ask if I can provide downloaded Suse to my customers as part of an installation or support service?

I did have this permission from the previous Suse organisation which is why I am here now!

Berni

Berni, Berni Elbourn wrote:

Daniel Secareanu wrote:

...

Okies, here's my short comment on this issue:

1. Berni, you work for non profits, so do I. The license says:

"You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within Your Organization."

I say: Get someone from that non profit to download OpenSUSE for use within their organization. You will provide the additional value added services that will allow them to make proper use of OpenSUSE. It's a simple business model that I realize you guys have failed to think of. In my opinion it falls very nicely under the license quoted below. I will do the same for my non profits. Stop whining and think.

Novell and everyone here have invested a lot in OpenSuSE, and have placed the distribution boundary as described in the whole document. You should respect that.

I acknowledge the effort that Novell/SUSE has been putting and is putting in these projects, and believe it or not, I have purchased SUSE products to support this (both professional and enterprise). I do respect Novell/SUSE efforts and I don't think that what I suggested is dis considering them. I was just suggesting a model that will allow you to continue to offer value added services based on SUSE Linux products while abiding by the license of the product.

...

Why would you provide OpenSUSE as part of your support if you provide it freely? If you provided it freely anyways, why would you care if it's you downloading the software and distributing it within that organization or is someone from that organization doing it within the legal boundaries of that organization? You offer your installation/support service anyway and charge for it and this part doesn't change regardless of the way that OpenSUSE reaches within that organization.

I do care, and just seem to have more consideration for Novell and their terms. I wish you good luck with your approach.

Thank you. I do consider myself lucky. I have migrated two of my NGO's at server side to an almost 100% SUSE Linux based solution. I'm running a SUSE Linux User's portal in my spare time and through voluntary efforts, promoting the brand and the products and trying to create a local community. I do label all my projects "suse powered" with links to SUSE Linux page (free marketing for Novell/SUSE).

...

And another one: If you wanna make Novell/SUSE part of your business, benefit from its branding and from its added value, simply become an authorized Novell Business Partner. This will allow you to use the Novell/SUSE brand and also to re-sell it.

A point well made. Novell partnering is 1500EUR+VAT. My turnover can not tolerate that kind of investment so its not an option.

This is also in my plan. I do intend to become an authorized Novell Business Partner starting 2006 because I do believe in Novell/SUSE Linux as a business.

Berni

Daniel

On Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:28, houghi wrote:

That is what I read. You read something else and choose to leave. I wish you all the best with any other dirstibution. Don't forget to unsubscribe.

The License you agree upon installation on says: <cut> The Software is a collective work of Novell. You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service). The term "Organization" means a legal entity, excluding subsidiaries and affiliates with a separate existence for tax purposes or for legal personality purposes. An example of an Organization in the private sector would be a corporation, partnership, or trust, excluding any subsidiaries or affiliates of the organization with a separate tax identification number or company registration number. In the public sector, an example of Organization would be a specific government body or local government authority. </cut> look at part 2... j -- Jonas Helgi Palsson "Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO is the answer." -Erik Naggum

On Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:40, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

2005/10/11, Jonas Helgi Palsson :

...

2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service).

That's a real problem for me, I'm directing a project to install free of cost suse linux in a lot o hardware stores, that in an effort to compete with a MS bundle denominated "Mi primer PC" which have Windows Starter Edition and encarta for a low cost.

You are saying that i can't install suse on those machines because is a bundle ??? even if we are installing this free of cost ??

--

Hi - since this is all very technical I would recommend to just ask Novell/SuSE directly if you are allowed to re-distribute SuSE (as opposed to individual S/W packages) for your specific case. That would clarify the situation immediately and stop all rumours and attempts to translate the license by non experts on legalities (note I am also not an expert and I am also not affiliated with SuSE or Novell). gl -- Günter Lichtenberg ========>mailto:lichten@sron.nl

Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 20:06 samaye Berni Elbourn alekhiit:

Now that Suse is supposed to be open I beg your indulgence to have this clarified in the open as it were.

The "open" in openSUSE refers to that now the community can participate in the development of the software, which was not the case till now. I don't know of any other "openness" in openSUSE. Oh yeah, they offer a separate OSS edition now, devoid of non-opensource packages, but that may just be a coincidence.

Renegade Penguin wrote:

Sell your services separately, give OpenSUSE away freely. This is indeed a valid method of complying with the license.

Also, if the same licensing clause applies in the paid version of SUSE, the same methodology applies. In that case, SELL the software separately from the services. Unbundling the two manages to satisfy all conditions quite nicely.

It's good to note that Berni has been a customer of SUSE for years. Good too see people supporting Open Source companies.

RP

I can see what your saying and I am sure this can happen. However, the intention of the license is to stop this so we should. Shouldn't we be good peeps and do as we are told? Berni

I would say that it was good for Berni to raise the issue: he firmly believes there's a legal issue for him. We've all responded and provided fairly prudent input and advice. It's tough to just say "contact someone at Novell" b/c who do you contact? I honestly don't see Novell giving Berni legal advice - it would be nice though to see a legal FAQ similar to other open distro's but can I imagine an attorney at Novell responding to any/all legal questions... not likely, nor would I expect them to. Regardless, the issue he raises applies to any distribution... I fail to see how this is an OpenSuse-specific problem or a "gotcha" from Novell - which is what he was implying. What other distro will he turn to that doesn't own its own trademarks? Pascal Bleser wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Berni Elbourn wrote:

...

Renegade Penguin wrote:

...

Sell your services separately, give OpenSUSE away freely. This is indeed a valid method of complying with the license. Also, if the same licensing clause applies in the paid version of SUSE, the same methodology applies. In that case, SELL the software separately from the services. Unbundling the two manages to satisfy all conditions quite nicely. It's good to note that Berni has been a customer of SUSE for years. Good too see people supporting Open Source companies.

I can see what your saying and I am sure this can happen. However, the intention of the license is to stop this so we should.

Berni, that is *your* *interpretation* of the license. As someone said on the list, contact an official from Novell to confirm or infirm this in your particuliar case, and don't make interpretations of such text while not being a lawyer.

More specifically, a few people have replied quite informative content on this, but it seems you're not reading it, and keep on throwing *your* interpretation of the license at everyone.

It's perfectly fine you raise the question, the outcome would interest me as well, but you did the one thing you shouldn't do. It's ever recurring tactics to pressure people who feel good about the community (openSUSE, in this case), actually like and want to spread the word, invest their time into it, ... by telling them stuff like "it sucks", "if it cannot do blabla then I use yaddayadda", etc... This _is_ offensive. Obviously any constructive criticism is more than welcome, anything that can make both the openSUSE community and the SUSE Linux (OSS or not) distribution better, and basically your request falls into that. But not the way you wrote your mail. Definately not.

- From your mail, I really get the feeling you were pretty much pissed off when you wrote it. That's understandable given the interpretation of the license _you_ are making for yourself. But if you want to be pissed off at someone, contact some Novell sales representative, don't throw that into the openSUSE community's face.

If you want the customer to pay for SUSE Linux, then tell them to buy SUSE Linux boxes themselves. If you want to sell SUSE Linux boxes to them and make money from it, then become a Novell retail partner. If you just want them to have/use SUSE Linux and offer your services based on that, tell them to download the SUSE Linux OSS ISOs or burn them and give'm away yourself. The services you provide have nothing to do with giving away SUSE Linux OSS media.

The one point that would need clarification is the hardware+SUSE Linux combo, i.e. you're selling hardware (PCs, whatever) to your customers, with an added value, and preinstall SUSE Linux on it. I really don't expect any issues when preinstalling SUSE Linux OSS. For SUSE Linux (non-OSS), it might be a different story.

Where do you see a conflict with what is stated in the license ? I mean the *full text*, including the paragraphs Marcus Meissner pointed you to: http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse/2005-Oct/1016.html

And yes, IANAL, and I'm not working for Novell either. So contact a sales representative from Novell to get an "official" statement.

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)

iD8DBQFDTEkAr3NMWliFcXcRAqtnAJ4zivh5O5adbgyWQIZrdrJLX4M34ACgoT46 VECZn5OZWr0On2ARGQ7D8SY= =2zne -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Am Dienstag, 11. Oktober 2005 15:40 schrieb Marcel Mourguiart:

2005/10/11, Jonas Helgi Palsson :

...

2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service).

That's a real problem for me, I'm directing a project to install free of cost suse linux in a lot o hardware stores, that in an effort to compete with a MS bundle denominated "Mi primer PC" which have Windows Starter Edition and encarta for a low cost.

You are saying that i can't install suse on those machines because is a bundle ??? even if we are installing this free of cost ??

Hi Marcel, and you are not allowed to do some marketing with it: ...this great product comes with SUSE LINUX... because you are not allowed to use the term "SUSE LINUX" without permisssion from Novell. The company I former worked for had to change the marketing, eliminating the term "Suse Linux" everywhere. After that they start thinking about another distro to bundle with, but no decision until now (as far as I know). In the "good old days" SuSE was a great distro for the german market. Our product was dedicated only for the german market, so we choose SuSE. And after spreading qt and kde the desktop for the customers became usable (before, if I presented fvwm to the customers, I felt awful about it). But then Novell bought SuSE... -- mdc

Where did you get this license text from? Is this off the OSS distro or GM? What's the file location where I can view it? Jonas Helgi Palsson wrote:

On Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:28, houghi wrote:

...

That is what I read. You read something else and choose to leave. I wish you all the best with any other dirstibution. Don't forget to unsubscribe.

The License you agree upon installation on says: <cut> The Software is a collective work of Novell. You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service). The term "Organization" means a legal entity, excluding subsidiaries and affiliates with a separate existence for tax purposes or for legal personality purposes. An example of an Organization in the private sector would be a corporation, partnership, or trust, excluding any subsidiaries or affiliates of the organization with a separate tax identification number or company registration number. In the public sector, an example of Organization would be a specific government body or local government authority. </cut>

look at part 2...

j

Right, that's the license.txt from the GM version's root directory - where in the OSS distro do you have to comply with that license? Remember, the GM version is the commercial version with other vendor's commercial software included. It makes sense that one has a license requirement that restricts you. Does the OSS distro have this license requirement/text? I'm running 10.0 GM and can't tell if this is also on the OSS... Carl Hartung wrote:

On Tuesday 11 October 2005 10:41, Michael K. Dolan Jr. wrote:

...

Where did you get this license text from? Is this off the OSS distro or GM? What's the file location where I can view it?

It's called "license.txt" and lives in the root directory of the GM cd1 or dvd.

- Carl

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

2005/10/11, Michael K. Dolan Jr. :

Right, that's the license.txt from the GM version's root directory - where in the OSS distro do you have to comply with that license?

I think this is what you are asking for: ftp://ftp4.gwdg.de/pub/opensuse/distribution/SL-10.0-OSS/inst-source/LICENSE.TXT I just have a good lunch and have time to calm down and think about it a little more. I just realizes that i can just delete that licence and use SUSE the way the GPL say´s, why ?? well because, all the media of novell and suse are in fact in rpms package with a GPL licence agreement, so if you make a custom distro using thats gpls package there is nothing Novell can say about it even if have some logos o r media of any kind, the put there the GPL licence not me. You just need to remove the Novell and SUSE media in the "/boot" and probably the "/suse/setup" directories and of curses that's stupid licence agreement. This is a free kind of business, if Novell want to participate, have to learn about what the free word means. --- Marcel Mourguiart

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:14:35AM -0700, Renegade Penguin wrote:

Novell cannot impose any restrictions by taking away anything that the GPL allows.

You indeed can make a custom distro based upon all of the GPL & Open Source software in the source. Whitebox does this with RedHat. Perfectly legal.

Maybe if Novell really doesn't allow redistribution for commercial companies in this manner (and they should be allowed to legally, if I understand correctly) then someone ought to "whitebox" OpenSUSE?

Fucking get a clue folks ... Or at least try reading up to the third paragraph. Let me quote: |The Software is a modular operating system. Most of the components |are open source packages, developed independently, and accompanied by |separate license terms. Your license rights with respect to |individual components accompanied by separate license terms are |defined by those terms; nothing in this Agreement (including, for |example, the "Other License Terms and Restrictions," below) shall |restrict, limit, or otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may |have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license |terms. So basically the brandnames and art of the collection is copyrighted, the packages / RPMs themselves can be freely shared according to their respective licenses. The next paragraph clarifies the use of Novell brandnames: |While the license terms for a component may authorize You to |distribute the component, You may not use any Novell marks (e.g., SUSE |and SUSE LINUX) in distributing the component, whether or not the |component contains Novell marks. So you shall not use "SUSE" or "Novell" when redistributing the RPMs. The paragraph before limits the use of the actual ISO CD sets we offer. Ciao, Marcus (IANAL)

Marcel Mourguiart escribió:

...

So you shall not use "SUSE" or "Novell" when redistributing the RPMs.

Ok, but where ?? in the CD name, the iso name ?? marketing ?? inside the distro ??

I think that restriction apply if you want to create a product based on SUSE Linux (ie. a new distribution) Fedora , Redhat , Madriva and other distros has the **same ** copyright notice ¡¡

I'm asking because is easy to remove the suse name from the cd name or iso, but is a little tricky to do the same for every packages from SUSE ( Yast,

Yast is GPL.

kde-suse,

KDE suse is QPL licensed etc ) that's have the word SUSE or Novell inside, all this package

are GPLd so can use it or i can not.

every package has it's own license terms.. BTW.. this does not seems to apply where you (I) live Marcel ( Chile )

2005/10/11, Anders Johansson :

On Tuesday 11 October 2005 23:33, Cristian Rodriguez wrote:

...

...

kde-suse,

KDE suse is QPL licensed

If you're referring to kdebase3-SuSE, that's GPL as far as I can see, but note that it doesn't apply to the various logos and trademarks that this package (and others) contains

I don't found nothing in the GPL licence that indicate that the logos and trademark doesn't apply: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html If that was the intention of SUSE they make a mistake choosing a GPL licence for package with media included -- Marcel Mourguiart

2005/10/11, Michael K. Dolan Jr. :

Guys, LOGOS AND TRADEMARKS (Trademark Law) cannot be GPL'd (Copyright Law). They will always be owned by an entity and under Trademark law, that owner MUST enforce compliance or else they loose their rights to the trademark. (See all the Australian / use of Linux press articles, Linus' explanation, etc). It's a simple matter of protecting the names/trademarks. So for instance, MSFT can't start distributing Suse Linux next week - something the trademark owner would obviously like to protect/prevent.

Take a look at Whitebox Linux: They take Red Hat's distro, strip the logos/trademarks, and repackage it. It's that simple. This is no different with Suse than with Red Hat or Ubuntu or Gentoo (yes, Ubuntu/Debian/Gentoo all own their trademarks and are no different). Why is this so difficult to understand? It does not prevent you from doing anything but violate Novell and Suse's trademarks. Meaning, you cannot sell Novell branded CD/DVD's to a company using Novell's name and Trademarks.

So no, you will never see anything in the GPL that affects trademark law protected things like Logos. It just can't/will never happen. The OSS Distro has only GPL/FOSS licensed works as far as I've read so there should be no problems here - just don't infringe on the marks.

And no I do not work for Novell/Suse. I'm just calling it as it is.

Ok, but I have never see that probed in court, have you ? And if not probedit in court at least it should be written in some place, it is ?? For example what you call logos trademark I can easily called art work. What you are saying is that I can't sell a CD and called SUSE or Novell, I agree with that, but what about the SUSE and Novell logos that come inside the cdrom in a GPLd package, package that have been gpld for SUSE/Novell it self. -- Marcel Mourguiart

2005/9/30, Renegade Penguin :

You obviously do not understand trademarks OR. copyright. Here's an example:

Go put Microsoft "artwork" as you call it onto OpenSUSE. Watch how fast MS would sue for trademark infringement as well as copyright infringement.

Show me a package made it by Microsoft and with a GPLd licence and maybe i will. Trademarks can exist just as well as copyrights.

Further, Novell can copyright AND trademark artwork. Copyright exists at creation of artwork, and does not become immediately GPL'd just because you release most software under the GPL.

Last paragraph in section 2: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License."

"on a volume of a storage or distribution medium" Again I'm not speaking about the logos on the CD and outside the rpm package, I'm speaking about the ones inside the gpl package made it by Novell/SUSE and I don't pretend to freely use the logos inside i going to used just installing the rpm, not calling the entire product SUSE o Novell. In other words, I'm going to use the package exactly in the way the licence indicate. And you miss this part: "*0.* This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License." In this case the art work ( because it doesn't have the (t) sign ) is inside the package, which is marked like GPL by Novell/Suse. So where exactly says that i can't use the entire package and only portions of it ?? My friend if you were right suse, novell and every body will need to ask permition to every gpld software maker because it have a logo and a brand name inside. -- Marcel Mourguiart

2005/10/11, Anders Johansson :

On Wednesday 12 October 2005 02:45, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

...

And you miss this part: "*0.* This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."

Which part of "copyright does not apply to trademarks" don't you understand?

...

So where exactly says that i can't use the entire package and only portions of it ??

From the license

While the license terms for a component may authorize You to distribute the component, You may not use any Novell marks (e.g., SUSE and SUSE LINUX) in distributing the component, whether or not the component contains Novell marks.

...

My friend if you were right suse, novell and every body will need to ask permition to every gpld software maker because it have a logo and a

brand

...

name inside.

Show me a package that has a registered trademark where the owner doesn't allow redistribution where Novell hasn't acquired permission to do so

I think you miss the point, the think is what about if SUSE don't have permission but the package is market like gpl by the developer the own the logo. And I don't have the complete list of suse where the use of third party logos are allowed to be used by SUSE, but any way just take a look to the icons, have some interesting logos: Staroffice American Online Debian Quiktime Real Player ( in OSS too ) Microsoft ( see in Mime ones ) You are saying that SUSE have in fact permision to use ALL this logos in OSS a retail vertion ?? even the Microsft one ?? or used because the crystal package have a GPL kind of licence ( actually is lgpl ) ?? But again that's not point, because that's logos are not owned by Everaldo. -- Marcel Mourguiart

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:43:31PM -0300, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

I understand that perfectly, know can you show a legal real life example probe it court when your words are not just air ?? And please with a GPL copyright agreement.

Wether or not something has come up in court is irrelevat to the fact as to wether or not it is legal. At least this is the case in the country I live in. 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 Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:23:59PM -0300, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

I think a law that's just says "copyright does not apply to trademarks" is enough.

Well, obviously. Also most companies will not evem think starting a lawcase over this, because it is so obvious.

By the way according to US laws a trademark need to be mark with the (R) logo or (TM) ( the (TM) is used if you are not finished registering it ). All the SUSE logos in the RPM package doesn't have the (R) or (TM) sight, so they are in fact art work legally speaking.

IANAL I saw no such claim on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark What I see is that the TM is used to claim certain rights and a ® to show it has been Registerd. So it is much clearer for others and therefore much easier enforcable. It does not mean that an absence of the symbols take away the trade mark or the registration. However they are copyrighted by default and thus can not be used in a normal way. Copyright is obtained by default. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright (a very small part, Please read the rest. I just take the US part, as Novell is a US company) [...]a copyright need not be granted or obtained through official registration with the government. Once an idea has been reduced to material form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium [...] the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. [...] And Absence of the copyright symbol does not mean that the work is not protected by copyright. And A copyright notice is no longer required for a work to be covered by copyright in jurisdictions which have acceded to the Berne Convention. Also (C), (R) and (TM) are not the way to do this. It must be ©, ® and the other symbol or it must be written in full. On many places you see: (C) Copyright 2005. This is the same (legally) as Copyright 2005 or as putting in nothing nowadays. 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

Marcel, absolutely not true. I'm an attorney in the U.S. I'm just catching up on email so maybe someone else already said this... On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 23:23 -0300, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

2005/10/11, houghi :

...

By the way according to US laws a trademark need to be mark with the (R) logo or (TM) ( the (TM) is used if you are not finished registering it ). All the SUSE logos in the RPM package doesn't have the (R) or (TM) sight, so they are in fact art work legally speaking.

-- Marcel Mourguiart

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:05:20PM -0400, Allen wrote:

Ummmm, I don't think it's ever been a to secret report that SUSE is from Germany, and the GmBH part, is the same thing as the TM is here.

Actually, "GmbH" is the same thing as LLC in the USA. Nearly a word perfect translation, even. Rasmus

I top posted, just too say that the cuted text is already responded in a previous mail. I think you can copy the kdebase3-SuSE package verbatim freely, but not

include the trademarks in any changed version you create

I don't want to change the kdebase3-SuSE package, i'm removing and adding others packages. As for the logos you mention, I don't know if they are registered marks or

not, I would assume that either they are not, or that the respective company's trademark policy allows such use, since the Novell legal department is generally quite careful about these things. But I don't know for sure

Of curse they are careful, in fact normally is illegal to use the (R) or (TM) logo in a country where you don't have those trademarks appropriate registered, so SUSE is protecting it sefl in this case, because is a global product, but the prize ( i think but not really sure ) is that when you don't mark with (R) or (TM) your logo or your brand name, it doesn't been protected by the trademark laws, this is a obligation not an optional, at least that why a remember to have read is some place. -- Marcel Mourguiart

On Wednesday 12 October 2005 00:52, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

Ok, but I have never see that probed in court, have you ?

If you've never seen trademark law upheld in court you can't have looked very hard. As a quick example, have a look on the internet for "Microsoft corp. v. Lindows". It's a nice and fairly topical case of trademark infringement. Somewhat controversial perhaps, but still a display of a court upholding trademark law. Not the first one, and it won't be the last.

For example what you call logos trademark I can easily called art work.

trademarks are registered, unlike copyright. You can call it what you like, but if it's been registered as a trademark it won't matter, it will still be protected by trademark law.

We seem to be in sync Anders... I beat you by 1 minute though :) Anders Johansson wrote:

On Wednesday 12 October 2005 00:22, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

...

I don't found nothing in the GPL licence that indicate that the logos and trademark doesn't apply: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

For the final time: the GPL is a copyright license. A copyright license covers copyright. At no time will it ever cover trademarks in any way, shape or form. The trademarks have to be protected or they will fall into the public domain. You can't even use the trademark "linux" as you choose, it's just the way the law works.

...

If that was the intention of SUSE they make a mistake choosing a GPL licence for package with media included

Everything where copyright applies is covered by the GPL. Copyright doesn't apply to trademarks, so neither does the GPL. Ever. For anyone. Not even Debian or the FSF.

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

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:41:55PM -0400, Michael K. Dolan Jr. wrote:

We seem to be in sync Anders... I beat you by 1 minute though :)

I still declare him the winner, because you cheat by top posting. 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

Great use of swearing at us from SUSE people. Just the sort of public response we all like. Marcus Meissner wrote:

Fucking get a clue folks ...

houghi wrote:

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:09:51PM +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:

The majority of programs on this CD falls under the GNU General Public License (GPL). This license can be found in the file "COPYING".

That is what I read. You read something else and choose to leave. I wish you all the best with any other dirstibution. Don't forget to unsubscribe.

houghi

Good to hear from you. Houghi, this is not my choice if my business for non-profits is to continue. I have also been a loyal business customer of Suse for years. However, it seems Novell are intentionally or not prevented me using Suse for services. Given the confusion on this matter I'll hang around for some clarification. Is that ok with you? Berni

houghi wrote:

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 03:17:01PM +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:

...

Given the confusion on this matter I'll hang around for some clarification. Is that ok with you?

What do you want? In your first mail you wrote: <q> Goodbye Suse good luck for the future, and thanks for all the fish, </q>

I presently support a lot of original Suse so that will continue for a while. However, reselling Suse and OpenSuse 10 is problematic. So it is goodbye in that sense. Your probably right though at some time soon I will have to unsubscribe.

That made me think you wanted to leave. Now you want to stay and wait for clarification? Why not contact Novell and YOU bring us the clarifucation?

I can try other channels so please hold your breath. ;-)

houghi

Berni