[opensuse] Novell GPL violation thread on Groklaw
Hi all, It has caught my attention the following subthread in latest groklaw article ("A Protective Order in Novell & a Tiny Delay in IBM"), from a post titled "GPL 2 or 3 an interesting dilemma" on the OT thread. http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060803232955625&title=GPL+2+or+3+an+interesting+dilemma&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=468819#c468827 It seems to imply that Novell has violated the GPL big way with the boxed SuSE 10.1 distribution. Quoting: But there are bigger issues than which version of the GPL to use, such as what to do about suppliers of boxed distros who don't even mention the source code in their manual, far less where to get it, and don't supply it on the DVD. Actually, they probably do supply sufficient kernel source to be able to compile the interface to the Nvidia driver, but that is all, and yet they appear to be taking the moral high ground by refusing to supply anything directly that is not GPL compatible, while all the time they themselves are in violation. I do of course mean Novell, whose actions I no longer trust, and whose products I no longer use, especially as SuSE 10.1 was very badly broken. So, is Novell really violating the GPL with SuSE 10.1? -- Don't see the world through a window, be open{source}minded, and be free :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
Hi, Miguel Angel Alvarez schrieb:
So, is Novell really violating the GPL with SuSE 10.1?
Could you please elaborate a bit more? Which sources of which package are missing or told to be missing? Andreas Hanke --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 06 August 2006 09:07, Andreas Hanke wrote:
Hi,
Miguel Angel Alvarez schrieb:
So, is Novell really violating the GPL with SuSE 10.1?
Could you please elaborate a bit more? Which sources of which package are missing or told to be missing?
Andreas Hanke
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that would be all the sources to all the programs supplied, Andreas. Although they are still available via download, there is no mention of such in the box nor are there any sources included with the release as the GPL specifies there should be, if I'm not mistaken. regards, Lee --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
Hi, BandiPat schrieb:
there is no mention of such in the box
"find /usr/share/doc/packages -name COPYING | head" returns: /usr/share/doc/packages/gnome-icon-theme/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/yast2-schema/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/yast2-trans-de/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/tango-icon-theme/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/audiofile/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/cabextract/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/dosfstools/dosfsck/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/dosfstools/mkdosfs/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/ethtool/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/expat/COPYING And these are only the first 10 ones.
nor are there any sources included with the release as the GPL specifies there should be
The GPL does not specify that.
if I'm not mistaken.
You are mistaken. The GPL requires that the sources must be offered, it even allows charging a fee for that. And they are offered: http://www.novell.com/de-de/products/suselinux/source_code.html After reading the post on groklaw again, I still don't understand it and actually I think the user made this post because he hates SUSE 10.1 quality and now searches for reasons to make a little bit of noise, not more. Andreas Hanke --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 06 August 2006 09:59, Andreas Hanke wrote:
Hi,
BandiPat schrieb:
there is no mention of such in the box
"find /usr/share/doc/packages -name COPYING | head" returns:
/usr/share/doc/packages/gnome-icon-theme/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/yast2-schema/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/yast2-trans-de/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/tango-icon-theme/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/audiofile/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/cabextract/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/dosfstools/dosfsck/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/dosfstools/mkdosfs/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/ethtool/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/expat/COPYING
And these are only the first 10 ones. ======== And these are located where? Are they listed in the manual that comes with the box, on the box or simply somewhere that a new or old user wouldn't think to look? I know they are available, but it should be very well listed where they can be obtained, not hidden.
[...]
The GPL requires that the sources must be offered, it even allows charging a fee for that. And they are offered:
http://www.novell.com/de-de/products/suselinux/source_code.html ======== Yes, the fact that a charge could be obtained for SuSE sending them out to a user requesting them was known when they didn't arrive with 10.0. But unlike 10.0, 10.1 wasn't made available as a DVD iso either.
After reading the post on groklaw again, I still don't understand it and actually I think the user made this post because he hates SUSE 10.1 quality and now searches for reasons to make a little bit of noise, not more.
Andreas Hanke
--------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't really think it was a barb at SuSE generally, but like many here, the writer was apparently quite disappointed with 10.1 and it's many problems. I think we all have reason to be concerned with the direction Novell is taking SuSE at the moment, as does the writer. Outward appearances seem to indicate some bad choices on Novell's part and if they continue in that manner, well, I don't think I need to spell it out.
regards, Lee --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
Hi, BandiPat schrieb:
And these are located where?
Another file named COPYING is in the root directory of CD1...
Are they listed in the manual that comes with the box, on the box or simply somewhere that a new or old user wouldn't think to look? I know they are available, but it should be very well listed where they can be obtained, not hidden.
Do you really interpret the GPL in such a way that the users can setup rules how prominently and where the sources availability must be advertised?
Yes, the fact that a charge could be obtained for SuSE sending them out to a user requesting them was known when they didn't arrive with 10.0. But unlike 10.0, 10.1 wasn't made available as a DVD iso either.
I don't actually understand this paragraph. The media used to distribute the source packages doesn't need to be an ISO. The binary distribution is available as DVD ISO and for the sources a legally not required DVD ISO is available via jigdo: http://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/ftp.suse.com/people/cthiel/jigdo-test
I don't really think it was a barb at SuSE generally, but like many here, the writer was apparently quite disappointed with 10.1 and it's many problems. I think we all have reason to be concerned with the direction Novell is taking SuSE at the moment, as does the writer.
But spreading rumours about a GPL violation is not an appropriate way to express such concerns. Things like this can cause major problems for a Linux distributor because some people will always believe it even if it's not true. The GPL is not meant to be a weapon against companies who sold you buggy software - actually the GPL is the exact opposite, a disclaimer of warranty. I simply don't believe this person that he doesn't know where to get the sources from. He just insists on being offered the sources in a specific form mainly in order to have something to criticize.
Outward appearances seem to indicate some bad choices on Novell's part and if they continue in that manner, well, I don't think I need to spell it out.
Yes, and one of these bad, very much criticized choices we discussed on this list shortly ago has very much to do with better GPL compliance, why don't people appreciate it? Andreas Hanke --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
Andreas Hanke wrote:
Miguel Angel Alvarez schrieb:
So, is Novell really violating the GPL with SuSE 10.1?
Could you please elaborate a bit more? Which sources of which package are missing or told to be missing?
I've seen this reasoning before. According to GPL V2 §3, you need to either ship the source code with the binary code, or you need to accompany the binary code with a written statement where or how to get the corresponding source code. It seems as if people who bought the box version of SUSE Linux 10.1 couldn't find any written information in the box where to get the source for the packages that make up SUSE Linux 10.1. Therefore, they argue that SUSE Linux 10.1 might violate the GPL. I have no box version of 10.1 - I am not using 10.1 at all -, so I don't know whether these people are right or wrong. I just try to clarify the background of these allegations. Cheers, Th. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
I have no box version of 10.1 - I am not using 10.1 at all -, so I don't know whether these people are right or wrong. I just try to clarify the background of these allegations.
Fact is that 10.1 came without a Source DVD. I was not too pleased with that (you don't want to pull a DVD over 56k), though from a commercial POV, saving the cost for an extra DVD is an acceptable reason. Though, I have not seen such an offer in the box (I did not look into every line of the printed manual though). Jan Engelhardt -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
El Domingo, 6 de Agosto de 2006 17:12, Thomas Hertweck escribió:
Andreas Hanke wrote:
Miguel Angel Alvarez schrieb:
So, is Novell really violating the GPL with SuSE 10.1?
Could you please elaborate a bit more? Which sources of which package are missing or told to be missing?
I've seen this reasoning before. According to GPL V2 §3, you need to either ship the source code with the binary code, or you need to accompany the binary code with a written statement where or how to get the corresponding source code. It seems as if people who bought the box version of SUSE Linux 10.1 couldn't find any written information in the box where to get the source for the packages that make up SUSE Linux 10.1. Therefore, they argue that SUSE Linux 10.1 might violate the GPL.
I think that is the point. I don't have the boxed SUSE 10.1 either, so I can't check it myself. I have had a look in the ftp and there is a file "COPYRIGHT" on the root, which seems inherited from older suse releases and unfortunately has not been updated, as it references ftp.suse.com as source repository (which is not longer true for Free opensuse packages). Stephan said that there is a mention to source code on the bottom side of the box, but what text is there? Are there clear instructions of how to get the source code? Here http://www.novell.com/products/suselinux/source_code.html Novell has put a very nice and clear notice of how to get the sources (so it is clear that Novell is playing nice) but if this notice or a similar one is not printed anywhere on the boxed edition, it would be technically in breach of the GPL (which could easyly fixed by putting a notice or the sources themselves in ftp.suse.com) -- Don't see the world through a window, be open{source}minded, and be free :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Miguel Angel Alvarez wrote: ...
Stephan said that there is a mention to source code on the bottom side of the box, but what text is there? Are there clear instructions of how to get the source code?
There is no mention of sources on the box (10.1, bought in Germany).
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
Hi, On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Miguel Angel Alvarez wrote:
Stephan said that there is a mention to source code on the bottom side of the box, but what text is there? Are there clear instructions of how to get the source code?
There is no mention of sources on the box (10.1, bought in Germany).
Have a look at the small CD/DVD case inside the box. Written clearly at the bottom side, white on green, german plus english: The source code for SUSE Linux 10.1 is available at: www.novell.com/products/suselinux/source_code.html So please no longer run the task of those evil-minded creatures. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
El Lunes, 7 de Agosto de 2006 01:33, Eberhard Moenkeberg escribió:
Hi,
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Miguel Angel Alvarez wrote:
Stephan said that there is a mention to source code on the bottom side of the box, but what text is there? Are there clear instructions of how to get the source code?
There is no mention of sources on the box (10.1, bought in Germany).
Have a look at the small CD/DVD case inside the box. Written clearly at the bottom side, white on green, german plus english:
The source code for SUSE Linux 10.1 is available at: www.novell.com/products/suselinux/source_code.html
So please no longer run the task of those evil-minded creatures. Thanks, now I'm armed to deFUD this one. -- Don't see the world through a window, be open{source}minded, and be free :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
On Aug 07, 06 02:05:52 +0200, Miguel Angel Alvarez wrote:
El Lunes, 7 de Agosto de 2006 01:33, Eberhard Moenkeberg escribió:
Hi,
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Miguel Angel Alvarez wrote:
Stephan said that there is a mention to source code on the bottom side of the box, but what text is there? Are there clear instructions of how to get the source code?
There is no mention of sources on the box (10.1, bought in Germany).
Have a look at the small CD/DVD case inside the box. Written clearly at the bottom side, white on green, german plus english:
The source code for SUSE Linux 10.1 is available at: www.novell.com/products/suselinux/source_code.html
So please no longer run the task of those evil-minded creatures. Thanks, now I'm armed to deFUD this one.
One new item to help deFUD: On the outside of the box there is the URL "www.novell.com/usersupport" This web page has a collection of 'Helpful links', one of these is called 'Source code' ... cheers, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
Juergen Weigert wrote:
[...] On the outside of the box there is the URL "www.novell.com/usersupport" This web page has a collection of 'Helpful links', one of these is called 'Source code' ...
GPL version 2, §3b reads: You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable format [...] provided that you also do one of the following: [...] b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, [...] I am not a lawyer, but I can understand when some people have doubts that a URL on the outside of the box (or on media kit) pointing to a web site which has at the bottom a link (among many other links) that points yet to another web site that points to the source code is a "written offer, valid for at least three years that accompanies the binary packages" in the box... Don't misunderstand me, I do not have a problem with the current situation! But I don't think it's as obvious and clear as some people would like to make us believe. However, if Novell's lawyers are happy with it, there's nothing more to say about it. Cheers, Th. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 20:39, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
Juergen Weigert wrote:
[...] On the outside of the box there is the URL "www.novell.com/usersupport" This web page has a collection of 'Helpful links', one of these is called 'Source code' ...
GPL version 2, §3b reads:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable format [...] provided that you also do one of the following: [...] b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, [...]
I am not a lawyer, but I can understand when some people have doubts that a URL on the outside of the box (or on media kit) pointing to a web site which has at the bottom a link (among many other links) that points yet to another web site that points to the source code is a "written offer, valid for at least three years that accompanies the binary packages" in the box...
Don't misunderstand me, I do not have a problem with the current situation! But I don't think it's as obvious and clear as some people would like to make us believe. However, if Novell's lawyers are happy with it, there's nothing more to say about it.
Cheers, Th.
I don't understand any of this. Are you proposing that Novell intentionally hid the link so that people cannot get to the source code when they wanted it? This I would think not. Or is the problem that the link is too difficult to find, (at least for people un-schooled in the ways of open source)? Not that I would know what such a person could do with the source code anyway. But if that is your complaint then a short not on the list saying "Could you make the link to the source code more obvious for un-initiated persons?" would be in order. But the so called Journalist, who claimed SUSE was in violation of the GPL before he even got his facts right was either irresponsible, or most probably malicious. To re-iterate my point: A serious journalist would have confronted Novell with his accusations to see if he had missed a little label on the DVD box or such. But since he didn't he was being either iresponsable or more probably malicious. And if he can throw accusations around, I might as well do so also: Has anybody checked to see if he has a financial connection to a compnay that could profit from such misinformation? Jerry Westrick --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
El Martes, 8 de Agosto de 2006 23:12, Jerry Westrick escribió:
But the so called Journalist, who claimed SUSE was in violation of the GPL before he even got his facts right was either irresponsible, or most probably malicious. Which journalist are you refering to? This thread started about a post by a Growlaw reader To re-iterate my point: A serious journalist would have confronted Novell with his accusations to see if he had missed a little label on the DVD box or such. But since he didn't he was being either iresponsable or more probably malicious.
And if he can throw accusations around, I might as well do so also: Has anybody checked to see if he has a financial connection to a compnay that could profit from such misinformation?
Jerry Westrick
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
-- Don't see the world through a window, be open{source}minded, and be free :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 06 August 2006 14:12, Miguel Angel Alvarez wrote:
who don't even mention the source code in their manual, far less where to
Why in the manual? It's printed on the box with the CDs/DVD (bottom side). Bye, Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
hi all, it may looks like I'm on the wrong way, but ... for a lot of things I'm doing here I need to install the sources of the kernel (and some other stuff that cames drectly from the DVD ). so, the first thing after a fresh install is the install of the kernel sources. aren't that the same as the sources people are talking about ? and if not - what are the diffs ? the same question about all the other sources you can install directly from DVD / ISO / internet - I realy can't see whats missing. btw: I think the GPL gives to mutch room about what can be done and what not. I'm a reader of the german service at heise.de. they often write about the kernel ( + the kernel mailinglist ), the GPL etc, and there are often posts from the developers of the kernel from the mailinglist where two or more people have different claims about what is possible and what not, and what should be done and on what way. so, if even the developer of the kernel don't have all the same agreement with the GPL - how can then others outside the kernel group agree with the GPL on the same way ? (sorry, I can't say it better in my bad english - I hope you understand what I mean .. ). best regards from berlin from the little confust JBScout aka Thomy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
Hi, T. Lodewick schrieb:
it may looks like I'm on the wrong way, but ... for a lot of things I'm doing here I need to install the sources of the kernel (and some other stuff that cames drectly from the DVD ).
so, the first thing after a fresh install is the install of the kernel sources.
You are talking about the kernel-source package. Even though this package contains the source code of the kernel, it is actually, packagemanagement-wise, a binary package and therefore included in the binary installation media.
aren't that the same as the sources people are talking about ? and if not - what are the diffs ? the same question about all the other sources you can install directly from DVD / ISO / internet - I realy can't see whats missing.
The guy who complained just doesn't get the difference between source RPMs and binary RPMs. He saw the kernel-source package, which is on the binary installation media, and concluded that Novell provides only the sources of the kernel and nothing else. This is obviously not the case, the sources of all other packages than the kernel are where the source RPMs are: http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/SL-10.1/inst-source/suse/src Andreas Hanke --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
Andreas Hanke schrieb:
Hi,
T. Lodewick schrieb:
it may looks like I'm on the wrong way, but ... for a lot of things I'm doing here I need to install the sources of the kernel (and some other stuff that cames drectly from the DVD ).
so, the first thing after a fresh install is the install of the kernel sources.
You are talking about the kernel-source package.
Even though this package contains the source code of the kernel, it is actually, packagemanagement-wise, a binary package and therefore included in the binary installation media.
aren't that the same as the sources people are talking about ? and if not - what are the diffs ? the same question about all the other sources you can install directly from DVD / ISO / internet - I realy can't see whats missing.
The guy who complained just doesn't get the difference between source RPMs and binary RPMs. He saw the kernel-source package, which is on the binary installation media, and concluded that Novell provides only the sources of the kernel and nothing else. This is obviously not the case, the sources of all other packages than the kernel are where the source RPMs are:
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/SL-10.1/inst-source/suse/src
Andreas Hanke
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
hi Andreas, thanks for the info - so I'm not on the wrong way :) I've already get the sources from there for a lot of stuff, so I was wondering what the others are talking about. now, thats clear then :) best regards, JBScout aka Thomy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
The media kit (the box with the CDs in it which is inside the SUSE Linux 10.1 box) contains the following sentence "The source code for SUSE Linux 10.1 is available at: www.novell.com/products/suselinux/source_code.html" This should be in compliance with the GPL, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
The media kit (the box with the CDs in it which is inside the SUSE Linux 10.1 box) contains the following sentence "The source code for SUSE Linux 10.1 is available at: www.novell.com/products/suselinux/source_code.html"
This should be in compliance with the GPL,
Andreas The COPYRIGHT file in the CD's still points to ftp.suse.com to get the
El Lunes, 7 de Agosto de 2006 10:13, Andreas Jaeger escribió: sources. So, I suggest updating the file for the upcoming 10.2, and putting a copy of www.novell.com/products/suselinux/source_code.html in ftp.suse.com (suse 10.1 subdirectory). -- Don't see the world through a window, be open{source}minded, and be free :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
participants (12)
-
Andreas Hanke -
Andreas Jaeger -
BandiPat -
Eberhard Moenkeberg -
Jan Engelhardt -
Jerry Westrick -
Juergen Weigert -
Miguel Angel Alvarez -
Pascal Bleser -
Stephan Binner -
T. Lodewick -
Thomas Hertweck