* Marcus Meissner
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 10:01:18AM +0800, Marguerite Su wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Joschi Brauchle
wrote: Hello,
I would also like to express my vote to keep Adobe Reader available in an openSUSE customized version! Maybe not in NON-OSS repo, but possibly in packman?
Hi, guys,
I would like to mention the basic design theory of Packman:
1. it's a separate project from openSUSE. eg, building packages for openSUSE project doesn't mean they're the same. 2. it's an open source project. it aims to "workaround" for open source multimedia projects that upstream warned about potential pa*ent violations.
So a known commercial proprietary product isn't able to be in Packman, esp. when it needs a new redistribution promission from Adobe. The previous permission was issued to SUSE Linux and openSUSE. But not for Packman. And Packman isn't able to accquire such permission, I think. I don't know how exactly Packman is designed to be a firewall in law, but it's common sense, if you're able to receive something from a company, of course you're able to receive summon from a court too. So I think maybe a non-existent-in-law project isn't an entity for just deals. Meanwhile, as Adobe declared unmaintenance itself, of course it will not issue such permissions after that.
License is not a big issue for Adobe Reader.
It requires a click-through shrinkwrap license. So having a license confirmation dialog is sufficient.
No special contracts requried according to our understanding for Adobe Reader.
Huh? From the Adobe Reader Licensing Agreement: 3.3 Distribution. This license does not grant you the right to sublicense or distribute the Software. For information about obtaining the right to distribute the Software on tangible media or through an internal network or with your product or service please refer to http://www.adobe.com/go/acrobat_distribute for information about Adobe Reader; or http://www.adobe.com/go/licensing for information about the Adobe Runtimes. On http://www.adobe.com/products/reader/distribution.html you can apply for a license to distribute the reader under the following terms: 3.2 Distribution. Distributor may: [...] (c) Distribute the Software, with the exception of ARH, as a part of or with Distributor Product or Distributor Service (i) through electronic means such as electronic download --including, without limitation, electronic software download-- for example bundled in Distributor’s installer, which in turn, is downloaded through the Internet and (ii) on physical media (such as CD-ROMs, DVDs, hard disk, etc.). (d) Distribute ARH only (i) as bundled with the Distributor Product or Service and (ii) (y) through electronic means such as electronic download --including, without limitation, electronic software download-- for example bundled in Distributor's installer, which in turn, is downloaded through the Internet and (z) on physical media (such as CD-ROMs, DVDs, hard disk, etc.). In all cases the Software is to be distributed in complete form and only for purposes of complete installation and use by the end user. The Software shall not be configured or distributed for use without installation. So that would not allow the package in its current form to be distributed either, furthermore there is no legal entity behind Packman which could negotiate a custom license to distribute and even if there were this would pose a problem for mirrors. Apart from that it will not enter Packman for the same reason it was removed from openSUSE so this whole discussion is growing increasingly pointless. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org