in-house written software, and that is their own decision, and a quite reasonable one.
That's what I understood you to say, and to me, it seems a company who makes it's money selling open source, should make it's installer open source (under at least an OSI approved license) too. This is what every other major Linux distro company has done with their installer program, IIRC.
*3. Dissemination * It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have * been reproduced without authorisation for payment without the prior * written consent of SuSE GmbH or SuSE Linux. Distribution of * the YaST programme, its sources, whether amended or unamended in full * or in part thereof, and the works derived thereof for a charge require * the prior written consent of SuSE GmbH.
I'm trying to figure out this "the works derived thereof for a charge" part. I wonder if that restricts including it on a CD that is charged for (i.e. copying SuSE Linux CD's for resale) - it seems to me this would not be effected by such a license (because you wouldn't be charging for YaST per se).
This most definitely states that YAST is the IP of SuSE GmbH, and not to be done with as you please. It is their choice, and as I see it, a valid point.
It's valid, although I still think it is odd that an open source company doesn't adopt open source licenses for all of their code... I mean, if RedHat had done the same thing on their in-house software, we wouldn't be enjoying RPM like we do.
As I said, you read me completely wrong. I recommend you read slower.
I think you will see I did understand what you meant. Best, Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ============== "Information Powered by Innovation" ==============