It's not FSF's definition of free software (yast2 that is) because you can't modify and resell it. So you will most likely never convince them of anything..even the sky being blue. I read an article today where RMS slammed Unitied Linux and associated the whole thing with what Ransom Love and Caldera do..he didn't even read SuSE's stance on it. I think 9-10 the FSF guys are the worst fundamentalist part of the who Open Source community. :( * Chris Herrnberger (chris123@magma.ca) [020613 17:55]: ::Greetings all: :: ::I have found my self in the uneviable position of having to defend SuSE ::licensing requirements vis a vis FSF and OSI to members of our lug. It did ::not start out this way rather a general discussion on GLP licensing ::requirements, then the SuSE slamming started and I got caught in the middle. ::Not smart. :: ::At this time there is one simple question that I have. Given the following: :: ::Yast copyright.english: :: ::3. Dissemination :: ::It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have ::been reproduced without authorization for payment without the prior ::written consent of SuSE GmbH or SuSE Linux. Distribution of ::the YaST 2 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. :: ::Is it permissable to copy purchased ISO's for redistribution to LUG members ::for a nominal handling fee? (eg: the price or the CD ) :: ::My reading of the above is that there is no issue at all as the fee is only ::applied to modified versions of YAST2 and derivative products ie: ::re-engineered products. However, what has been the interpretation and ::acceptable practice in the past wrt to SuSE's position or interpretation of ::the above. -=Ben --=====-----=====-- mailto:ben@whack.org --=====-- If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. -GC --=====-----=====--