On 01/03/10 22:53, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
On 03/01/2010 12:30 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
The bottom line is: if someone were to sue openSUSE
for whatever reason,
who would they be suing in a court of law? Novell or some nebulus entity
called "the board" created by.....[aha, the "community", right!]?
I don't see opensuse.org
as an institution which can be sued right
because it's lacking a legal status but again IANAL.
The unfortunate part of all this is that I have not yet come across
anyone (except one person in private messages) who has bothered to
question the whole setup and has come to then ask: who *CAN *be sued if
someone wants to sue openSUSE.org
or "the Board"?
Why do we have to care about people who don't know whom to sue?
I really don't get it.
Because there is a need for a legal entity which is responsible for the
product the entity produces.
(If you go out and tell people that you can fix their computers or
install software for them and charge them for doing so, then when things
go wrong a person who accepted your services has recourse to the law for
damages if what you did damaged his/her equipment/system/data. Which is
why there is a special insurance category covering this type of a
service. Unless, of course, if you are..........."nudge, nudge, wink,
wink, say no more".)
Compare it with other open source projects. Quite some
don't have a
company behind or any other organization. Now what is the problem with that?
I would be most grateful if you could tell me the names of these entities.
The question is for _what_ do you need an
A good question. An organisation has to have an aim, a set of rules, to
which it aspires.
And there has to be some sort of a managerial structure which attempts
to make the organisation attain those aims/goals.
There are some
reasons and that's why the board is now looking into becoming a real
organization for that reasons.
So, until now all it has been is "smoke and mirrors" but no real
'organisation", nor 'management' to manage this "organisation",
The "board is now looking into becoming a real organization for that
Novell bought S.U.S.E. in 2003.
And it is now that that the "board" is "looking into becoming a real
Sounds most reasonable to me, 7 years on...........
I don't think that they (or we) need an
organization to get sued.
Of course not. How can an non-existing "organisation" get sued?
But Novell can, as a publicly listed company and subject to the
Companies Act, or whatever it is called in the U.S.A. - and as the owner
list of Board members listed there as Board members.
I did and that's why I said there are 3 Novell and 3 non-Novell people.
Nothing more. You claimed other facts before.
I have read, and re-read the description of the board. So far the only
member of the board - past or present - who is not listed as an employee
or past employee of Novell is Pascal Bleser.
A "stacked deck" wouldn't you say?
But then, I may be reading things in a different version and in the
Did you not
see the specific reference that Novell appoints the
chairperson of that board - or am I also mistaken about that?
No, that's right. And now what?
"And now what?"?
6 members of the board. 3 members are Novell members - and the chairman
is appointed by Novell.
Work it out :-) .
If you compare the amount of work which
gets into openSUSE you will most likely find that Novell is the biggest
contributor and founder of the project. So I don't find it strange that
Novell has more weight in the project as for example I do.
What does this have to do with the overall argument? :-)
If "you" all stopped denying that Novell has full control over openSUSE
and stop trying to foist down the throats of people that openSUSE is a,
so called, *COMMUNITY* owned and run piece of software then there would
not be any hassles! :-)
BTW, I am not
arguing with, or contradicting, you, or anyone else who
may be responding to this thread. I am simply pointing out what I think
are relevant matters about the ownership of openSUSE, which many people
appear not to accept and then argue that Novell does not own openSUSE
but that some mythical "community" actually owns openSUSE.
Feel free to "fork" openSUSE give it a different name and be
Apparently most of us don't feel enough pain of Novell's presence in the
project to do that. Do you?
Oh gosh, the usual "Novell/openSuSE" inane argument :-) .
Nobody wants to "fork" oS nor give it a different name. Nor is anyone
denying that Novell owns openSUSE - EXCEPT those who....oh, I won't
waste my time of this as I have already mentioned it.
People in the
"community" *CONTRIBUTE* to the development of openSUSE -
which is then used as input into SUSE ENTERPRISE - but openSUSE, and
SUSE Enterprise, is owned by Novell and is responsible for it.
The name openSUSE is owned by Novell. Yeah, that's true and might change
at some point. Not sure.
Thank you. "openSUSE is owned by Novell".
"Yeah,....and might change at some point."
I think that it may well change sooner than "some point" - but what do I
I still don't get it.
(I don't either. :-) )
A boiled egg is hard to beat.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org