Novell's licence for you to use OpenSUSE 10.2
I don't know if the same wording is used in the licence you agreed to when you installed v10.1 but the one which you have to agree to when installing 10.2 (beta1 at least) states, in part: "The software is protected by the copyright laws and treaties of the United Sates. ....." "The software is licenced to You, not sold...." "You may not: (1) reverse engineer, decompile or diassemble the Software except and only to the extent it is expressly permitted by applicable law or the licence terms accompanying a component or the Software; or (2) transfer....." "You understand and agree that Novell may use any feed back or information You provide and You hereby grant Novell a perpetual and irrevocable licence to use all such feedback and information for any purpose without compensation to You, provided that Novell shall not publicly reference Your name in connection therewith..." Aren't these somewhat strange conditions considering with we are dealing with open source here? But the worrying part I am finding is the last condition I quote in light of Novell having gone into bed with M$. Firstly, I don't see any reason why Novell has to know anything about the computer I install the OS on; secondly, you agree to a "perpetual and irrevocable licence" for Novell to use the information; and thirdly (and we already know all about this thru outsourcing), while Novell states that it won't publicly reference 'Your name' there is nothing to state that whoever it passes this information to will be covered by this qualification. Cheers. -- "I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'" George W. Bush 27 August 2004
into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Saturday 04 November 2006 11:16 pm, Basil Chupin wrote:
I don't know if the same wording is used in the licence you agreed to when you installed v10.1 but the one which you have to agree to when installing 10.2 (beta1 at least) states, in part:
"The software is protected by the copyright laws and treaties of the United Sates. ....."
"The software is licenced to You, not sold...."
"You may not: (1) reverse engineer, decompile or diassemble the Software except and only to the extent it is expressly permitted by applicable law or the licence terms accompanying a component or the Software; or (2) transfer....."
This bit was in 10.0 IIRC and, I suspect has to do more w/ "precautionary action when a commercial company and their lawyers who are involved in suchlike things ( there seems to always be a lawyer, or banks and floors of lawyers, where a company listed on the Stock Exchange is involved). <sigh>
"You understand and agree that Novell may use any feed back or information You provide and You hereby grant Novell a perpetual and irrevocable licence to use all such feedback and information for any purpose without compensation to You, provided that Novell shall not publicly reference Your name in connection therewith..."
No big deal here, so LONG as they do NOT release my name and any other personal information
Aren't these somewhat strange conditions considering with we are dealing with open source here?
But the worrying part I am finding is the last condition I quote in light of Novell having gone into bed with M$.
Firstly, I don't see any reason why Novell has to know anything about the computer I install the OS on; secondly, you agree to a "perpetual and irrevocable licence" for Novell to use the information; and thirdly (and we already know all about this thru outsourcing), while Novell states that it won't publicly reference 'Your name' there is nothing to state that whoever it passes this information to will be covered by this qualification.
They "need" information about the computer you actually intend to use the product on , so that they can at least attempt to keep up w/ all the things that may need drivers or ???? It also lets them know what they are doing right and what isn't hitting the mark in their advertising when they know what you put the OS on.. For instance, should thousands of tablet type computers suddenly turn up w/ attempts to install the current system upon, that maybe doesn't quite work as planned and you would like the next release ( at least ) to make all the buttons and swivels and bells and whistles to work, thank you. Work out of the box , thank you very much!! But , if they take no info, w/ or w/o your name and all that personal info.. you could go years before they know you want to run it on, oh the tablet, a hand held, perhaps a phone ??? whatever.. if you as customer don't let them know it's not just suddenly something that popped into your head, but a researched future product potential ( next release or at least next major version release ) and they better get on it most rickytick! Those of us who jumped early into the multi core AMD 64 bit computers have been happily futzing w/ our new versions , including pretty nearly complete 64bit solutions . Had they not taken that info, one would be spending lots of time rolling one's own. Not a thing one would prefer to do for a whole system. -- j itsu demo doko demo
On Saturday 04 November 2006 21:22, jfweber@gilweber.com wrote:
They "need" information about the computer you actually intend to use the product on , so that they can at least attempt to keep up w/ all the things that may need drivers
Is there a shred of evidence this info is even looked at? Tabulated? Summarized? Would open source developers working on OpenSuse need/want/deserve access to this kind of info? So where is it Novell? -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:16, Basil Chupin wrote:
I don't know if the same wording is used in the licence you agreed to when you installed v10.1 but the one which you have to agree to when installing 10.2 (beta1 at least) states, in part:
"The software is protected by the copyright laws and treaties of the United Sates. ....."
Yes, without copyright the GPL is just a text file. The GPL is a copyright license
"The software is licenced to You, not sold...."
"You may not: (1) reverse engineer, decompile or diassemble the Software except and only to the extent it is expressly permitted by applicable law or the licence terms accompanying a component or the Software; or (2) transfer....."
Standard blurb. But most (in the free version all) licenses do allow you to mess with the source, so it doesn't really matter
"You understand and agree that Novell may use any feed back or information You provide and You hereby grant Novell a perpetual and irrevocable licence to use all such feedback and information for any purpose without compensation to You, provided that Novell shall not publicly reference Your name in connection therewith..."
So, if you send in something saying "man, I love this stuff, this is the best thing ever", Novell gets to use it in marketing without having to ask special permission
Aren't these somewhat strange conditions considering with we are dealing with open source here?
No, it's fairly standard
But the worrying part I am finding is the last condition I quote in light of Novell having gone into bed with M$.
huh?
Firstly, I don't see any reason why Novell has to know anything about the computer I install the OS on; secondly, you agree to a "perpetual and irrevocable licence" for Novell to use the information; and thirdly (and we already know all about this thru outsourcing), while Novell states that it won't publicly reference 'Your name' there is nothing to state that whoever it passes this information to will be covered by this qualification.
I don't understand this at all. Really, I don't. If you're that worried about misuse of *feedback*, then don't send any
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:16, Basil Chupin wrote:
]pruned]
Firstly, I don't see any reason why Novell has to know anything about the computer I install the OS on; secondly, you agree to a "perpetual and irrevocable licence" for Novell to use the information; and thirdly (and we already know all about this thru outsourcing), while Novell states that it won't publicly reference 'Your name' there is nothing to state that whoever it passes this information to will be covered by this qualification.
I don't understand this at all. Really, I don't.
If you're that worried about misuse of *feedback*, then don't send any
You obviously haven't tried to install 10.2 beta 1 yet, have you? During the installation, at the part where you have the option to Register the product, try and deselect the first tick-box called (?)Hardware Details (the other 2 I think are called Optional Details and Registration or Certificate Number). You cannot deselect this tick-box and proceed with the installation. If you decide to bypass this stage and Register from the Control Centre after the installation has been completed, you will not be able to complete the 'registration' unless this box is ticked. So, if I don't want to send any info to Novell I don't have to, eh? Cheers. -- "The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done." George W. Bush 4 November 2006
On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:41, Basil Chupin wrote:
You obviously haven't tried to install 10.2 beta 1 yet, have you?
During the installation, at the part where you have the option to Register the product, try and deselect the first tick-box called (?)Hardware Details (the other 2 I think are called Optional Details and Registration or Certificate Number).
You cannot deselect this tick-box and proceed with the installation.
If you decide to bypass this stage and Register from the Control Centre after the installation has been completed, you will not be able to complete the 'registration' unless this box is ticked.
So, if I don't want to send any info to Novell I don't have to, eh?
That would be a bug then. Specifically https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214722 which has already been fixed for beta2 *sigh*, not everything is a plot to subvert humanity, some things are just mistakes. If you find something like this, FILE A BUG
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:41, Basil Chupin wrote:
You obviously haven't tried to install 10.2 beta 1 yet, have you?
During the installation, at the part where you have the option to Register the product, try and deselect the first tick-box called (?)Hardware Details (the other 2 I think are called Optional Details and Registration or Certificate Number).
You cannot deselect this tick-box and proceed with the installation.
If you decide to bypass this stage and Register from the Control Centre after the installation has been completed, you will not be able to complete the 'registration' unless this box is ticked.
So, if I don't want to send any info to Novell I don't have to, eh?
That would be a bug then. Specifically
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214722
which has already been fixed for beta2
*sigh*, not everything is a plot to subvert humanity, some things are just mistakes. If you find something like this, FILE A BUG
<sigh> How is one to know that it is only a bug? Why have all this crap there in the first place? If this section only applies to SLED then take the bloody thing *out* of OpenSUSE and stop confusing people who try and install OpenSUSE for the first time. Simple, no? Cheers. -- "The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done." George W. Bush 4 November 2006
On Sunday 05 November 2006 08:44, Basil Chupin wrote:
<sigh> How is one to know that it is only a bug?
One files a bug, saying it shouldn't work this way, and one is then told whether it is intentional or not.
Why have all this crap there in the first place? If this section only applies to SLED then take the bloody thing *out* of OpenSUSE and stop confusing people who try and install OpenSUSE for the first time. Simple, no?
The statistics are of interest. People should submit it, so the developers can know where to focus their attention. It doesn't contain anything resembling personal information (if you click 'details' you can see exactly what is being sent), but it helps produce a better product in the long run. Resources are always limited, knowing where you should spend your time to make sure it works best for the most people is important It's not like you're giving up your soul by letting people know if you use an AMD or Intel chip, right?
On 2006-11-05 02:15, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 08:44, Basil Chupin wrote:
<snip> It's not like you're giving up your soul by letting people know if you use an AMD or Intel chip, right?
It is if you work for Intel, and use an AMD system :-)
On Sunday 05 November 2006 03:25, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-11-05 02:15, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 08:44, Basil Chupin wrote:
<snip> It's not like you're giving up your soul by letting people know if you use an AMD or Intel chip, right?
It is if you work for Intel, and use an AMD system :-)
Well it'll be researching competitors product. Unless you enjoy using it ;-) -- Regards, Rajko M.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Sunday 2006-11-05 at 03:25 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-11-05 02:15, Anders Johansson wrote:
It's not like you're giving up your soul by letting people know if you use an AMD or Intel chip, right?
It is if you work for Intel, and use an AMD system :-)
No, if they don't know who you are ;-) - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFTeUNtTMYHG2NR9URAploAJ9uCG/viFChOZ3bgUM6xTxXrsil8ACgmVkC r3trhpbBpWSygFAnHrMtcyw= =9+PP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:20, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Sunday 2006-11-05 at 03:25 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-11-05 02:15, Anders Johansson wrote:
It's not like you're giving up your soul by letting people know if you use an AMD or Intel chip, right?
It is if you work for Intel, and use an AMD system :-)
No, if they don't know who you are ;-)
Even if they catch you doing it, tell that you are researching the product, and hope that they'll believe you. -- Regards, Rajko M.
On Saturday 04 November 2006 23:15, Anders Johansson wrote:
<sigh> How is one to know that it is only a bug?
One files a bug, saying it shouldn't work this way, and one is then told whether it is intentional or not.
Yeah, like that might work..... 1)Wait till distro does something stupid (dump YOU or rug/zmd) 2)File Bug report asking for YOU back 3) ......silence -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Sunday 05 November 2006 11:24, John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 23:15, Anders Johansson wrote:
<sigh> How is one to know that it is only a bug?
One files a bug, saying it shouldn't work this way, and one is then told whether it is intentional or not.
Yeah, like that might work.....
1)Wait till distro does something stupid (dump YOU or rug/zmd) 2)File Bug report asking for YOU back 3) ......silence
This has been discussed. The old Online Update was broken too, in that it lacked a lot of functionality. Going back to it was never going to be an option Bug reports were filed against the new updater (since it too was broken) and they were dealt with. In 10.2, things are much better, between zypper and opensuse-updater you will never see the "Waking up ZMD" message again, things are actually fast, while still providing the same benefits of the new rpm-md based system But that YaST Online Update was dropped was announced publically. Filing a bug report to get an announced change reverted is not going to do much, when the stated focus is on getting the new system working. Something that is in the distro that looks like it's broken, on the other hand, is a valid bug report. In Basil's case there were two options. Either the hardware info really had to be sent (in which case it would be a bug to see the checkbox at all) or the checkbox should be de-selectable. In either case, a valid bug Incidentally, a long while ago something similar happened. SuSE (as it was then) started using ACPI 'for real', causing many systems - including my own - to fail miserably, unless obscure boot parameters were used. The statement then was something to the effect of it has to be done, otherwise we'll never get ACPI working properly
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:41, Basil Chupin wrote:
You obviously haven't tried to install 10.2 beta 1 yet, have you?
During the installation, at the part where you have the option to Register the product, try and deselect the first tick-box called (?)Hardware Details (the other 2 I think are called Optional Details and Registration or Certificate Number).
You cannot deselect this tick-box and proceed with the installation.
If you decide to bypass this stage and Register from the Control Centre after the installation has been completed, you will not be able to complete the 'registration' unless this box is ticked.
So, if I don't want to send any info to Novell I don't have to, eh?
That would be a bug then. Specifically
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214722
which has already been fixed for beta2
*sigh*, not everything is a plot to subvert humanity, some things are just mistakes. If you find something like this, FILE A BUG
On the other hand, if they had not started down this path in the first place there would not have been a need to 'fix' it. If they want to add it then they need to be more open as to WHY and where the information is actually going. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
On Sunday 05 November 2006 01:54, Lester Caine wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote: .....
*sigh*, not everything is a plot to subvert humanity, some things are just mistakes. If you find something like this, FILE A BUG
On the other hand, if they had not started down this path in the first place there would not have been a need to 'fix' it. If they want to add it then they need to be more open as to WHY and where the information is actually going.
--
Lester, there is /usr/share/doc/packages/suseRegister/README that tell what and where is going, with what purpose. If you want more details suse_register is perl script. Not readable for everyone, but it is not binary either. -- Regards, Rajko M.
Rajko M wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 01:54, Lester Caine wrote:
*sigh*, not everything is a plot to subvert humanity, some things are just mistakes. If you find something like this, FILE A BUG On the other hand, if they had not started down this path in the first
Anders Johansson wrote: ..... place there would not have been a need to 'fix' it. If they want to add it then they need to be more open as to WHY and where the information is actually going.
--
Lester,
there is /usr/share/doc/packages/suseRegister/README that tell what and where is going, with what purpose.
SO is that accessible on the website somewhere before we get round to upgrading from on older version? Things like this are reminiscent of 'agree to conditions before opening packaging' and where do you find the conditions ....
If you want more details suse_register is perl script. Not readable for everyone, but it is not binary either.
It's bad enough trying to read the conditions before installing ;) It looks like were going to have to examine the fine print every time we upgrade - heck I can't remember reading any conditons for 6 and I've installed probably every couple of versions since :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
On Sunday 05 November 2006 12:56, Lester Caine wrote:
SO is that accessible on the website somewhere before we get round to upgrading from on older version? Things like this are reminiscent of 'agree to conditions before opening packaging' and where do you find the conditions ....
They aren't conditions, they're not mandatory, you can select not to send any information
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 12:56, Lester Caine wrote:
SO is that accessible on the website somewhere before we get round to upgrading from on older version? Things like this are reminiscent of 'agree to conditions before opening packaging' and where do you find the conditions ....
They aren't conditions, they're not mandatory, you can select not to send any information
"You understand and agree that Novell may use any feed back or information You provide and You hereby grant Novell a perpetual and irrevocable licence to use all such feedback and information for any purpose without compensation to You, provided that Novell shall not publicly reference Your name in connection therewith..."
Sounds like a condition you need to know about before you elect to send any data - that is once the build you are trying out actually allows you refuse ;) I think that we just have to tell people to read the small print everywhere - where in the past it was not quite so important. And no doubt the conditions will be changed from update to update :( Heck MS get you to agree to their LATEST conditions every time you download anything new - you agreed to that by accepting THEIR security update tool so they don't even have to ask you again! Novell just seems to be heading the same way ? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Hi Lester, On Sunday 05 November 2006 06:56, Lester Caine wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 12:56, Lester Caine wrote:
SO is that accessible on the website somewhere before we get round to upgrading from on older version? Things like this are reminiscent of 'agree to conditions before opening packaging' and where do you find the conditions ....
Actually, I found README in suseRegister-1.0-55.noarch.rpm package that is available online on any FTP with 10.1 packages. On the other hand Anders told the fact:
They aren't conditions, they're not mandatory, you can select not to send any information
So there is no need to read them ahead. In 10.1 it was possible to deny, registration and install OS without problems, in 10.2 beta 1 came in mentioned bug, that should be removed by beta 2.
"You understand and agree that Novell may use any feed back or information You provide and You hereby grant Novell a perpetual and irrevocable licence to use all such feedback and information for any purpose without compensation to You, provided that Novell shall not publicly reference Your name in connection therewith..."
Sounds like a condition you need to know about before you elect to send any data - that is once the build you are trying out actually allows you refuse ;)
See above.
I think that we just have to tell people to read the small print everywhere - where in the past it was not quite so important.
In what century? I can tell for good part of 20-th and later. Small print told me more about my destiny than horoscope.
And no doubt the conditions will be changed from update to update :(
Hmm?
Heck MS get you to agree to their LATEST conditions every time you download anything new - you agreed to that by accepting THEIR security update tool so they don't even have to ask you again!
You see that they way ahead in user friendliness. It will save your time, resources, clicking. Not to mention that it allows automated installation without your presence, otherwise you would have to be there to click. Everything is done to make you feel comfortable, and you still complain about.
Novell just seems to be heading the same way ?
In the perfect world it will be ... , but we don't live there. Have a fun. -- Regards, Rajko M.
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:16, Basil Chupin wrote:
I don't know if the same wording is used in the licence you agreed to when you installed v10.1 but the one which you have to agree to when installing 10.2 (beta1 at least) states, in part:
"The software is protected by the copyright laws and treaties of the United Sates. ....."
Yes, without copyright the GPL is just a text file. The GPL is a copyright license
"The software is licenced to You, not sold...."
"You may not: (1) reverse engineer, decompile or diassemble the Software except and only to the extent it is expressly permitted by applicable law or the licence terms accompanying a component or the Software; or (2) transfer....."
Standard blurb. But most (in the free version all) licenses do allow you to mess with the source, so it doesn't really matter
"You understand and agree that Novell may use any feed back or information You provide and You hereby grant Novell a perpetual and irrevocable licence to use all such feedback and information for any purpose without compensation to You, provided that Novell shall not publicly reference Your name in connection therewith..."
So, if you send in something saying "man, I love this stuff, this is the best thing ever", Novell gets to use it in marketing without having to ask special permission
Aren't these somewhat strange conditions considering with we are dealing with open source here?
No, it's fairly standard
But the worrying part I am finding is the last condition I quote in light of Novell having gone into bed with M$.
huh?
Firstly, I don't see any reason why Novell has to know anything about the computer I install the OS on; secondly, you agree to a "perpetual and irrevocable licence" for Novell to use the information; and thirdly (and we already know all about this thru outsourcing), while Novell states that it won't publicly reference 'Your name' there is nothing to state that whoever it passes this information to will be covered by this qualification.
I don't understand this at all. Really, I don't.
If you're that worried about misuse of *feedback*, then don't send any Or if I might add something to you summary, Anders, Learn to lie to your web browser when you leave any information anywhere. Change your name in
into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Sunday 05 November 2006 1:24 am, Anders Johansson wrote: the submission. Unless you are on a site that checks, and you are signing up for ?? give them a fake name.. or give them a Gmail, or Yahoo, or AOL, for that matter email address. -- j This current flows between us that will not be denied You draw me in towards you like the moon pulls at the tide May no shadow ever fall that will make me have to call you someone I used to love
On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:16, Basil Chupin wrote:
"The software is licenced to You, not sold...."
Strictly speaking, of course, this is true in the case of an openSUSE download, where it is not sold, but licensed under the GPL :-) But it may be that the rationale of the license needs to be explained a bit. Namely, the lawyer side of Novell needs to plug in a bit to the SUSE/hacker side. -- Pob hwyl / Best wishes Kevin Donnelly www.kyfieithu.co.uk - KDE yn Gymraeg www.eurfa.org.uk - Geiriadur rhydd i'r Gymraeg www.rhedadur.org.uk - Rhedeg berfau Cymraeg www.cymrux.org.uk - Linux Cymraeg ar un CD
participants (9)
-
Anders Johansson -
Basil Chupin -
Carlos E. R. -
Darryl Gregorash -
jfweber＠gilweber.com -
John Andersen -
Kevin Donnelly -
Lester Caine -
Rajko M