-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Berni Elbourn wrote: ...

You are right to focus on Copyright but it is the whole item distribution restrictions that affect the credibility of OpenSuse. The restrictions are absolutely right for Suse professional boxed versions but not a download. Certainly bolting in the open community between the Novell and Download version in this way means Novell could just be after a period of free development resource. With the current license Novel could easily pull the plug on the OpenSuse project. The contributions could then be commercially sold on. This is all very sad as I (and others?) would be like to contribute time to this project without these restrictions.

You're absolutely correct by focusing on that distribution restriction issue. But don't forget that openSUSE is still work in progress, with each part of the openSUSE project (Novell/SUSE and us, the community) still having to find out - - what we want - - how we want it - - how to achieve it It has already been said a number of times, but also keep in mind that the SUSE Linux staff (that includes Adrian) is really really busy at the moment to get 10.0 final out as fast and as well as possible. So, your questions and comments are as well correct as welcome, but be patient about it. I'm sure the Novell staff will find a way to sort that out, possibly removing the redistribution restrictions on SUSE Linux OSS. I'm pretty confident about that, as they have proven to be really open and willing to push that move ahead. I might be wrong, and I sure hope I'm not, but that's my impression up to now, both from what has been happening on this mailing-list and discussing with some SUSE staff members. It's also very much work in progress for us, the community, to make proposals, requests and concepts on how to work together. There is still a lot to consider, discuss and to put into place. I really think that it's our (the community's) job to come up with though-out, realistic and tangible proposals. e.g. just throwing "openSUSE is not open because the roadmap on the wiki is not editable by everyone" or "you must opensource SLES!!!" definately don't count as such and is just random noise cluttering what we're trying to do here. Let's do this gradually, step by step, and be constructive towards ourselves and Novell/SUSE. There will be certain aspects that some might consider as limitations or restrictions, e.g. that Novell (i.e. the SUSE Linux staff) decides alone what packages make their way into the SUSE Linux distribution. We will have to live with that (besides that example not really being a restriction, just do your own distribution based on SUSE Linux OSS and add the packages you want) because we cannot expect that on one hand, Novell is spending a huge amount of money to give us SUSE Linux OSS (just think about the SUSE Linux staff) as a rock solid and well tested distribution with a lot of people being payed full-time to work on it and hunting down the bugs we report, and on the other side say that we as the community want to control /everything/. Berni, I'm not saying this for you, but to some others: please think about what "open" really is supposed to mean in a realistic sense, given the facts above, and not squeeze everything you'd want the SUSE staff do for you as being the definition of "open". But, again, Berni is correct in pointing out that restriction and it must be sorted out or at least clarified by Novell.

I hope we can see a public response from Adrian soon here.

Yep, but I guess that'll take a few more days before he has the time for it ;) cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ _\_v ===> FOSDEM 2006 -- February 2006 in Brussels <=== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDKA8Ar3NMWliFcXcRAkUGAJ42nZj/xtCz4VsRiKNB7IHTGvihhQCgjfF7 tfmvLeuJRa2FjeOGjY4Mo/U= =eBmo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi, I am atm at BrainShare and not up to date with my emails, but I saw this this thread in list archive. We do have two independend issues here, first the Wiki copyright statement. Our legal department is a bit overloaded atm, but I am still in good hope that we can remove the Copyright statement rather soon. Regarding the distribution license, all what it is good for is to avoid having multiple "SUSE Linux 10.0" isos out there which do contain complete different content. I think this is reasonable and helps us all, otherwise people speaking about a SUSE Linux which we do not know at all maybe. Of course we _want_ to support forks of the distribution, all what one need is to change the name like "Adrians SUSE Linux" or "Helgas Home Linux". Nothing on the medias is copyprotected, because only software with OSI licenses is on it. I hope this helps. bye adrian Adrian Schroeter SuSE AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany email: adrian@suse.de

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:

...

Of course we _want_ to support forks of the distribution, all what one need is to change the name like "Adrians SUSE Linux" or "Helgas Home Linux". Nothing on the medias is copyprotected, because only software with OSI licenses is on it.

So the name SUSE can be used? "Adrians SUSE Linux". You sure abou that? I am just asking again to be sure, not that I am interested in making a New or even "Novelty SUSE Linux." ;-)

Having the SUSE in the name would be very problematic. Calling it "Adrians Open Linux" would be ok in my understanding... Regards Christoph

Hello Adrian, Adrian Schroeter wrote:

Hi,

I am atm at BrainShare and not up to date with my emails, but I saw this this thread in list archive.

We do have two independend issues here, first the Wiki copyright statement. Our legal department is a bit overloaded atm, but I am still in good hope that we can remove the Copyright statement rather soon.

Thanks for the timely update. Much appreciate in your busy schedule.

Regarding the distribution license, all what it is good for is to avoid having multiple "SUSE Linux 10.0" isos out there which do contain complete different content. I think this is reasonable and helps us all, otherwise people speaking about a SUSE Linux which we do not know at all maybe.

Previous versions of Suse were not distribution restricted. Actually redistribution was encouraged as long as the original name was used. This allowed service partners to drop them into charities in the past. In return we gave our time to fixes and kept all that boring configuration support away from Suse. Unfortunately, the distribution restrictions on the Suse 9.3 release installation mean that the good causes now have to pay for Suse software. Money is tight in this area so this they would tend to favour Debian as the choice. I should promptly note that Business are a whole different area and they naturally are willing to pay for supported releases as insurance for when things don't work.

Of course we _want_ to support forks of the distribution, all what one need is to change the name like "Adrians SUSE Linux" or "Helgas Home Linux". Nothing on the medias is copyprotected, because only software with OSI licenses is on it.

I can see what you are saying but I gently suggest there much more marketing value in keeping suse kits unchanged out there and visible. BTW: I wonder if it would be enough to void the Novell license by burning the ftp version onto a CD and putting own label on it. In any case ownership is difficult to identify and as there was no fee paid and it would be very difficult for Novell to identify damages.

I hope this helps.

It is great to see SuSE-Novell interacting in this way with us. I am sure I speak from many by saying how much this is appreciated. The next step would be to remove the normal commercial Novell license on the OSS release.

bye adrian

Adrian Schroeter SuSE AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany email: adrian@suse.de

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org