-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Pascal Bleser wrote:

...

On IRC, Benjamin Weber pointed me to some odd situation about the "pico" and "pine" packages. They're part of the SUSE Linux OSS distribution but their license is not even near something OSI approved (not even to mention FSF).

[...] (see the original mail at the start of the thread for details)

...

How about dropping them from the distribution ? pico can be replaced by GNU nano (that is already included in the distribution btw), and pine.. well... anyone still use pine ? (hint: use mutt ;))

I am using elm if possible, pine else. Dropping the latter too would in no means lead me to mutt. So if destroying is the main goal, struggle on.

It's totally not a goal of "destroying", but pico and pine must be either removed from the distribution or - to the very least - moved to the non-OSS part, as they're not OSS (i.e. they're not OSI approved). I don't want to be nitpicking, but we should care about those aspects as well (actually, both patching and redistributing pico and pine already violates their respective license). cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEHgxNr3NMWliFcXcRArNSAJ9RdvxFg3wFzkifBFbdxGyzgvTTnQCggAKs 6XIbOfsn1WQfQHepcSF2/AY= =oNdS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 03/20/2006 02:58 AM Pascal Bleser wrote:

It's totally not a goal of "destroying", but pico and pine must be either removed from the distribution or - to the very least - moved to the non-OSS part, as they're not OSS (i.e. they're not OSI approved).

ACK. But only if there is no way to change the licenses they are using. That should be the first goal: to tell the maintainers about the problems. OJ -- When you say "I wrote a program that crashed Windows", people just stare at you blankly and say "Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*". (Linus Torvalds)

But not on this message. :) User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 On 3//1.8.219/06, Glenn Holmer wrote:

On Sunday 19 March 2006 19:34, Pascal Bleser wrote:

...

How about dropping them from the distribution ? pico can be replaced by GNU nano (that is already included in the distribution btw), and pine.. well... anyone still use pine ? (hint: use mutt ;))

I use it every day.

-- ====================================================== Glenn Holmer (Linux registered user #16682) ====================================================== "Greater coherence cannot be achieved. Not even the Netherlanders have managed this." -Anton Webern ======================================================

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

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 09:02:47PM -0600, Glenn Holmer wrote:

On Sunday 19 March 2006 20:12, gonzlobo wrote:

...

But not on this message. :)

User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2

No, to read root's mail on the servers at work. We have several machines on 9.3 and hope to upgrade to 10.1 if it is ever released :P

Sounds as if you log in as root just to read the mail. Generaly a bad practice. Edit /etc/aliases. Also you can (in combination) forward your mail to your general account where you can filter it out with procmail. Then there is no need to log in to a specific machine an you will be able to get all messages faster. This all does not answer the question what to do with a non-OSS program. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) schrieb:

Em Seg, 2006-03-20 às 02:34 +0100, Pascal Bleser escreveu:

...

pico can be replaced by GNU nano (that is already included in the

I've already seen some distros using 'alias pico=nano'. If we get that, and also 'alias pine=mutt', it would be fine (although I don't use any, I know many ppl that come from other Unixes that are addicted to pico).

Are you joking? Imagine a user who used to use pine since years. He types "pine" into a shell and mutt starts instead. What should this user think? You can maybe display an alert like: "pine is no longer part of openSUSE, if you want to use it, please download it from..." but you cannot start another program by using an alias without telling the user what's happening. That's a usability nightmare. BTW: The same is valid of course for pico=nano. -- Martin

Carlos E. R. wrote:

Are you nuts? You say that because you don't use them; if you did, you'd notice that they are very ver different.

Ok, np, but I sustain the pico=nano alias. I was just pointing what I've already seen in other (not so important) distros. -- % Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) % mteixeira{a}webset{d}net <> Maceio/AL/BR % http://mteixeira.webset.net <> http://pmping.sf.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I understand that 'b' would apply to ftp distribution, 'c' to the dvd. If it doesn't, SuSE/Novell can ask them (ie, "mutual agreement").

This was actually what I did when I was still maintaining Pine. SUSE has an explicit approval from the University of Washington to distribute pine.

I use Pine every day, it's my main mail program, it has been for years.

Same here, at least for all my work-related email. For my lower volume personal mail, I use Thunderbird.

I'd like it to have a few more features, but it is the one that has most of what I want. No, mutt is not an option, unless somebody makes a configuration file that makes it work exactly as Pine, with the same user interface. Yes, I tried, and had to run away fast, sorry.

I've tried many times to come up with a suitable muttrc that would allow me to switch without too much pain. So far, I have not succeeded. Bye, LenZ - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lenz Grimmer -o) [ICQ: 160767607 | Jabber: LenZGr@jabber.org] /\\ http://www.lenzg.org/ V_V -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEH/wKSVDhKrJykfIRAk6XAJ0TZ1CYbyxxBnUB6SjoKiPwQy8irwCdGvq/ UpyqiAXHBd3lGV6YTaQ45/s= =fMt3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I have tried to use mutt two or three times, but.. failed :-(

¿Why? I don't use neither Mutt nor pine, but I've tried to use them and I think both are difficult. If you already know Pine I supose that acquire Mutt skill isn't hard. Even is possible I'm in wrong, of course... :P

I would like a few things more in Pine, of course. Multilingual support, like choosing what dictionary to use for spell checking. Better gpg/pgp support... perhaps I'll try "pgpenvelope", but the versions I find are a bit old, perhaps it's a dead project.

Is the project dead? What a shame! PD. Qué difícil se me hace dirigirme a ti en inglés, Carlos ;) -- ¡Share your knowledge! Linux user id 332494 # http://counter.li.org/ PGP id 0xC5ABA76A # http://pgp.mit.edu/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2006-03-24 at 00:01 +0100, houghi wrote:

The "problem" with mutt is that if you are used to something else, you need to re-train yourself a bit. The correct way would be to addapt your muttrc. I however can imagine that can be a bit over the top if you are a new Mutt user.

Exactly.

Especially the foldor-hook I found chalaging at first. What I do is I use 4 × wmbiff to show me where new mail arrives and they open with e.g. `aterm -geometry 80x79 -sb -T 'openSUSE' -name mutt -fade 50 -e mutt -f /home/houghi/Mail/opensuse`

Or in short with `... -f mailboxX` and `... -f mailboxY`. Together with the use of procmail and mailrc it comes nice together. http://houghi.org/shots/mutt002.gif as how I see the mail.

That part is similar to Pine. However, in Pine I don't need to specify the folder in the command line, I simply navigate to it, or click on it.

The most important thing is personalizing your muttrc. Once that is done, it is a great tool.

I have no doubt! I'm sure it is a very good program, just that... it doesn't match my mindset, I prefer Pine. Pine is not perfect, but it matchs better.

I started with pine, but never could get the hang of it and could not get used to it after trying it out for 2 or 3 weeks. Mutt was something I could use directly.

To me, it's the other way round :-)

Oh well, as long as there is choice, to each his or her own. :-)

Exactly! :-) - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEIz6RtTMYHG2NR9URAhwKAJ4phMr6XxvNcR+bVtK5riWt3MvlNgCaA/sX e3nD5VZo/k2vcwnRFGiW6Zg= =xbFr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thursday 23 March 2006 13:34, Carlos E. R. wrote:

The Tuesday 2006-03-21 at 14:13 +0100, Lenz Grimmer wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

I understand that 'b' would apply to ftp distribution, 'c' to the dvd. If it doesn't, SuSE/Novell can ask them (ie, "mutual agreement").

This was actually what I did when I was still maintaining Pine. SUSE has an explicit approval from the University of Washington to distribute pine.

That's fantastic! There is no problem then ;-)

I'm no licenses expert - but unless this approval allows SUSE users to change the code and release their changes to the public, there's still a problem with claiming that it's OSS. I don't think this changes anything - of course Novell is in the clear in terms of legal action - but we still need (1) the licenses to change, (2) these apps moved to non-oss section or (3) these apps to be replaced completely. SUSE has a reputation for not being as free (libre) and open as other distros - I assume one of the reasons for making opensuse, the 10.0 oss-version, the very proactive attitude towards binary-only kernel modules etc. are partly a strategy to shake this image. Including Pine/Pico and claiming they're OSS is harmful to our image - and to free software altogether. I don't think this should be taken lightly. cb400f

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2006-03-23 at 15:13 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:

...

...

That's fantastic! There is no problem then ;-)

I'm no licenses expert - but unless this approval allows SUSE users to change the code and release their changes to the public, there's still a problem with claiming that it's OSS.

Martin is right. We still cannot claim that pine is OSS.

Well, as far as _I_ am concerned, I don't care if it goes to a non oss directory or whatever, as long as I can get it with the distro, either paid for or by ftp. The "hows" is something I don't understand and don't care about much. I can not read and _understand_ licenses, anyway. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEIzQQtTMYHG2NR9URAhccAJ9H/8IATUxJzzWMBvgtlAzFaEtnwgCfRVRm E7fEalzCo0uWUbuvpN1a/3E= =hfQP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2006-03-24 at 00:58 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:

...

The "hows" is something I don't understand and don't care about much. I can not read and _understand_ licenses, anyway.

It's quite simple, actually. Pine is not OpenSource Software. It is not by the OSS definition of OSI [1] and hence, it is not OSS. The U&W license violates several OSS license criterias of OSI. [1] http://opensource.org/

(and it's only "opensource" when it complies with OSI's definition of OSS, it's not a matter of "how I call it" ;))

If you say so, I'll believe you O:-)

Read my original mail for more details: http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse/2006-Mar/0351.html

I did, days ago. Nevertheless, I still say that I can not claim to read and _understand_ licenses, any of them - not even GPL. It's over my head. The moment they start the legalesse, I drop asleep :-p

As I wrote in an earlier mail, it's not about being picky or "debianesque", it's just that SUSE Linux OSS is dubbed as being a 100% OpenSource distribution. And pine+pico are _not_ OpenSource. That's all. So either have U&W change their license (which I doubt, we won't be the first asking them to do so) or move pine to the non-OSS ISO.

As I said, as long as I can get it from SuSE somewhere, in the dvd, in another ftp tree, whatever, that's fine with me.

Jürgen, had any update on pine ? (seems we all agree that pico can be replaced by nano)

I haven't tried "nano", it is not included in S.9.3. I don't know if Pine can be compiled without pico, or if it is completely stand alone. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEI0D9tTMYHG2NR9URAtjMAJ9895CY4aTj8uaB3nB2DxKNAPIJKACfRW1o Az9TcB/lLRau5n99WUt+DIM= =PgpY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Who says, that the power to define the term "open source" is up to OSI and not to U&W or you or me? Of course, pine is "open source", because everybody can have a look into it. That a big part of "other type of open source" developpers consider the license of pine not sufficient doesn't change this.

The SUSE Linux OSS version is stated to only contain Open Source Software, if this definition is to differ from the widely accepted principles defined by the OSI or FSF then it would at least require a clear statement as to what OSS does mean in the context of SUSE. If you accept the pine licence as open source then windows is nearly open source, after all the kernel source code is available to partners and some academic institutions etc, but those with the source code would not be able to redistribute modified versions.

distribution. The last decisions with regard to proprietary drivers and now the movement of pine to CD6 seem to show, that SUSE is not the most user-friendly distribution anymore, but the "OSI definition", "GPL rulez", "kernel policy forever" shouting developpers baby.

Many might not wish to sacrifice the freedoms afforded by the GPL for greater ease of use, after all many consider windows to be easy to use but it is not Free software. As I understood it this was the reason for the OSS version, for those who did not want any proprietary software. As for the kernel module issue this is slightly different as the kernel is GPLed and binary kernel modules become part of the same program by the FSF's definition and hence must be GPLed or violate the developer's copyright.

So the question is, is the 6th non-OSS-CD defined from a OSI-compliant perspective, then move pine there.

Indeed, either a special definition of OSS for SUSE which is lenient enough to include pine and also devalue the OSS naming is written, or pine is moved out of the OSS section and into the CD6/extra repository. Another possibility is that the pine/pico licence could be changed, but this seems highly improbable given that Debian had this discussion years ago Benji

On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:41:53AM +0100, Siegbert Baude wrote:

So today, the problem is just small, pine here or there. But it really should be discussed "What, actually is the goal of CD6?" to prevent future problems.

The goal of CD 6 is to have things on CD that do not fit on CD 1-5 from an OSS point of view. So first you decide what goes on CD 1-5 from a licence point of view. That is only OSS stuff. CD6 is stuff that is not OSS and still legaly distributable by SUSE. Java, Opera and now also pine (unless there is a change in licence), among others. I think there is no discussion needed, perhaps just an explanation. CD 1-5 are intended to be 100% OSS for people who want to have that. CD6 is for people who do not care about these issues and still prefer to have things on CD instead of installing via FTP. I am sure somebody can come up with a better explanation. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:50:37AM +0100, Siegbert Baude wrote:

B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk schrieb:

...

If you accept the pine licence as open source then windows is nearly open source, after all the kernel source code is available to partners and some academic institutions etc, but those with the source code would not be able to redistribute modified versions.

Come on, *everybody* can see the source of pine, that is the meaning of

Open source is not only about _looking_ at the source. You might be satisfied by looking at a Rembrandt image or something like that but it is quite pointless to look at some source code if you are legally not allowed to do the changes you feel appropriate.

"open source". You are talking about developper's need to fork (that's

And the developer's view is the one that is relevant here. A user that is not fluent in programming languages cannot change anything anyway thus for him it does not matter whether something is open source or not but only whether it is free (as in free beer) or not.

what pine doesn't allow). Windows is a completeley different thing.

Maybe Windows is not a good example but Microsoft (or some other commercial companies) has some other products that are availlable as "Shared Source". I would not want to call this _open_ source although _everybody_ can look at it because you are not allowed to change the code in a free (as in free speech) way. So placing anything that is not OSI compliant on CD6 is the smartest way to go. It does not hurt the user because he can just install it from CD6 and it keeps the base media clean from pseudo OSS software. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 05:04:28PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I can not agree, sorry. Users are relevant. If we weren't, suse would not exist. Maybe not eve Linux.

In case of licences, you have to look at the person who puts the licence on the software. That is the developer, not the user. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2006-03-24 at 17:32 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:

(I changed the subject, as it isn't about dropping pine, but actually about moving it to CD 6)

Right.

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

The Friday 2006-03-24 at 13:52 +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:

...

...

...

Come on, *everybody* can see the source of pine, that is the meaning of Open source is not only about _looking_ at the source. You might be satisfied by looking at a Rembrandt image or something like that but it is quite pointless to look at some source code if you are legally not allowed to do the changes you feel appropriate.

But you do are allowed to apply patches to Pine. The restriction is that they are local to you, and the modified versions be identified as modified. The patches to make those modifications can also be freely distributed. In fact, SuSE version of Pine has a number of those patches applied, like the one to use maildir type folders.

Yes, but it violates several OSI guidelines as for what is OpenSource and what is not.

I said in that email that I accepted that.

Please read my original mail about this for details.

I told you yesterday that I did read it days ago.

The criteria are well-defined: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php

...

I'll accept that it doesn't conform to the OSI meaning of OSS (and as such it has to go to the sixth CD), but it is not closed source either. Things are not simply black or white.

No one said pico+pine are closed source.

Yes, IMO, somebody did, the moment he compared it with the openness of windows.

The subject and content of my mail was certainly misleading about that and I'd like to apologize for it. I should have written "dropping or moving to CD 6". As pine is still used by a number of people, the question is now reduced to: "moving pico+pine to CD 6 ?".

Right, and I have no objection with that.

...

...

...

...

"open source". You are talking about developper's need to fork (that's And the developer's view is the one that is relevant here. A user that is not

I can not agree, sorry. Users are relevant. If we weren't, suse would not exist. Maybe not eve Linux.

Robert wrote: "And the developer's view is the one that is relevant here." Note the "here". No one said that users are irrelevant.

I still think that users opinions are important here. Notice that the view some people express that linux is designed by developers and for developers only could become too true.

Of course no one here wants to have an extremist view on OSS and Free Software (as of FSF's definition), we're not Debian. But don't just ignore the importance of providing/having the option of a 100% OpenSource SUSE Linux. It matters too.

But that comes down to those 2 points: - if we say the 5 CDs provide a 100% OSS distribution, then it should be a 100% OSS distribution - if we do not adhere to OSI's definition of "OpenSource", we should exactly define what our criteria are for considering something OpenSource or not (or rather, to be included in the 100% OSS SUSE Linux subset or not)

Now, it's all about moving pico/pine (and *possibly* dropping pico as GNU nano seems to be a full-featured remplacement) to the 6th non-OSS CD + non-OSS repository, as with Java and other things.

That's fine with me :-) Question: what about the dvd, then? - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEJIZ7tTMYHG2NR9URAmoHAJ41P7Z2nHJhhOu35KHH6WXubB3YmQCfe3+7 0W75vrxVX9FnK9i/0e++zrI= =oVjG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2006-03-25 at 13:28 +0100, houghi wrote:

On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:53:22AM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

I still think that users opinions are important here. Notice that the view some people express that linux is designed by developers and for developers only could become too true.

Users opinions are important. However it is the developers that make and add the licences, so when you are talking licences, that is the viuwpoint you need to take. This so you can respect the user who wants a 100% OSS system.

Disregarding users opinions, even in this respect, may lead to the point that users dislike the distro or whatever and make it useless. The most important part of any software is users, not developers. It is users using a software who make it a success or a failure, regardless of how good the software is intrinsically. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEJWYXtTMYHG2NR9URAlbcAJ9VOviH9jHCPKNv4oeXtegP4SZ+BACdEVxF jIlzO89zabWB7h3kMWXV0Lg= =/VOR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2006-03-25 at 17:14 +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:

...

Disregarding users opinions, even in this respect, may lead to the point that users dislike the distro or whatever and make it useless. The most important part of any software is users, not developers. It is users using a software who make it a success or a failure, regardless of how good the software is intrinsically.

Right. I'm a user. And I care about having only 100% OSS software very much. According to your opinion, not respecting my wish may make the distro useless.

It is an extreme, but might happen some day.

Moving pine and pico to non-OSS will not harm anybody since they are still

I have said several times that I accepted that. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEJZw7tTMYHG2NR9URAgthAJ9lMtXQ1l0Q6TPCh2KgL1gQagZv4gCeJcWV Be99JiBMUKZepeUXAYfUhUA= =bQCT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 houghi wrote:

On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:47:26PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Disregarding users opinions, even in this respect, may lead to the point that users dislike the distro or whatever and make it useless. The most important part of any software is users, not developers. It is users using a software who make it a success or a failure, regardless of how good the software is intrinsically.

It is however the developer who puts the licence on it and that has to be respected. Ignoring that licence is not an option, unfortunatly. Otherwise MPlayer could easily be included and libdvdcss.

Houghi, you're perfectly right insisting on the fact it's about the license and about the developers who choose what license they put their work under. But just for the record, you've picked a bad example: both MPlayer and libdvdcss are GPL ;) They're not included because they potentially infringe patents and/or circumvent copy protections (in the case of libdvdcss), which is illegal in some countries (needless to say, it is illegal in the USA). Any update on opensuse.ru ? ;))) cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEJaAer3NMWliFcXcRAq/sAJ4w50X8b9OPC+PWYeCc6e4h4lvgDACfewwr /EZ8SNocM97LnFs1UfPPMxw= =I1+M -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Carlos E. R. wrote:

The Saturday 2006-03-25 at 18:44 +0100, houghi wrote:

...

...

On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:47:26PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Disregarding users opinions, even in this respect, may lead to the point that users dislike the distro or whatever and make it useless. The most important part of any software is users, not developers. It is users using a software who make it a success or a failure, regardless of how good the software is intrinsically. It is however the developer who puts the licence on it and that has to be respected. Ignoring that licence is not an option, unfortunatly. Otherwise MPlayer could easily be included and libdvdcss.

True. Look at it this other way, then: In closed source software, the developers, or their companies, are the sole owners of the software. They can do what they like. We, users, merely have the right to use it, and a limited right as that. In open source software, the developer, in an unprecedented unselfish act, gives the power to the user to do with the software as they please,

That is not correct ;)

ceasing to be the owner of the software. It is freedom. The users, if they

Mmm... nope, they don't.

want, can modify the work of the original developer even beyond recognition (I'd use a rather colourful expression if writing in my first language :-P )

Sorry, but you make wrong assumptions here ;) - - the users may not do with the software as they please: OSS licenses are still licenses, and they clearly (well, as clear as a license can be ;)) state what users may do and may not do (for an example of what they may not do, see the next item) - - the developer is still the owner: all OSS licenses I know very clearly state that you may *not* take the source code and claim it your own, you must give credit for the code belonging to the original developer. OSS licenses do *not* give away ownership. Typically, OSS licenses grant the following: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php For examples of what people may not do with the license, look at 4, 5 and 6.

Thus, in OSS, it is the users who are the "boss".

No, the "boss" is still the developer (or his employer) who owns the code. The users don't own the code, they totally don't. They are granted many more rights as opposed to closed source software, but still. The only form of "giving away" I know of is putting source code under "public domain". The problem is, it's not a license, and "public domain" does not exist as a license/legal state in every country. Most notably, the concept of "public domain" does not exist for source code in Germany, AFAICR. Well, at least that's my current knowledge about the "public domain" non-license. If anyone can correct me or bring a few more details, please do so ;))

In the opensuse case, it seems to me that we are classifying software to be either totally OSS, or if not, be "relegated" to the last cd, putting together privative software and those middle-land software. As a user, I might not want to use closed source software (like acrobat, for instance), but might want to use Pine, which is somewhat open. I'd like a more broad classification. I don't like the implication that saying Pine is not OSS, it is then closed source software. Life is not so black and white, there are grays, reds, blues, yellows and infinite colours.

Well, you said it: pine is "somewhat" open: - - yes, you get the source code - but there is also a great number of proprietary software where you get the source code, albeit it's still proprietary (and no, I'm not saying pine is proprietary) - - you don't get the rights to do whatever you want with the source code; more specifically, the U&W license states a number of restrictions that "violate" those of OSI's OpenSource definition Now, that's fine and all, I mean, U&W can put their software under whatever license they prefer. I'm not criticising U&W by any means (well, maybe: if they just want to make pine opensource, they'd better put it under one of OSI's approved licenses and be done with it, why have yet another license...), they can do whatever they want with the code they own. Also, of course it's great pine isn't under a proprietary and closed source license. It's just not an OpenSource license (as by OSI's definition). The point is (again, I think I'm writing this for the 4th time or so): when we say the 5 first CDs are "100% OSS", do we mean OSS as by OSI's definition, or do we have our own definition of "OSS", like: "if we have the source code and can redistribute it, then it's OSS" ? When I say "we", it's actually Novell/SUSE, as there doesn't seem to be much influence we can take on this decision (or everyone is too busy to comment) :\ PS: reading my mail again, I do sound so picky... it's not my intention, I just wanted to clarify a few things, as opensource and free software are often misunderstood, it's really more FYI than "cutting hairs in 4" (and IANAL, I'm far from being an expert in that area) cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEJb+Sr3NMWliFcXcRAp6PAJ49ZJ5mn6+J3JY7Rquzh3rDNtRTTQCgqVcQ hgrgM2lqC3YqX1C/ug3t/M0= =WN9M -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Sunday 2006-03-26 at 00:00 +0100, houghi wrote:

To see the differnt licences and how many packages use it, run L=License:;pin $L|awk -F$L '{print $2}'|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|less

I did that time ago...

On my 10.0 I get 96 different licences.

What about scoring them from 1 to 10 in "openness" ;-) :-p - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEJeqCtTMYHG2NR9URAlnGAJ9Kw3z8WldMoo5o0R6Og8950sdz8wCgix1m VKn4ta6i7O376ZK7kOwkzrA= =ZzaG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

...

...

On my 10.0 I get 96 different licences.

What about scoring them from 1 to 10 in "openness" ;-) :-p

I'd prefer a scale ffrom 1 to 6, that is what I had to live with in the german school system :-)

That can be timeconsuming as it also contains things like: 634 Other License(s), see package 162 distributable 28 Unknown 25 Contact author, Other License(s), see package 6 Contact author, Restricted Shareware 3 Contact author 2 Unknown, Other License(s), see package 2 Other License(s), see package, Unknown

This is an unfortunate limitation of our package database. It can only distinguish a limited set of hardcoded licenses. All the rest shows up as the above.

So that is nearly thousand that you need to explore one by one.

Hey, that is about half the distribution, isn't it? Please file me a bugzilla for that. thanks, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8

Pascal Bleser wrote:

The point is (again, I think I'm writing this for the 4th time or so): when we say the 5 first CDs are "100% OSS", do we mean OSS as by OSI's definition, or do we have our own definition of "OSS", like: "if we have the source code and can redistribute it, then it's OSS" ?

I agree with what you write. And as it's very well said, could you paste this on a wiki page we could reference to later? this could also lead Novell to let go (if acvcording with it, what I think) or changing it is necessary. thanks jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html http://lucien.dodin.net http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_photos

On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 08:51:51PM +1000, scsijon wrote:

Maybe what is really needed is a three level classification rather than the existing two very tight levels (100% OSS or not 100%OSS).

The division could become something like,

A - 100% OSS (meets all the OSS Licensing requirements)

B - Partial OSS (meets the majority of OSS Licensing requirements) (could also be used for programmers wanting to release but limit users "playing" with their source code while they develop it to their completed specification product)

C - NON OSS (Follows Licensing requirements that are NON-OSS compatable)

What would the advantages be of such a system? This is only about on what CD things should go. So with your idea we would get: A) 100% OSS CD 1-5 (As is done now) C) NON OSS CD 6 (as is done now) B) Partial OSS CD 7 (Used to be on CD 6) Placing B on CD 1-5 is not an option, as then they won't be 100% OSS anymore. The moment B+C becomes large enough to split it up in different CD's, it is an option to think about. I asume however that the consideration will be done to rather take things of the CD and put them on FTP, not to add more CDs. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Siegbert Baude wrote:

Pascal Bleser schrieb:

...

The only form of "giving away" I know of is putting source code under "public domain". The problem is, it's not a license, and "public domain" does not exist as a license/legal state in every country. Most notably, the concept of "public domain" does not exist for source code in Germany, AFAICR.

You're right with regard to Germany. Beyond it, you can't give away your rights as "Urheber" (author in a legal sense). So what the GNU project

Right, that's an "issue" as well.

demands from their authors (moving over the author's rights to the GNU project), to be able to defend the GPL without having to ask every single developper is just not valid in Germany and at least some other European countries. I heard that there are attempts to adopt to different underlying legal systems better.

Note that in most (if not all) OSS projects, the project as a whole doesn't hold the ownership anyway. You're not giving away your ownership of the code you write when you submit it as part of an OSS project. As an example, if JBoss wanted to change their license from LGPL to ASL (Apache Software License, similar to MPL/MIT, somewhat a BSD-revised kind of license), the project or lead developers can't just say "ok, we change the license". They would have to ask every single developer who committed code in any form if they agree to change the license of their parts. BTW, if they don't, they would of course still have the option of removing and rewriting the parts that come from developers who don't accept the license change. The only exception that comes to my mind would be Sun's CDDL, that is not very clear about that. It seems to imply that you give away your ownership to the project, but I haven't read the license myself, so I'm not 100% sure about it.

...

Now, that's fine and all, I mean, U&W can put their software under whatever license they prefer. I'm not criticising U&W by any means (well, maybe: if they just want to make pine opensource, they'd better put it under one of OSI's approved licenses and be done with it, why have yet another license...),

Is there an OSI compatible license which prohibits forks? IMO not, but nevertheless somebody could like to prevent a damage to the reputation of his work by forks with bad changes.

Mmmm... I don't know, never looked at it from that perspective. Well, yeah, a fork could cause damage in terms of reputation but... not sure. I mean, it's a fork, it's not the project itself ;)

...

The point is (again, I think I'm writing this for the 4th time or so): when we say the 5 first CDs are "100% OSS", do we mean OSS as by OSI's definition, or do we have our own definition of "OSS", like: "if we have the source code and can redistribute it, then it's OSS" ?

When I say "we", it's actually Novell/SUSE, as there doesn't seem to be much influence we can take on this decision (or everyone is too busy to comment) :\

Maybe you missed the mail of Juergen Weigert <20060324114908.GA10373@suse.de>? He answered, that SUSE will stick with the OSI definition for CD6 at the moment.

I read Jürgen's mail, but I heard the opposite from other people working at SUSE. Maybe it needs to be clarified inside Novell/SUSE first ;)

...

PS: reading my mail again, I do sound so picky... it's not my intention, I just wanted to clarify a few things, as opensource and free software are often misunderstood, it's really more FYI than "cutting hairs in 4" (and IANAL, I'm far from being an expert in that area)

I really appreciate your efforts, you're mails are always well thought and balanced.

Thanks. And (wrt the 2 other mails you've just posted on the list) please don't imply that because we're talking about licenses, some of us "don't care about usability" or that we're becoming "GPL extremists like Debian" (*). I wrote in a previous mail that my original subject line to "drop pine" was mistaken, and again, I'd like to apoligize for it. Yet, it's not because SUSE Linux is a distribution that is not adhering to FSF zealotry that we can't talk about licenses and have a 100% OSS subset of the distribution. Also, just because my opinion (as well as of a few other people) is to consider pine not to be opensource, it doesn't reflect the distribution. I'm not working for Novell/SUSE, I'm just part of the community ;) So, please, also don't imply that because we're discussing that matter here, SUSE Linux would be "heading towards Debian" (*) or something like that. (*) I really don't want to bash the Debian folks for that, it's also good to have people who care about it in such a way - whether it matches your "philosophy" or not, that's a matter of choice. Personally, I respect them very much for the work they do, and as their role as some safeguard wrt Free Software. Nevertheless, I do have a somewhat more pragmatic approach, and I just like SUSE Linux better as a distribution. But that's not a reason for bashing them or being disrespectful by any means ;) cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEJzD/r3NMWliFcXcRAqczAJ90RarV36vqSTBSMKNXvraLFHeK+wCfWXJj gvOy7ibNrkVBrBgFn6Qtyzk= =fLT4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mar 27, 06 02:25:35 +0200, Pascal Bleser wrote:

...

<20060324114908.GA10373@suse.de>? He answered, that SUSE will stick with the OSI definition for CD6 at the moment.

I read Jürgen's mail, but I heard the opposite from other people working at SUSE. Maybe it needs to be clarified inside Novell/SUSE first ;)

Oops, I did not mean to say that. We stick with the OSI definition for the OSS-Distribution CD1-CD5. We put all the border-cases that do *not* comply, on CD6. sorry for the confusion. Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8

houghi schrieb:

On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:53:22AM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

I still think that users opinions are important here. Notice that the view some people express that linux is designed by developers and for developers only could become too true.

Users opinions are important. However it is the developers that make and add the licences, so when you are talking licences, that is the viuwpoint you need to take. This so you can respect the user who wants a 100% OSS system.

Sorry, but I did not meet a single user (and I cared and care for just a bunch of them) who was interested in an 100% OSS system. Only developpers are talking about this; and yes, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger is also one of those kernel devs, so he doesn't count as user anymore. ;-) Users however care for usability. As a result of this thread, Juergen Weigert cleared the state of the 6th CD, so the pine question got a clear answer. Which was a quite easy one, as in this case there is no contradiction between usability and licenses. But I could very well imagine different cases (the discussions in earlier times about the freedom of KDE comes to mind, before QT was GPL). So, I just want to give all the SUSE people sourrounded by developpers, GPL, and kernel policy enthusiasts a short reminder to not forget about the goal stated for SUSE "We work together to create and distribute the world's most usable Linux.": I.e. IMHO, if there is a gap between licenses and usability, please choose the latter one, because therefore many users chose SUSE. Ciao Siegbert

On Mar 25, 06 00:53:22 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Now, it's all about moving pico/pine (and *possibly* dropping pico as GNU nano seems to be a full-featured remplacement) to the 6th non-OSS CD + non-OSS repository, as with Java and other things.

That's fine with me :-)

Question: what about the dvd, then?

Afaik, opensuse does not offer DVD-images. Do we? Whoever offers DVD images or DVD generator scripts, please clearly mark them as 'OSS', if the contents is equivalent to CD1-CD5 only. thanks, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8

* Christoph Thiel [03-27-06 05:33]:

The DVD that used to be known as EvalDVD will ship non-OSS packages. So will the DVD9, that ships with the retail box.

Then the box will ship with an OSS DVD and a non OSS CD-6??? (question) -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Christoph Thiel [03-27-06 05:33]:

...

The DVD that used to be known as EvalDVD will ship non-OSS packages. So ^^^^^^^

...

will the DVD9, that ships with the retail box.

Then the box will ship with an OSS DVD and a non OSS CD-6??? (question)

No, as I said before, it will include a NON-OSS DVD as well as a NON-OSS CD6. Regards Christoph

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:31:25PM +0200, Juergen Weigert wrote:

Afaik, opensuse does not offer DVD-images. Do we? Whoever offers DVD images or DVD generator scripts, please clearly mark them as 'OSS', if the contents is equivalent to CD1-CD5 only.

openSUSE does not, but SUSE does. (the problem of the ftp.suse.com and ftp.openSUSE.org) There will be a DVD with the content of CD1-6 Boxed version will also contain non-OSS stuff. Rem,ember that openSUSE is not a distribution, it is a group of people, a community. SUSE is the distribution. I have a DVD generator script. However I can not mark anything as it is possible to not only include CD1-5 or CD1-3 or CD1-6, but also closed source RPMs. It is up to the person who runs it to name it. :-) houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 01:11:22AM +0200, Siegbert Baude wrote:

So I'm very glad Rembrandt didn't chose an OSI license for his work. I could hardly stand the rest of the world improving his pictures. ;-) (Your comparison didn't really hit the nail, did it?)

People have painted things that are copies from Rembrandts Nightwatch. Also the Nightwatch is not in its original state as Rembrandt has intended it. They cut of parts off the sides to fit it in the place it hung before. So not only did they forked it, they also changed the painting itself. Some work of 'De nachtwacht'. Wether or not this is an improvement rests in the eye of the beholder: http://www.britams.nl/general_information_principals_welcome.htm http://www.hetrembrandthuis.nl/index.php?page=hetrembrandthuis.thema http://www.worth1000.com/entries/36000/36441ukov_w.jpg http://www.botsjeh.cistron.nl/bert/nachtwacht/nachtwacht.htm http://digidagboek.blogspot.com/2005/07/rembrandt-herleeft-in-leiden-leiden.... http://www.argus-online.nl/A-121203.html There also is(was) a group of people who did a live performance of the "nachtwacht" http://www.rembrandtfestival.nl/img/site/Image/Rembrandtfestival/16Rembrandt... Many more examples can be found. The same goes for many more paintings of other painters.

ACK. In this case it is not a problem, but I really would have an official statement of some SUSE guy, if usability stands against OSI (or kernel policies), what will win? Will SUSE become a second Debian?

I hope that SUSE has the common sence to follow the law and look at the licences as given by the developers. There is no way you can go around those licences. It is their software. It is their choice. SUSE won't go the way of Debian and that answer should be clear by the fact that there is a CD 6. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

...

The SUSE Linux OSS version is stated to only contain Open Source Software, if this definition is to differ from the widely accepted principles defined by the OSI or FSF

please do _not_ start a new discussion about the opensource definition :-). OSI and FSF are already enough. possibly we could look into debian discussions, but very carefully. this is an hole nightmare in itself :-( jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html http://lucien.dodin.net http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_photos