Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-features (542 mails)

< Previous Next >
[openFATE 310854] Restrictive License
  • From: fate_noreply@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:31:36 +0100 (CET)
  • Message-id: <feature-310854-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Feature changed by: Juergen Weigert (jnweiger)
Feature #310854, revision 11
Title: Restrictive License Unconfirmed
Requester: Important

Info Provider: Alex Bars (alexdbars)
Requested by: Alex Bars (alexdbars)
Technical Contact: (Novell)
Partner organization:

Sorry, can openSUSE throw out that message on installation about:
 "As required by US law, you represent and warrant that you: (...) c)
will not export, re-export, or transfer openSUSE 11.3 to any prohibited
destination, entity... d) will not use or transfer openSUSE 11.3 for
use in any sensitive nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or
missile technology end-uses... "
Why must not to be used  by militaries, if the license is GPL?

#1: Rémy Marquis (spyhawk) (2010-11-23 22:53:51)
As far as I know, this rather silly message is mandatory because of the
inclusion of strong cryptographic element. And yes, this US law is
We might be able to get rid of it once the openSUSE foundation is

#2: Thomas Schmidt (digitaltomm) (2010-11-24 11:26:48)
Maybe Juergen knows more why this is needed.

#3: Alex Bars (alexdbars) (2010-11-25 12:31:24)
At least on Brazil, silly things like that  is enough to stay away from
our(my) beloved openSUSE!!

#5: Juergen Weigert (jnweiger) (2010-11-26 17:34:24) (reply to #3)
If the license is GPL, military can use it. The license for openSUSE as
a collective work is not GPL. Most components inside are GPL, and this
EULA text does not not apply. The EULA clearly says that whenever you
find a conflicting license in a package, that license takes precedence
over the EULA. Note, that similar language is actually found e.g. in
the opera licenses, and with many java packages.
We prefer to mention such odd clauses in the EULA to avoid nasty
surprises, even if they would not apply to a majority of the code.

#4: Pavol Rusnak (prusnak) (2010-11-26 15:41:43) (reply to #3)
Sorry, but this argument is crap. The same regulations apply for all
major Linux distributions (Fedora, Mandriva, Debian, Ubuntu, etc.)

#6: Juergen Weigert (jnweiger) (2010-11-29 19:42:40)
Alex, please let me know, if my earlier response was helpful.

#7: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2010-12-02 02:01:23)
So what I basically extract from this request is that this EULA message
should only appear in the retail release, not on the FTP tree and ISO.

+ #8: Juergen Weigert (jnweiger) (2010-12-02 12:31:32) (reply to #7)
+ No, I do not see anything in here, where the distribution channel would
+ make a difference.
+ Where-ever we offer the product as a whole, the EULA applies. An FTP
+ tree (due to its tree structure) makes it easy to extract an individual
+ component (RPM-package) from a product. That is where a components
+ license may apply instead of the EULA. This only works for individual
+ components -- never for an entire product, e.g. as represented on an
+ ISO image.

openSUSE Feature:

< Previous Next >
This Thread