Feature changed by: akash vishwakarma (vish_99) Feature #310854, revision 12 Title: Restrictive License openSUSE.org: Unconfirmed Priority Requester: Important Info Provider: Alex Bars (alexdbars) Requested by: Alex Bars (alexdbars) Technical Contact: Juergen Weigert (jnweiger) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: 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? Discussion: #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 silly. We might be able to get rid of it once the openSUSE foundation is created. #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. + #9: akash vishwakarma (vish_99) (2015-05-18 14:20:23) + Alex what feature request do you want to make. Do want those string of + texts to be removed. Please explain, else the feature request is viable + to be rejected. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/310854