[ILUG] SuSE redistribution

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Laur Ivan (laur.ivan at corvil.com):

> I understand from threads:
> http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2005-Apr/1292.html
> http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2005-Apr/1495.html
> 
> that there should be no prob in distributing the CDs as long as "money
> don't change hands". 

That's (1) out of date language, and (2) didn't ever concern _all_ of
the CDs' contents, in any event:

This language was in older SUSE boxed sets and downloadable ISOs, and
concerned the licence to the then-current version of YaST/YaST2, which
software was/is property of SUSE Linux AG.  More recently, Novell/SUSE
has issued newer releases of YaST/YaST2 under GPLv2.

Any edition of SUSE always consists of a great many more packages than
just YaST/YaST2.  Each licence has its own copyright owner -- ownership
being diverse, as with any other Linux distribution -- and licensing
terms specified by the copyright owner, sometimes as part of a business
arrangement specifically with Novell/SUSE, sometimes not.

Certain of the editions, notably Professional Edition, have always
included at least a few proprietary packages whose copyright owners have
_not_ issued for them permission for the public to redistribute the
software.  As of SUSE 9.1, those were (at minimum):

Adobe Acroread
Moneyplex
Opera Web browser
Real Networks RealPlayer8

Last September, I unpacked the SUSE 9.1 Professional Edition RPMs of all
of those packages, and verified from direct inspection that the
software in question may _not_ be lawfully redistributed.  Please see:

http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2004-September/000513.html
http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2004-September/000514.html

It's possible that SUSE 9.3 Professional Edition omits all such
packages, but I doubt it _very_ much.  


The history of these online discussions traditionally features people
citing basically irrelevant licence statements (e.g., collective work /
compilation copyright statements from Novell/SUSE, which obviously
cannot apply to components that firm doesn't own copyright on, and
misinformed assertions from SUSE sales staff).  I notice that this
renewed thread is following suit.

If someone has SUSE 9.3 Professional Edition, and can cite licence terms
of the above-referenced packages or their successors, then _that_ might 
actually be relevant.  (There might be other non-redistributable
packages inside Professional Edition, but those are the four I spotted.)

-- 
Cheers,                                      Hardware:  The part you kick.
Rick Moen                                    Software:  The part you boot.
rick at linuxmafia.com