[ILUG] SuSE redistribution

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Rory Browne (rory.browne at gmail.com):

> > So, if you as a purchaser of a SUSE Linux Professional Edition boxed set
> > don't accept, e.g., the licence to MoneyPlex (and/or the other three),
> > where specifically would you be gaining the right to redistribute it?
> 
> What you have to examine here, is what exactly you are redistributing.
> If you are redistributing the Program on its own, for the explicit
> purpose of installing that Program, then that probably would be
> illegal. If however what you want to redistribute is an entire, then I
> think the onus is on the copyright holder for the CD(which in this
> case would be Novell) layout to decide whether or not you can
> redistribute the medium as a whole.

I'm sorry, but Novell is not the relevant copyright holder for those
four codebases.  And copyright infringement is a tort, regardless of the
purpose for which one commits the infringing act.

And I'll note that you sidestepped my question.

[SCO Group:]

> That is a completely different case.

No, it is a different case in the aspects that I _wasn't discussing_.
My point concerned the aspects that I _was_ concentrating on:  You were
suggesting that one could avoid obligations by simply not committing any
act that binds you to the package's licence.  My point in the SCO
comparison is that you often have _fewer_ rights if you don't accept a
licence than if you do.

Moreover, I wanted to make sure you didn't miss the point that the right
of redistribution is reserved to the copyright holder by default
operation of copyright law, and thus must be conveyed, if at all, by
licence.

> SCO were accusing IBM of revealing Trade Secrets, and all that. 

Which is entirely irrelevant to my point.

> There is a clause in the GPL that it is the only thing that gives you
> the right to use/redistribute the software, so all the 'brigher
> person' had to do was read the GPL.

GPLv2 clause 5 is redundant to copyright law.  As such, it's basically
informational, informing recipients of the effect I described, and used
the SCO anecdote to further illustrate.

> Also....

"Also"?  Did it entirely escape your notice that you completely
sidestepped my point and raised irrelevancies?

> ...in that case the code was actually (allegedly)used. If the program
> is only a few files on disk, that are normally never accesses, and
> never used, then I can't see the problem.

See preceding point about copyright infringement.