[ILUG] SuSE redistribution

[Rick Moen]

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

> Novell is the relevent copyright holder for the DVD....

YaST aside, you would be referring only to the compilation copyright, 
which is not relevant to this discussion.  For the uninitated, a
compilation copyright arises when one creatively selects and arranges
other people's work, and recognises that arrangement as a "work" in
itself.  Thus, for example, the editor of a short story anthology enjoys
that form of copyright. 

The authors of those stories (stipulating for discussion's sake that
they retained their stories' copyrights) could lawfully republish a
_different_ arrangement of their stories without violating the first
editor's rights, but just reprinting the original design without the
editor's permission would be a tort.

> ...(in the same way as Theo de Raadt has the copyright to the layout
> of the official OpenBSD iso's)...

This is, as you suggest, a compilation copyright.  

You are once again raising irrelevancies, and ignoring my point.


> ...and (I'm assuming)have a license from the relevent copyright
> holders to include the relevent software on the DVD.

Seem reasonable to assume -- but _still_ irrelevant to the point.  The
right of public redistribution is NOT included, unless explicitly
granted.  

Do you have some reason to suppose that Matrica GmbH, Real Networks,
Inc., Adobe Systems, Inc., and Opera Software ASA have granted that
permission?  If so, please cite it.  I've already given links to where
they all _specifically_ said otherwise for the versions of their
software included in SUSE Linux 9.1 Professional Edition.  

If you or someone else claim that the right -is- granted by those
copyright holders in 9.3 Professional Edition, I'm glad to hear it, and
ask only that someone post relevant passges from the licence statements 
where they said so.

> I put it to you that by your logic, ISP's would have to manually check
> everything that goes through their routers. 

I put it to you that you seem to be smoking the funny stuff.

> When your ISP passes the software on to you from their routers, they
> are infringing copyright law? If they use a caching proxy, like squid,
> are they redistributing copyrighted material?

I can predict on 100:1 odds that that person who made such a
crack-addled claim would be bounced down the courtroom steps on his ass.
Judges are able to distinguish easily enough, in context of tort law,
between hosting sites on the Internet and routers/caches, even if you
can't.

> Disagreeing with you isn't necessarly sidestepping your question.

No, but sidestepping me question_is_ sidestepping my question.

I'm sorry, but I really don't have time to waste playing rhetorical
footsie with you.

> What exactly was your question( the one I allegedly sidestepped), and
> how did I sidestep it?

For your convenience, here it is again:  "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?"

Please cite.

 
> I think I understand your point better now. Your logic is however
> fatally flawed. The GPL and Propriatory licenses are different in that
> the GPL promotes freedom, and propriatory licenses take it away(I
> never thought I'd have to explain that on a linux list). Therefore
> accepting a GPL gives you rights, whilst accepting a propriatory
> licence takes away rights.

Oddly enough, I believe I _did_ make this point fairly clear, and in
reasonably small words.  Again, for your convenience, here it was:
"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."


> The SCO vs IBM case, and the involvement of the GPL, was centred
> around the allegation that IBM used SCO code, and passed it off to
> linux as if it was their own.

Sonny boy, kindly don't try to tell me about what the SCO case was
about, when I was one of the -creators- of one of the primary sites that
has tracked the case, and when you are, in fact, dead wrong.  SCO
Group's cause of action was contract-based.

You are wasting my time.  

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