[ILUG] SuSE redistribution
rory.browne at gmail.com
Sun Apr 24 01:26:03 IST 2005
I emailed Novell about this, citing your concerns regarding the
presence of Propriatory software.
I've been assured that their license is legal.
I don't know whether this means that the copyright is based on their
compilation copyright, or a license from the relevent copyright
holders, but they've specificly told me(based on the citation
regarding the propriatory sw, that redistribution was legal, provided
there was no payment.
If you dispute this, then feel free to contact the copyright holders
of the relevent four packages.
> Sure. (But, if you think that a grant based on the distro vendor's
> "compilation copyright" suffices to cover the entire contents, you're
I don't think the compilation copyright covers the entire contents. I
think it covers the image on the media, which is what is in question.
If you disect the image than the subsections of the image come into
question. When you don't disect the image, then you don't need to
worry about the subsections. They're Novells Problem.
> > Novell have a licence to include such software on their compilation.
> > Novell give their customers the right redistribute their compilation.
> Unsupported assertion. Please cite.
> The relevant copyright holders would have to grant permission for
> further redistribution, and there's no been showing that they ever have.
> In fact, evidence from 9.1 Professional Edition showed the exact
Which would make it illegal for Novell to place copys of their work on
their media for redsitribution. It is therefore safe to assume that
such permission exists.
> No, I've referenced settled points of law, demonstrable fact about the
> earlier release, and Novell-published package lists.
No you havent't/
> > I say it is not those four packages in particular that you are
> > redistributing, but rather an entire compilation for which you
> > have permission from the copyright holder to redistribute.
> Sorry, but we've already covered this: Novell is NOT the copyright
> holder of those four packages (nor, actually, of almost all other
> constituent codebases).
OK I'm getting fed up saying the same thing time and time again. My
point isn't that Novell own the constituent copyrights. I'm saying
that they own the copyright for the media image as a whole.
You don't seem to be getting the message. Run the following commands
in an Bourne compatable shell.
echo Novell have the copyright for the work as a whole. Not the
> Thus my question: Where's the licence?
Presumably at Novells Headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts, although
possibly in Nuremburg, which was(and possibly still is) SuSE's
> Sorry, but we've already covered this: Once again, copyright violation
> exists upon your performing acts not specifically permitted by the
> relevent copyright owners
which in this case is permitted by the relevent copyright holder - novell.
(and not otherwise granted by law), completely
> without regard to whether you "form an agreement" or not.
> > Don't start an argument about what SCO's case against IBM was about.
> As the French would presumably never say: "Quelle chutzpah!" _You_
> were the one doing that.
You were the one who brought up the recent action between SCO and IBM
IIRC. Of Course there is the possibiltiy that I don't remember
correctly, but I can check if necessary.
> In their antics for the press, yes, but _not_ in their cause of action
> for the IBM court case. Thus my point.
me.couldBeArsed( action.rhymingCourtCaseEvents("SCO", "IBM") ) == false
More information about the ILUG