[ILUG] SuSE redistribution

[Rory Browne]

>From  http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/distribute.html

You may also distribute Adobe Reader on a CD or any other physical
media as long as you accept the terms and conditions of the electronic
Adobe Reader Distribution Agreement.

That's one down. Three more to go.

I couldn't be arsed finding the realplayer, opera, and moneyplex
licences at this present minute( Its 1:35 am ).

On 4/24/05, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Rory Browne (rory.browne at gmail.com):
> 
> > I emailed Novell about this, citing your concerns regarding the
> > presence of proprietary software.
> >
> > I've been assured that their license is legal.
> 
> That's all very nice, but, as you know, they're not the property owners
> in question.  A statement from the latter would be _relevant_.  One from
> Novell is no more relevant than my getting permission from your roommate
> to take your car on a jaunt to the south of France for a month.
> 
> Morever, SUSE's public representatives have a long history of putting
> out demonstrably mistaken statement about these issues concerning prior
> releases, as those who've been on this mailing list for a while will
> recall.
> 
> (Please note:  To reiterate, my concern is _not_ with Novell/SUSE's
> inclusion of proprietary software.  It is with the ongoing inclusion of
> software for which, in all prior releases, the copyright holders have
> not granted the public permission to redistribute -- and in fact have
> gone out of their way to clarify that it isn't granted.)
> 
> > I don't know whether this means that the copyright is based on their
> > compilation copyright....
> 
> If you _understand_ the concept of "compilation copyright", you would
> understand why it's obviously not relevant.
> 
> > ...or a license from the relevent copyright holders....
> 
> If there _is_ a licence from the relevant copyright holders, then it
> should be possible to CITE ITS WORDING.  I note that nobody has done so.
> My tentative conclusion is this is just yet another in a long series of
> excuses people make for copyright infringement, assisted (per your
> account, which I readily believe) by erroneous e-mails from company
> representatives.
> 
> > ...but they've specificly told me(based on the citation regarding the
> > propriatory sw, that redistribution was legal, provided there was no
> > payment.
> 
> This is suspiciously identical to their old boilerplate text derived
> from the pre-SUSE 9.2 licence on YaST, so one suspects that the support
> guys are just quoting it.
> 
> > If you dispute this, then feel free to contact the copyright holders
> > of the relevent four packages.
> 
> Much better:  Within a couple of days, I'll have a SUSE Linux
> Professional 9.3 5-CD set in front of me, and can check all statements
> therein, relevant to the four packages' licensing, for myself.  I'll be
> extremely surprised if anything relevant has changed since 9.1, but we
> shall see.
> 
> I'm guessing that you could do that today, but can't be bothered,
> because you're happy to find an excuse, however illogical, for copyright
> infringement.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Given that you've raised the topic in a context where it has no
> relevance, I suspect you quite get it:  A compilation copyright
> recognises (and creates an abstract property interest in) any
> sufficiently creative selection and arrangement of some collection of
> other people's work.  Licensing of that right is completely distinct
> from licensing of the constituent works.  Having redistribution rights
> to one does nothing about getting you redistribution rights to the
> other.
> 
> > If you disect the image than the subsections of the image come into
> > question.
> 
> No!  _Regardless_ of whether you decompose the image, rights to its
> components either were or were not yours, depending on whether the
> components owners granted those rights.
> 
> This really shouldn't be that difficult, Rory.  The mechanics of the
> matter are pretty freakin' obvious, in fact.
> 
> > > > 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
> > > opposite.
> >
> > Which would make it illegal for Novell to place copys of their work on
> > their media for redsitribution.
> 
> No, it certainly would not.
> 
> I know the particulars of this matter because it was discussed
> extensively online concerning then-impending Linux distribution releases
> were to include, e.g., RealPlayer, Netscape Communicator/Navigator, and
> Acrobat Reader in them -- such as early Red Hat releases.  Anyone who
> wanted to include those packages was obliged to sign a distribution
> agreement.  _If_ the resulting CD images were intended to be
> REdistributable by the public (e.g., RH 4.2), then the RPMs in question
> included a statement to that effect by the copyright owners.  If not,
> then the package would include no such statement.
> 
> > It is therefore safe to assume that such permission exists.
> 
> You think the public was granted redistribution rights, but the
> copyright holders didn't want to _inform the public_ of that.  What, you
> think the lawyers at Adobe Systems are suddenly asleep on the job?
> 
> > > No, I've referenced settled points of law, demonstrable fact about the
> > > earlier release, and Novell-published package lists.
> >
> > No you havent't
> 
> I've already furnished the URLs for relevant quotations from the 9.1
> packages and for 9.3's package lists.  The relevant points of law you
> can find in the Berne Convention and applicable national copyright
> statutes, which, modulo localatrocities like DMCA, tend to be very
> similar in most places.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Which is, for elementary reasons cited, irrelevant to the point.
> 
> > > 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
> > headquarters.
> 
> "The public have been granted permission, but it's 'on display' in the
> bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a
> sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'"
> 
> Right, then.
> 
> > > > 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.
> 
> But not "starting an argument about what SCO's case against IBM was
> about".  What, are you dense?
> 
> --
> Irish Linux Users' Group
> http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug/
> 
>