[ILUG] SUSE Linux 9.3 Professional Edition licensing survey results

[Niall Walsh]

Rory Browne wrote:

>Niall:
>I don't believe I've wasted anyones time. I made an argument, based on
>my interpretion of Irish legislation, as well as US case law. I
>believed then, and I still do, that SuSE distributions are legally
>distributable, provided you don't obtain payment for them. I
>furthermore believe that if it were proved otherwise, then the guilty
>party would be Novell. I've quoted two laws to support that belief,
>namely the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980, and the
>Consumer Information Act 1978.
>  
>
Perhaps I am unfair it blaming you alone for time wasting here.   Niall 
O Broin was the initial guilty party who selected to only post the 
supporting evidence.   Rick made it clear he was waiting to get his 
hands on his own copy and nobody suggested you could find the agreement 
elsewhere.

So we've had a big debate about something which is clarified in the 
license just below the quoted section, you admit to having read that 
section but it appears you choose to ignore it or feel that it does not 
apply?

Also can I ask why you have not looked at the packages which may be in 
question to see if they have any statements regarding your rights?

You cannot copy anything without the rights to do so.   Novells license 
agreement clearly states:

"Your license rights with respect to individual components accompanied 
by separate license terms are defined by those terms; nothing in this 
Agreement (including, for example, the "Other License Terms and 
Restrictions," below) shall restrict, limit, or otherwise affect any 
rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may be 
subject, under such license terms."

So are you really suggesting that you would like to sue Novell for their 
agreement if you in turn were sued by, say, Adobe for ditributing 
Acrobat Reader illegally?

Niall Walsh