[ILUG] SUSE Linux 9.3 Professional Edition licensing survey results

[Rory Browne]

> > Okay Rick: I don't think you are in a very good position to be
> > accusing me of lack of due diligence.
> 
> On the evidence, I'm in an _excellent_ position:  You claimed that
> Novell's alleged grant of non-commercial redistribution rights to SUSE
> 9.3 Professional Edition would necessarily have to cover all of the
> contents thereof,
Based (a) on the oft-quoted paragraph, and (b) the fact that I was
explicitly told by a Novell representitive that it was
redistributable. the 'below paragraph' does not negate that. It
weakens it slightly, but the fact that Novells legal dept, confirmed
that redistribution was legal, counteracts that paragraph, drasticly
reducing its(the adjacent paragraph) relevence.

> otherwise it would violate Irish commercial law
Actually It was Irish consumer law, and not only the license, but the
subsequent assurance from Novells copyright dept.

> -- but
> in so doing _selectively failed_ to mention the immediately adjacent
> phrasing in that grant clarifying that it specifically _doesn't_ cover
> all of the CDs' contents.
> 
> Thus my annoyance.  You have wasted everyone's time.
You're making a mountain out of what is hardly even a molehill.
Without the assurance from Novell, it might have had a slight
relevence. After the assurance from Novell it had a lot less, if any.

 
> > I didn't then, and still now don't have a copy of the relevent
> > DVD/CD's. It didn't stop me from reading their license agreement,
> > before commenting on it.
> 
> Selectively.
Fair enough. I should have included their disclaimer of warrenty, and
all the other irrelevent stuff there.


> > Why, what should I have done. Posted the entire licence agreement to
> > the list?
> 
> The relevant part DIRECTLY BELOW the part you did quote -- so as not to
> lie through omission.
I didn't consider that relevent.

 
> Wait, didn't you say you _had_ read the licence agreement?  Then,
> _to your knowledge_ what you wrote was _not_ factually accurate.
> Unless perhaps that was some _other_ Rory Browne (rory.browne at gmail.com)
> speaking?
What exactly was not factually accurate. Are you disputing that I read
the license, or that I don't know if I read the license. What exactly
are you suggesting?

> Anyhow, my solicitor's address, for service of process, is:
> 
> Elster S. Haile
> 540 University Avenue
> Palo Alto, California 94301-1919
> USA
Frankly I couldn't be arsed sueing over something as minor as this.
That doesn't however take away from that fact that false accusations
are libel.