[ILUG] SUSE Linux 9.3 Professional Edition licensing survey results

[Gareth Eason]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rick Moen wrote:
[much stuff deleted]
| Actually, at least one GPLed codebase _is_ Novell-owned:  YaST.  And, in
| general, each other Novell-owned package will have its own individual
| licence statement of some sort.  The phrase above appears, then, to be
| limited to the compilation copyright.  Which is the point I've made
| several times.

	Yes. Yes you have made that point several times.

| (Obviously, Novell would not be able to grant rights to packages other
| people own copyright over.  I've had to make this point a few times,
| too.)

	Erm... no - you did not have to make this point several times... you
chose to make it several times.

	My eyes are now bleeding from reading this thread. For the first time
I'm actually beginning to see why businesses stay the
f[random_characters]k away from free software in many cases... While I
genuinely appreciate informative and insightful threads on copyright as
it related to software, free and not-so-free, every new message added to
this thread has made me die just a little more inside... Please stop!

	I think both sides have good arguments and not being a lawyer myself I
can't say which one is correct, if any.

	I very much enjoy seeing both sides of a discussion brought to the
table and discussed thoroughly and in a style clear enough for others to
learn and even participate: but please, please make your salient points
once and only once. If the other party has not learned at that point,
walk away. Walk away and do not hit reply.

	And now, if it be so willed by $DEITY (where $DEITY could be equal to
NULL), let this thread die...

	Best regards,
	-->Gar



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCcnmlK36C50PvIR8RAjfdAJ4imrHigeQ9L+STFKXrL/QyK35VVwCfbood
SZj5EZdAYGa/f161NTURoxU=
=CSFA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----