SuSE, Czech Localization, And An Odd Licensing Twist 144
"According to their FAQ and their official statement in the Czech Linux mailing list (both links are in Czech, sorry), they plan to GPL the StarOffice localization files after May 31, 2001. To make things even more interesting, they additionaly permit to use the StarOffice localization under Debian and Slackware after February 28, 2001. But when you use Red Hat, Mandrake, TurboLinux or anything else, you either have to switch your distribution, or wait until June.
Do not get me wrong, they can put any license they want on the software they developed. But I definitely do not think this is the right thing to do for an Open source(tm) company.
I should probably add a background info about Linux in the Czech republic: The most difficult part about Czech localization is, that we do not use ISO 8859-1, but ISO 8859-2. So we cannot use the standard PostScript fonts directly, we have problems with software, authors of which think everyone uses ISO 8859-1, etc. The most popular distribution here is definitely Red Hat Linux, but others (such as Debian, Slackware, Mandrake or SuSE are widely used, too). Only SuSE has the development team here, though. In the SuSE Czech (or with its funding) are developed for example the ALSA project, Linux Input drivers, etc. A majority of the Czech kernel developers work at least partly for SuSE (Martin Mares, the kernel PCI guru, Vojtech Pavlik, to name at least few).
So SuSE Czech definitely does some good things, but their StarOffice localization licensing is, to be honest, unfortunate. What do you think about this?
-Yenya (the head of the Czech Linux Users' group)"
Odd at best... (Score:1)
Josh
Odd... (Score:1)
I wonder what the FSF (or Sun) would say about this?
I could... (Score:1)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
A Czech translator (Score:1)
at what point does it stop becoming suse? (Score:4)
ok, aside from the fact that its a dangerous precedant (think mslinux.org), I have another interesting point:
Linux is linux. At what point does it become Debian? (or Redhat, or whatever). If I install it as suse, and then, upgrade some key components, is it now Debian? Is it still Suse?
Gar, and those ads which say "redhat compatible" are really annoying too
Still thinking which license? (Score:1)
But when you see the restrictions "Only Suse". That's plain silly. Mayb they intend to build in some kind of countermeasure by June if you run it on RedHat, Mandrake, etc... But that's worth nothing as everyone will use the patched code.
On the other hand: Suse is not a bad distro!
my $0.02
Odd (Score:1)
Maybe they just slipped up?
Conspiracy alert: perhaps the popular distros are being held back in order to sue offenders as they put it on "illegal" distros? Nah, that only happens in the US!
The Tables are Turned (Score:1)
Now there's a significant Linux program unavailable under Windows.
Not that I can read Czech.
How to enforce this? (Score:1)
Re:How to enforce this? (Score:2)
Yuck... (Score:2)
On one hand, it is true that if I did truly understand most commercial closed source softwares licencing agreements, I would even be more scared. On the other hand, for something like Linux, while the licencing agreements are less draconian, every second piece of software inside will be differently licenced... Would this force me to read 20 or thirty different licencing agreements with every distro?
Come on, I would rather just compute! When will sanity come to this licencing craze???
Bork!
And people gripe about Red Hat! (Score:2)
Maybe they've got a reason (Score:2)
What was SuSE thinking? (Score:1)
-----------------------------------------
Re:at what point does it stop becoming suse? (Score:3)
Though I suppose there are some people that use their distro's default userfriendly utilities to manage their systems as opposed to playing with the config files by hand (hell there may even be someone that doesn't hate kudzu) and simply run the CD updates every time a new point release comes out (debian users excluded of course who can apt-get -U
As for whether or not your linux install still qualifies as SuSE I'd wager that if it was originally as SuSE install then it probably satisfies the bizarre and otherworldy requirements of this license.
Re:And people gripe about Red Hat! (Score:1)
Embrace and Extend (Score:1)
Say it with me now... (Score:1)
SuSE service is seriously lacking (Score:1)
i had a problem and still have a problem with Installing it. ( i have gone to all lengths to solve the problem news groups help from friends etc) so 4 weeks ago i sent a message to them asking for the support I paid for and i emphasize PAID (after exchange and the duty irt cost more thean i expected) and i took them THREE and a HALF weeks to responde and the response was follow the instructions on were a complete replica of the instructions i found and followed from there web site which did not work which was why i e-mailed support in the first place
i sent them a reply again they refered me to there web site
I do not call this service or support
is it because i am not a big Corporation and just a student? i dont understand
all i wanted was to get SuSE running
I have now given up on SuSE and have started to install and configure Debian
I thought the whole idea behind Linux was that it was a service based industry
that was the last time i will ever Buy Linux from a mainstream distribution again
anonymous coward
former SuSE user
Something to think about. (Score:1)
Re:A Czech translator which doesn't cache (Score:1)
Mirror anyone?
Hmmm (Score:4)
If I had to guess, it was probably something from Sun. Remember, this is not the GPLed OpenOffice, it's the Sun licensed StarOffice.
Also remember that it will be available for all after May 31, maybe Sun aren't allowing them to do it before.
I'm guessing we'll either have a clarification ("Sun's fault...") or a retraction ("oops, some new guy in legal/marketing screwed up...") within a couple of days.
It's too early to yell battle cries just yet, SuSE has done a lot for open source projects and pay a lot of people to work on them.
More FUD on Slashdot... (Score:3)
Nah, let's start whining about something that seems kinda lame but pretty harmless. Since I don't know czech I guess I would have to take it on faith that this person knows what they are talking about (not the language but the business speak angle can be pretty complicated, especially if it was translated into czech for the web site). But I'll wait to see if anyone gets any verification on this, though on Slashdot these days it seems that there is an awful lot of "chicken little" being posted.
Damn, I am not so interested in bashing Suse as I am Apple, so I guess really don't have a vested interest in this story.......though I am sure that this gives the Redhat crowd a reason to support their distro......not to mention anyone with a gripe against Suse...I can just hear it now: "Once Suse was mean to me and never answered my email......"
GPL vs. SISSL (Score:5)
Sounds to me like this is why the GPL is so important. I'm assuming (1) that this about OpenOffice, not just StarOffice, and (2) that the reason they can do this is because they are using the Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL) instead of the GPL. (OpenOffice is licensed under both GPL and SISSL, take your pick.)
If SISSL allows you to release such proprietary extensions, then it's a poor choice to allow OpenOffice to be licensed under it. While SuSE sounds like they will do The Right Thing and GPL their mods, what's to prevent someone else from not doing that in an attempt to privatize the whole thing? If OpenOffice is to become such a major project, it is very important for it to remain GPL.
This is similar to the old, ThankGodNoLongerRelevant GNOME/KDE license wars. The license under which core components for Linux are shipped is extremely important; it must be GPL, or else the whole system can breakdown if later on someone sneaks a major subsystem into proprietary land. While OpenOffice isn't as critical (license-wise) as the kernel, X, or GNOME/KDE, it has a shot at being the most popular office suite under Linux, and if the goal is try to keep it open source, it should have a truly open source license.
----------
Is the restriction even legal? (Score:4)
By being a derived work from a GPL material they might be in violation of the GPL. Definetly material for the more license savvy people.
Independently of whether they are violating or not the license it seems like a very bizarre restriction.
Best wishes,
Miguel.
How long will this be posted? (Score:1)
You know it's like them foreign automobiles, they just seem to run better and have fewer problems. They get good mileage too.
.
I'll just Ignore it like the rest...... (Score:1)
Re:SuSE=A bunch of Nazi Elitists (Score:1)
Ford and GM *CANNOT* make a vehicle like a Benz. Lincoln (owned by Ford) and Cadillac (owned by GM) sucked some serious ass for the longest time, which forced American companies to go and buy *FOREIGN* car companies in order to have a competitive product (Ford owns Volvo, Aston-Martin, and Jaguar, for example). How's that for 'innovative'?
BTW, try you race a M3 against a Corvette, and you may find yourself looking at the skidmarks from the BMW. The 'vette may have the horsepower, but but the BMW is just way-better engineered (and don't let me get started on the Brabus, from Mercedes).
Regarding the "superior engineers" bit, you're mistaken. The first 'computer' came to existence several centuries ago (as far back as 1623, when Wilhelm Schickard, a German, who created a 'calculating clock'), and who can forget Charles Babbage, who in 1822 designed the fist mechanical computer that used punchcards for input, and Americans had nothing to do with it. Try the German, French and the English; between them, they were the first to come up with the concept of 'computing'. Also, the atomic bomb was the result of research by foreigners, like Albert Einstein (born in Germany), Niels Bohr (Denmark), Enrico Fermi (Italy), and others. Most of the brainpower was foreign, not domestic.
Sorry to rain on your parade, kid... but the way I look at it, it seems like Americans are really not that 'superior' at all....
Re:Odd... (Score:1)
Yeah, you get the reaction where everyone buys your product and you become the market leader.
----------
hear hear (Score:1)
___
hmmm.... (Score:2)
you can only play dvds on licensed players
you can only run the free version of staroffice on licensed os's
although i must say, i like SuSE's method better: they're not preventing you, it's just a law....
but makes you think nonetheless
[note: this is not meant to be a troll, but rather just a different outlook]
Re:SuSE=A bunch of Nazi Elitists (Score:1)
American cars are so good eh? How come I've never even heard of Pontiac until I saw them on the roads in the US? How come the only Corvette I've ever seen in Britain was left hand drive with North Carolina plates? How come their are BMWs everywhere in the world, but not Vettes? I've been in N. America 5 years, and only recently did I hear of Vipers... I don't know what the fuss with those!
Re:Is the restriction even legal? (Score:3)
Americans ARE foreigners! SuSE=A bunch of Nazi (Score:1)
Americans are either foreigners-naturalized, or descendants of naturalized foreigners. So having foreign brainpower (okay, you left of Robert Oppenheimer, my favorite quote is "We're all sons of bitches now.") to create the atomic bomb is not a rain on the parade...
America was/is superior because we attract the best foreigners to work amongst us.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Translation... by hand (Score:5)
Pay attention to Q12 specifically...
Q1: What was involved in the localization?
The majority of strings which StarOffice (SO from here on) uses at runtime are stored in resource files. It is a common technique which allows programmers to separate the program from the data which it uses.
The resource files do not contain only the strings. They also contain dialog window definitions and display elements, menus, mouse pointers, bitmaps, and other important components.
Where are the resources for SO stored? If you install SO to opt/office52, as it is in SuSE Linux, you'll find them in
He who would want to translate SO to another language, e.g. Czech, would have to open the resource files and translate all the strings. He would further have to modify the code to work with all the symbols which the new language may contain.
If you look into any of the aforementioned sources, you'll find that they're not text-editable. There exist specialized resource editors, but SO works with a proprietary resource format, and is therefore not modifiable in this way.
The only person able to modify the resources is the software's author, in this case Sun Microsystems. If it is not interested in localizing for a specific language, there doesn't exist any other way of translating the software.
Incidentally, around the end of 2000, Sun decided to open the source code of SO 5.2 under the title OpenOffice (OO). Thanks to the fact that the source code is key to localization, the opening was met with great anticipation.
When the source code was opened, it was found that several key components which were a part of SO are absent in OO. Perhaps not because Sun wanted to keep them away from prying eyes, but because Sun did not develop themselves, but bought them from third parties. The license under which Sun did so did not allow it to open the code for these components.
Because of this, OO lacked a complete printing system and organizer. In addition, as a work in progress in comparison to SO, OO seemed rather disjointed.
Thus, it was not possible to localize SO because of a proprietary resource format, and it was not worthwhile to localize OO because of its incompleteness.
Q2. StarOffice, OpenOffice, I'm all confused. What did you actually translate?
It was impossible to localize SO thanks to unknown binary resource formats and it was not worthwhile to localize OO because of its incompleteness.
After further examination of both applications, we came to the conclusion that there exists a significant probability that OO uses the same, or similar, resource formats as SO.
SuSE programmers, based on the OO source code, attempted to create a tool which would allow access to strings stored in the binary resource files of SO. Their work was successful and it became possible to consider possibly localizing SO 5.2.
After considering the circumstances, SuSE decided to go ahead with the translation, expecting to finish around the end of 2000.
Q3. Why is the translation over 100MB? It looks like the entire SO and not just the translated strings.
Not really relevant...
Q4-Q7... ditto
Q8. Localization is silly, you should've rather translated OO. You'd have been helping Open Source Software!
We considered localization of OO (viz. Q1), but in the end, because of many reasons, decided to do SO. Consider that our work might have a benefit even for the OO project, and we plan to open the sources of the translation in 2001.
Q9. What'll I find in the so_czech package?
Programs from the polish version of SO, help from the english version, and new czech resource files, a czech dictionary and czech grammar rules.
Q12. Are the translated resource files under the GPL? Can I distribute the Czech SO? Can I use it in a different distribution?
Czech-ified SO 5.2 is freely useable in the SuSE Linux distribution. The Company SuSE CR, s.r.o. will not contest personal use on other distributions. It will , however, legally challenge commercial subjects, if they use the Czech translation of SO without written consent of SuSE CR, s.r.o.
All rights to the translation belong to SuSE CR, s.r.o. Resources are NOT available under GNU GPL.
The translations will be GPL'd 31/5/2001.
Q15. Did SuSE work with Sun on the translation?
Neither the Czech or German divisions of Sun showed, at any time, interest in participating in the effort of translating SO 5.2 to Czech.
---
Re:GPL vs. SISSL (Score:2)
I *really* do not understand this phobia. No, Linux will not 'break down if someone sneaks a major subsystem into proprietary land', it will only break down for those that choose to use it, and nobody can force anyone to use anything.
d34r 5u53 (Score:2)
N0rm4lly, h34ring of what 4pp34rs t0 b3 5uch 4n 3g3gi0us 4bu53 0f th3 GPL w0uld b3 c4us3 f0r m3 t0 0wn j00. (Y'4ll r34lly sh0uld run 4 b3tt3r f1r3wall; 0nly t00k m3 f1ve s3c0nd5 t0 f1nd 4 vun3r4bl3 b0x 0n y0ur 1nt3rn4l n3tw0rk)
But th15 15n't 4n 155u3 0f GPL, 15 1t? 1 f34r d33p d0wn 1n my h34rt th15 15 m0r3 0f 5c0tty at 5un5 d1rty w0rk. H15 l3g4l d3p4rtm3nt g1v1ng j00 4 h4rd t1m3?
4nyw4y, d0n't let th3 5l45hd0t fl4m3r5 g3t y0u d0wn. Wh3n3v3r y0u g3t th053 b45t4rd5 4t 5un t0 g1v3 y0u p3rm15510n 15 f1n3, f0r l1m1t3d d15tr1but10n 15 b3tt3r (4nd n0bl3r) th4n n3v3r 3ng4g1ng 1n th3 3ff0rt 4t 4ll. (Ju5t th1nk 0f h0w m4ny p00r Cz3ch 5kr1p7 k1dd135 w0uld h4ve t0 g0 w1th0ut 4 g00d l0c4l1z3d w0rd pr0c3550r!)
G1v3 3m h3ll, 51nc3r3ly
b0r1s_7h3_h4x0r
3v1l_b0r1s at d4rkr0ck d0t c0 d0t uk
Re:Is the restriction even legal? (Score:1)
- Steeltoe
Nothing new (Score:4)
SuSe is getting arrogant! (Score:1)
Suse will explain or retreat (Score:1)
Suse and czech Staroffice (Score:2)
Re:at what point does it stop becoming suse? (Score:1)
I think in case of SuSE they can state that it is SuSE as long as it does contain YAST (which is not open source and it is a core part of the distribution).
-Yenya
--
Re:Still thinking which license? (Score:1)
Re:Hmmm (Score:1)
But why do they release it for Debian and Slackware three months sooner, then?
I'm guessing we'll either have a clarification ("Sun's fault...") or a retraction ("oops, some new guy in legal/marketing screwed up...") within a couple of days.
No, the official statement (the link in the story) is from Richard Jelinek, the general manager of SuSE Czech (and no, he is not a "new guy", he is with SuSE Czech from its beginning).
-Yenya
--
Re:Odd at best... (Score:1)
So I think they wanted to give to their company a few months advantage from competing distros. Isn't that the same reason why recently Red Hat shipped with a development version of GCC?
Open Source is a Good Thing(TM), but it makes lot harder to compete.
Re:Nothing new (Score:1)
Although Red Hat is the opposite when it comes to this - the ISOs are downloadable right from the beginning, even before you can buy the package; everything Red Hat does is released under the GPL/LGPL, etc.
I think it's the companies that say they support free software and the free software movement, but on the same time are not afraid to stick a non-free license on what they do or withhold free versions, that one should be afraid of. Let's hope SuSE will get better in this aspect.
Re:Odd at best... (Score:3)
I should have probably added a bit more to the background info. Here in the Czech republic, the most needed product for Linux in the desktop area is the office suite, and the one with the good (preferrably free at least as in the free beer) translation and localization support (printing in ISO 8859-2, reading MS-Word documents, when MS does not even use ISO 8859-2, but their own proprietary encoding, CP 1250, etc). And StarOffice with the SuSE add-ons is very near to these requirements. There are lots of newbie users who are willing to listen, if you tell them "Buy SuSE, because it gives you a Czech office suite for free".
I view this as an unfair competition, but I doubt this license is valid according to the Czech law (IANAL, though).
-Yenya
--
Re:Odd at best... (Score:1)
Yes and no. Everyone can take the same development version of gcc (most probably even the same RPM/SRPM from Red Hat Linux) and use it on another distribution or incorporate it to another distribution.
-Yenya
--
Re:GPL vs. SISSL (Score:1)
You are wrong. This is about StarOffice (5.2), not OpenOffice (altough they use OpenOffice sources to reverse-engineer the localization info for StarOffice 5.2).
-Yenya
--
Re:SuSE=A bunch of Nazi Elitists (Score:1)
Konrad Zuse built the first computer, in Germany. Even today's computers are still based on a model developed by von Neumann ("von Neumann architecture"). Leibniz is one of the founders of computational theory (in the 18th century!) and development of mathematical logics was mainly in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. Diesel developed automobiles, Gutenberg developed printing...
The term "German Engineered" probably has its roots in the 1950s to 1970s because Germany had a very weak currency compared to the dollar but good engineers nonetheless, so German products were of high quality and cheap (now they are probably still of high quality but not cheap).
And BTW, the "superior" American engineers after WWII were in large parts German engineers that the US took WITHOUT checking whether they were Nazi or not.
But, I agree with you that this "German Engineered" thing is really stupid for a Linux Distribution, especially as I think that SuSE is not very good when it comes to "engineering" (ever looked at their startup scripts and at the rc.config=win.ini file?).
Sebastian
Re:Translation... by hand (Score:1)
Nope. It is not free, but they say they will not waste time going after home users of this product, but rather focus on the (big) commercial subjects instead.
-Yenya
--
Re:Suse and czech Staroffice (Score:1)
I hope I have clearly stated that it will be free in june and it will be free for Debian and Slackware in March.
OTOH, it is not free for personal use. They say they will probably not sue home users of this product. But it is not free.
-Yenya
--
Re:Say it with me now... (Score:1)
Re:at what point does it stop becoming suse? (Score:2)
Patch for running under Redhat follows:
#!/bin/sh
echo "welcome to SUSE Linux"
echo "Welcome to Redhat" >
Simple, really
--
Re:SuSE service is seriously lacking (Score:1)
Big business have problem at offering service for open-source, because any local guru could open a shop to compete with them, having access to the same knowledge pool. And the local guru would be able to offer the same quality at lower prices, due to lower hoveread in its one-man (or few men) company.
So big business tend to focus on few strategic locations and on customers that pay extra money for support ( the price of any distro can't buy you more than minutes of a trained professional ).
This kinda looks like a liscence workaround (Score:2)
This begs the question of incoprorating gpl'd code along with code that I have permission to use, but not give away. What are the legal implications when two liscences collide>
Anyway, it appears to me that SuSE is trying to put out a workable product, then working to make that product conform with the standards of the community.
People needing a workable Czech word processor will want such a thing as soon as possible, which SuSE has provided. They will then do the right thing and open it as soon as possible afterward.
If they were trying to be another M$ they would try to keep it to themselves, not be setting a schedule to give it away.
The most logical explanation I can think of is that of making sure all of the code is legitimate for free use before allowing such free use.
Re:GPL vs. SISSL (Score:3)
Suppose in two years StarOffice becomes THE standard office suite for Linux. Suppose some company adds some key proprietary pieces, which everyone comes to depend on, which initially are usable by everyone. Then one day, oops, it only works on distribution X, and you have to pay for it, and oh yeah, it's on a subscription service... All of a sudden 90% of Linux users get screwed. Even if you don't use it, you could end up screwed, because it could affect Linux's momentum in a major way.
Again, the more core a component is, the more important the GPL is. An office suite is not an "essential" component like the kernel, or something "optional" but pretty much essential like X/GNOME/KDE, but it's not exactly trivial either.
----------
Horrible !!!! (Score:1)
Re:GPL vs. SISSL (Score:2)
----------
Re:Americans ARE foreigners! SuSE=A bunch of Nazi (Score:1)
Is Linus American? It is only Americans that think they are superioir and that is because very few of them actually bother to go abroad and find out what life is like elsewhere.
Case Sensitive (Score:1)
perhaps thats where you've been going wrong.
Great! More Linux fragmentation... (Score:1)
If Linux is ever going to make serious inroads into Microsoft it needs absolute binary compatability across all distros; no questions asked. There is no way Linux is going to get serious support from commercial closed source vendors (which it needs to trounce Microsoft) if they can't distribute a binary only version of there code. We bitch about slogans like "RedHat compatiable" and "RedHat Linux", but the truth is that RedHat is by a large margin the defacto standard for binaries in those businesses that use Linux. As long as Linux vendors tie things to their platform via any means this is going to happen, and currently if you are not RedHat compliant then this is a bad thing to be doing financially and for Linux.
What Linux desperately needs is standards across all distros in those areas that allow serious back-end application support from closed source software; directory structure and package installation especially. If Linux can get mainstream application vendors shipping currently NT only products on Linux then it becomes a straight fight, and we all know which platform is going to win that on technical merit... Getting these apps Open Source after the event is just a matter of peer-pressure and making sure the model works.
Of course, this might just be Sun and some funnies to do with a new release, but I felt like a rant today because fscking NT is making my life hard. Again. ;-)
Time shifting? (Score:2)
First, a premise:
making money out of Free software is a bit harder that making money out of closed software: in the first case one can sell additional services (i.e. maintenace, ad hoc customizations, etc.), while in the latter one can also sell the use of the software in itself (because the sources are not available for one to compile and use them, or not legally usable/alterable/redistributable).
That said, could time-shifting be considered as a "service"?
Example: Joe spent some effort developing a nice application for which there could be some market space. Although Joe has no obligation problems to release it under a Free license (i.e. the libraries and the tools he used don't legally force him to release his code under a Free licence), Joe decide to sell its application as proprietary software, with the perspective of releasing the source with a Free license in (say) six months.
This would give Joe enough time to earn some money, and perhaps would please the Free software community because the software will be released under a Free license (let's assume that Joe keeps its promises).
Basically, Joe says "If you want it now and you are not interested in the source, please pay me. Otherwise, wait six months when you'll have everything Free for free".
My question is: would this be considered acceptable by the community? Instead of paying to "have the ability to use it in proprietary software", you'd pay it "to have it now". For some aspects, it's similar to the way Aladdin manages GhostScript, if I remember correctly.
(note: no, I'm not planning to do it this way, since I haven't such a "killer app", and if I had, I'd probably release it as Free software from the start, but I'd like an opinion on that).
Re:Odd at best... (Score:1)
OTOH they are coherent in this. And they pay back in many ways ( XFree development, drivers ...), so I think they earned the right to do what they do. ;-).
Not that I'm in the position of granting them any right, but this is slashdot after all
Debian allowed to use it, but will they? (Score:1)
--
Re:Maybe they've got a reason (Score:2)
VGT (Score:1)
I think he should be marked up for humour.
Re:Translation... by hand (Score:2)
I don't know exactly what you mean by that phrase. But many people want to see an operating system + major applications available under intercompatible, open-source licenses. It is clear that Czech users are not getting something which is a step towards this, at least not just yet. This is "news for nerds, stuff that matters". Many of us consider license issues to matter.
Re:at what point does it stop becoming suse? (Score:1)
I guess they did it mosty to prevent RH itself from taking their work and use it without contributing. Which is rather understandable.
Re:Great! More Linux fragmentation... (Score:1)
Re:Maybe they've got a reason (Score:1)
No, the intent really is to lock out the competition. I cannot quote (it was a private e-mail), but the person (who has the right to speak for SuSE CZ) admitted it quite clearly.
Re:Suse and czech Staroffice (Score:1)
Re:GPL vs. SISSL (Score:2)
Is this enforceable? (Score:1)
Is this the same here? Supposing I decided to break their licensing, do they have a leg to stand on?
oojah
Re:at what point does it stop becoming suse? (Score:1)
Another person that's missed the point of source rpms?
Re:d34r 5u53 (Score:1)
Re:Is the restriction even legal? (Score:3)
Re:Suse and czech Staroffice (Score:1)
It was. Read it carefully (not the shortened version on the slashdot title page, but the full version under "Read more".
-Yenya
--
Re:at what point does it stop becoming suse? (Score:1)
Well, the whole discussion on the czech mailing list started after a company, that is distributing CDs of popular Linux software (RedHat, Debian, KDE, ...) inclusive actualization service, tried to distribute the RPM in a form that allows to install it on the Red Hat 7.0 system.
The only change in the SuSE code was an updated spec file. Now the manager of SuSE CZ jumped in and wrote them that they are not allowed to do it.
I would kind of agree with them to place restrictions on the distribution of the package (it is better to do this than not having the code at all), but I don't agree with dividing the users into 'good', 'acceptable' and 'bad' based on what distribution they use.
Re:d34r 5u53 (Score:2)
actually... (Score:3)
Interesting Points ... if true (Score:2)
If that is true, then the same may be said of Suse's restrictive license. Put another way, "I'm sure no copyright court would consider menu prompts and little sentences explaining what a dialog does as containing any significant expressive content, and therefore copyright law does not apply, and therefore Suse's license would not apply, even if they had started with Sun's proprietary version, which they did."
However, what is relevant IMO is that copyright law forbids the copyright owner from determining how the user can use their product once they have legally acquired a copy of it. Therefore, I can use their localisation on Windows, because their licence is invalid under international copyright law.
Another interesting point. Two strikes against the enforceability of this license (if true).
BTW, IANAL
Me either. Any lawyers care to step up to the plate and confirm or refute these notions? What PhilHibbs says appears reasonable on the face of it
If however Suse's license really is unenforceably it would be nice to get that out in the open as soon as possible, so that those in the Czech Republic have more freedom of choice sooner rather than later.
I have a serious question... (Score:2)
---
Re:GPL vs. SISSL (Score:3)
Come on, if 90% of Linux users choose to use something with a license that is not apropriate, or even Microsoft-like as you said, they might as well have chosen to use Windows 2000, right? It's not the LICENSE that would have screwed them, but their CHOICE. Which brings me back to what I've said, if you don't like the license of something, don't use it! You don't like the license of the Czech localisation? DON'T USE IT. Sure, if StarOffice was GPLd they probably wouldn't be able to do this, but they're not forcing anyone to use their non-free stuff. You don't need a license like the GPL to 'protect' you - all it takes is common sense. The same common sense you use when you chose not to go for a proprietary operating system to begin with.
Re:Maybe they've got a reason (Score:2)
Which is at odds with the "release early, release often" theory of open source software. It'd be just as easy for them to say, "Don't bother us with bug reports, yet, if you aren't running SuSE." And that would have the bonus that other people who knew what they were doing could start working on FAQs and HOWTOs explaining how to get the translation to play nice with non-SuSE distributions.
It'd be interesting (from an advocacy standpoint, but I admit I wouldn't want to be around when the flames start flying) if people started releasing software under a GPL-like license that had an extra clause prohibiting the software under that license from being included with or used on a SuSE Linux system.
Re:What was SuSE thinking? (Score:2)
get laughed-and-pointed-at (Score:2)
false assumptions detected.
SuSE is not a small player here in Europe (where localization matters, which was what SuSE got its start from). Expect the czech market to change radically in their favour if this works out the way they planned.
Mebbe its also a matter of testing grounds for marketing techniques they could use when the situation returns.
THIS MATTERS!
Kiwaiti
Re:I have a serious question... (Score:2)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm not a Debian user), but if I believe the Debian people are ultra-uptight about licensing issues. Ideologically, their goals seem to have the most overlap with the FSF -- they've even taken over the Hurd project.
As a result, all of the core Debian components are free-as-in-speech software. Things like the free-as-in-beer Netscape tend to wind up in a separate category of 'non-free' software.
So yes, there are people out there who care.
Re:And people gripe about Red Hat! (Score:2)
2.96-71 is the most stable compiler I've used so far, no matter what some people say. I haven't seen a single ICE or miscompilation of valid code with the current version.
As for producing incompatible binaries, read the FAQ.
First of all, this affects dynamically linked C++ only, and the same thing has been true for *any* new gcc release so far. egcs C++ is binary incompatible with gcc 2.95 C++. gcc 3.0 C++ will be binary incompatible with egcs C++.
Statically linked C++ code and plain C code WILL AND DOES run everywhere else, assuming the right glibc version and such is installed (last time I checked, most other distributions were still using glibc 2.0.x and 2.1.x; you may need to update).
For your comment about GPLing StarOffice, you're out of date, Most of the StarOffice code [openoffice.org] was released under the GPL in October last year.
Re:get laughed-and-pointed-at (Score:2)
Discrimination (Score:2)
Re:Maybe they've got a reason (Score:2)
But where's the line drawn? Am I still in the clear if, say, I cook up a HOWTO that details how personal users can install the Czech SO for RedHat? What if I distribute a shell-script to do it automatically? What happens if RedHat ships a shell-script to automatically grab-and-install the Czech SO? It's really a murky area, given that you're allowed to use it for personal use, but distributions aren't allowed to ship it, but most distributions wind up being used for personal use.
But all that is more or less besides the point. I'm guessing that most Slashdot readers don't read Czech. It's not on practical grounds that we're objecting to it, but rather ideological ones. I fear that a license like this is the first step in would could become distribution-vs-distribution disputes. Some people get worked up enough as it is over advocacy issues and this is just pouring fuel on those flames.
Re:actually... (Score:2)
This is not true.
1-2 hours maybe.
The primary difference between priority.redhat.com and ftp.redhat.com is that ftp.redhat.com has a limit of concurrent users (so you may not get in the first time you try) and is often overloaded because there are so many people downloading large files at the same time.
Re:GPL vs. SISSL (Score:2)
The point is simply that if major work is done to StarOffice under the GPL what happens if the 'alternate' license is used to usurp the intentions of those developers? There GPLed code somehow gets worked up into the StarOfficeLicenseBySun? and those who would use it to release NON GPL software.
Any opportunity for this to happen means that StarOffice is not a viable project worth the support of Free Software advocates (myself included) - it is simply not an option... (like KDE was for a time).
Thats why this is uncomfortable - GPLed code prevents itself from being tied up into proprietary products - when this appears to not be the case, this is where problems arise - like the issue people are having with this 'announcement' from SuSE.
It would be nice if Slashdot could trouble themselves with a Goddamned Phone Call to SuSE to try and give them an opportunity to explain themselves - Id bet they would LOVE the opportunity to speak for themselves. Instead of all of us guessing about the intention/details of this 'announcement'.
Re:get laughed-and-pointed-at (Score:2)
The duration is irrelevant - the point is the GPL is supposed to prevent alternate licenses/releases of software ((GPL software can only be GPLed) there are linking methods that can 'sortof' alter this..). If SuSE can arbitrarily set a 20 day limit - whats stopping them from making it 20 years? Good Will? Nice Feelings? Promises? Horse crap - they may (if the assertion that this is GPL violation is correct) NOT release software like this... I will wait until i hear from SuSE and get some details before I form an opinion about whether or not they have violated the GPL... again we need more real detail.
Re:GPL vs. SISSL (Score:2)
If you let laws dictate your morals, then you end up with the ethics of the lawyers, judges, and legislators. So legal isn't an agrument about whether or not they should do it, just about whether or not you can stop them. Since I won't hire a lawyer over this, legal doesn't matter. But I consider it dangerous, and of questionable morality. And I won't support a company that acts that way. (I only penalize Intel 10% over the competition, SUSE gets a 20% penalty [they've got to be 20% cheaper than the competition for an equivalent product before I will buy from them] -- I'm sure they don't really care, but it makes me feel better.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:actually... (Score:2)
Re:Americans ARE foreigners! SuSE=A bunch of Nazi (Score:2)
I went to spain in 92, italy and austria in 98, from 98-2000,
I went abroad to Israel for two years, returned to the states with the Israeli who became my wife. All my travels and experiences were very valuable, and taught me to value America, something I didn't give much thought to before living elsewhere.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Re:Americans ARE foreigners! SuSE=A bunch of Nazi (Score:2)
When I first contributed to it , I didn't mean for it to end with this outcome.
It seems to me that far too many shortsighted people accuse others of being nazis and or communists on slashdot, which only shows their ignorance culturally as well as historically.
read my addition to this thread earlier where I try and establish that I'm not a limited ignorant shortsighted American, or at least, not in this context. (ignorance is a hard thing to claim a complete lack of; my perl skills stink.)
Hopefully next time we post in the same thread it won't be on something as disgraceful as this.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close