SuSE Denies UnitedLinux Per-Seat License Model

m0RpHeus writes "According to Linux Today, SuSE is denying per seat licensing for United Linux. `We really don't plan any per-seat licensing for UnitedLinux,' said SuSE's US Director of Sales Holger Dyroff. UnitedLinux, it seems is divided on this issue."

Re:Slashdotted already

[Penguinoflight]

Here's the Google Cache [216.239.39.100]

More misunderstandings...

[pointwood]

UnitedLinux is the base distro. Suse, Caldera, etc. are going to be *basing* their distro on that. They are not going to release a UnitedLinux distro. They will release a distro, "Powered by UnitedLinux. Each company can decide their licensing terms themselves.

If Caldera wants to put some extra propritary software in their distro and use per seat licensing, then they are free to do that. Suse has just said that they will not be doing that.

UnitedLinux is IMHO a good thing! They are using and selling free software - they aren't breaking any licenses or anything like that. They are *the good guys* trying to earn a bit of money to stay in business. Is that such a bad thing?

Before more 'Divided Linux' posts start ...

[jaaron]

This has nothing to do with the UnitedLinux Group being 'divided.' If you would actually READ their website, you'd understand that they are still SEPERATE companies and will still have SEPERATE products each with their own licenses and 'added value' content. The amount of FUD being spread about this project before it even really starts simply amazes me. Can we at least wait until there is actually a product out before passing judgement? Most of the bad press has nothing to do with SuSE, TurboLinux, or Conectiva, but is instead based on Caldera's plans. Don't mix up Ransom Love's messed up business ideas for the UnitedLinux business plan. They're seperate.

Re:Communications

[ctid]

Judging from what the United Linux partners have said, there wouldn't be any restriction on SuSE saying this. As far as I understand, SuSE, Caldera and the rest will sell distros which are "powered" by United Linux. The idea being, presumably, that software updates/packages for one UL-based distro will be compatible with all UL-based distros. However, the companies will all have independent contents, pricing, marketing etc. Therefore, SuSE is just saying what their pricing approach will be. What SuSE chooses to say about selling their UL-powered distro is no business of the other partners.

per-seat licensing is a killer

[tclark]

Per-seat licensing of a Linux product seems like an obvious marketing suicide attempt. As an admin, one of the big attractions of Linux is freedom from licensing worries. Given the easy licensing optiona available from Red Hat, Debian, et al., I think a United Linux-based distro would have to offer some unbelievable added value in their distro to get me to buy it.

Re:Differences between Linux distributions

[Tester]

MandrakeSoft, which more and more appears to be now #2 in term of installed user base, is the biggest defender of Free Software after Debian.

May I say bulls**t... I'd like to remind you of how Mandrake came to be.. They where RedHat+KDE ans why didnt RH already integrate KDE? Because it was based on non-free software.

There are in my opinion only two major distribution that are true defenders of Free Software, RedHat and Debian. (Well, there's also Gentoo, but its in a class of its own).

Mandrake is just like TurboLinux, Suse and Caldera... They are doing nothing innovative, they are just trying to survive because they didnt move fast enough out of the "sell boxes" market.. Which was also rh's market a few years back (but they moved to offer much more because its a fairly limited market.

In my opinion, Red Hat is lucky because they can stay open and make real business, MandrakeSoft is *extremely* innovative in inventing a real business model for Free Software while being a fervent defender of its rules.

RedHat is not lucky, they are very very good. They have gone from one profitable business model to another when the market changed. They have been very well managed since the beginning and that's the reason they are #1. As for Mandrake, they tried to follow in RedHat footsteps, but following is never a good idea... So at least after a few years, out of desesparation they tried that Club thing.. Its corporate charity, its not a business model!

Caldera and TurboLinux are already almost dead... And Suse, if they dont play well, they will follow. Here at work, we had a bunch of Suse fans who just said "Suse 8.0 sucks, its the worst linux distro that I have seen in years"...

Now for innovation, see Gentoo and Debian
For good business, see Redhat
The rest is crap

Re:Differences between Linux distributions

[Caligari]

Add Slackware to the list of "defenders" of Free Software. Slackware is one of the oldest and most secure distros around, and still going strong.

Re:Differences between Linux distributions

[joestar]

>May I say bulls**t... I'd like to remind you of how Mandrake >came to be.. They where RedHat+KDE ans why didnt RH >already integrate KDE? Because it was based on non-free >software.

It was because Red Hat has started to finance GNOME before, and they wanted to kill KDE/Qt at the time. And can I remind you that Red Hat included KDE/Qt early in 1999 _long time before Qt became GPLed?

>There are in my opinion only two major distribution that are >true defenders of Free Software, RedHat and Debian.

Red Hat patents...

>Mandrake is just like TurboLinux, Suse and Caldera... They >are doing nothing innovative, they are just trying to survive >because they didnt move fast enough out of the "sell boxes" >market.. Which was also rh's market a few years back (but >they moved to offer much more because its a fairly limited >market.

Mandrake is the most innovative Linux distribution for a long time: they have introduced many new great tools such as remote updates, the best Linux installer available, security levels, automatic hardware configurator, and so many things. Most those things have been introduced in Linux distros after Mandrake started to introduce them.

I want to remind you that Mandrake started from nothing (not even a company) three years ago, long time after SuSE and Red Hat, and now they are #2, with more users than SuSE + Caldera + Turbo Linux. It's not financial power to market their product, they don't have.

Re:What is the *aim* of UnitedLinux

[jaaron]

I'm not part of UnitedLinux, but this is my take: UnitedLinux is a brand. It is a consortium of several companies, current Caldera, SuSE, Conectiva, and TurboLinux. These, and any other future member companies/organizations, will each produce their own distribution under the UnitedLinux brand, i.e.- there will be SuSE United Linux, and Conectiva United Linux, etc. All these UnitedLinux branded distros will adhere to a set of standards defined by United Linux (ie- the member distros). These standards will include the Linux Standard Base, kernel release, libraries, filesystem layout, etc. Each distro will then take this UnitedLinux base system and add their own specialties to it. The UnitedLinux base system alone (not SuSE United Linux, or Conectiva's United Linux, just the base) should be a properly working system, but without a lot of bells and whistles. Just the basic foundation for a distro. It will be distributed in source format at least. Because all these UnitedLinux member distros are based on the same core, applications should the same on any of them. This makes development easier since ISV's don't need to target four or five different distros. This is a good thing. The resulting "aim" of UnitedLinux is then to provide a standard base that is really implemented by several major distributions. It's not necessarily to target RedHat. RedHat can join UnitedLinux, and they may, who knows? But the real purpose is to provide some standards across distros so that it's easier to develop for and consquently market Linux. Sorry this is so long, but so many people seem to misunderstand UnitedLinux.

Re:More misunderstandings...

[chill]

You can make your own UL-based distro, but you can NOT use the trademarked "Powered by United Linux" or probably anything similar.

"Compatible with United Linux-based distros" would probably be fine.

Think of UL as a formalized LSB implementation. The addons might be proprietary (like an MS Exchange client, Lotus Notes client) or it might be bundled with something like Oracle, SAP or UniCenter.

Re:More misunderstandings...

[jaaron]

You don't get it at all. That's okay, since most people don't get it.

The software that will make up the United Linux base is and will be FREE software. That's free as in speech. United Linux will provide the source code. You can compile it. You can get your binaries.

What United Linux doesn't want people doing is taking the binaries (which may or may not compise a fully working distro), slapping them on a CD and market them as "United Linux". First off, that infringes on their trademark. Secondly, it causes confusion about support and service. If you want the free as in beer binaries, then download the .iso of one of the member distros. I'm sure eventually at least one UnitedLinux distro will provide free .iso's.

Remember, United Linux is not ONE distro, currently, it's FOUR all using the same base.

Re:Doom...

[thesolo]

Four Linux companies that haven't done anything in a long time (Caldera, TurboLinux? Are they kidding??)

SuSE hasn't done anything in a long time??! Nonsense. On top of being the first distro with KDE3 and Alsa .99 drivers, SuSE 8 also has an extremely customized version of YaST2 which is amazing. (I couldn't care less that it's not free). Also, Caldera & TurboLinux both have a very loyal userbase in their respective locales.

re ganging up to try to take on RedHat

If you read the original press release, you'd see that the companies involved in United Linux extended an offer to Redhat (as well as any other distro that is interested) to join the effort. This is not a direct assault on Redhat, it's an effort to get a standard, easily supportable distribution.

but the fact remains that they're still four dying companies

SuSE is dying?? Really? You might want to tell that to IBM and the German Government. [slashdot.org]

In my opinion, UnitedLinux is an effort to focus on the LSB, to make an easily-supportable version of Linux that works the same regardless of the localized vendor you pick. If they do it right, I think it will definitely be a Good Thing (TM).

Re:Differences between Linux distributions

[CynicTheHedgehog]

SuSE wrote the (first? only?) USB kernel drivers.

SuSE contributes heavily to ALSA.

SuSE wrote many XFree86 servers for some of the less popular cards from S3 and trident.

SuSE creates integrated E-mail server, collaboration, and database products that are more than just some slapped-together GPL code with an installer.

You talk about innovative? Free ride my ass. Do a little research.

What Per-Seat License?

[MrResistor]

Where has anyone acually involved in the UnitedLinux project actually said that there will be a per-seat license?!? All I've seen is a somewhat vague statement in the UnitedLinux FAQ which could be interpreted as allowing for the possibility that there might be a few UnitedLinux distros using a somewhat non-standard license. Somebody mentioned it on /. wondering what they meant by it, and the Chicken Littles around here latched on to it a cried that the sky is falling. RMS heard the screams and, without bothering to check if the sky was actually comming down, issued forth his opinion on the matter. Apparantly the /. editors haven't bothered to look up either, since they keep posting stories about this totally unsubstantiated rumor!

The fact that not a single one of these stories or opinions has been able to find a quote which substantiates this rumor is quite telling.

Sure, Ransom Love is an idiot, but come on people! He already got smacked down for per-seat licensing once, is he really dumb enough to try it again? Are the rest of UnitedLinux dumb enough to go along with such a stupid idea after seeing what happened to Caldera? I very much doubt that. Obviously SuSE isn't, and I'd be very surprised if Connectiva or TurboLinux where even giving the idea consideration.

Re:Doom...

[Izeickl]

SuSE is the distro the German government are using with this new IBM deal apparently, according to the BBC Here [bbc.co.uk]

Re:I could not resist

[Enigma2175]

I think the big winner (functionally) will be the distribution that ends the need (or perceived need) to constantly have to install new distributions every 6 months -- just to get the upgraded applications.

The Red Hat Network [redhat.com] and up2date do just that. It allows you to keep all your applications current. It solves the dependancies and downloads the appropriate packages. You can schedule updates for all your machines from a central place. So far I have just used the free personal service, but I am getting my employer to buy subscriptions for all the Red Hat machines that we have. It helps to support Red Hat and it reduces the time I spend applying security updates. In addition, you get priority access to ISOs if you care to download the whole distro. To quote the marketing guys, "it's a win-win".

Qutoed a bit out of context

[bkuhn]

I was quoted a bit out of context in this article. Here are the full statements that I recall making, that were quoted only in part:

" [ For a distribution business, ] I think that it's a wrong-headed approach to mix free and non-Free Software, because it leaves corporate users in a dilemma: they don't know off-hand what parts of the distribution they can freely copy around the company and what parts they can't."

and:

"Many users care about freedom, and those users don't want this non-Free Software in their distributions."

I just wanted to clarify the statements, because I don't believe they were as sensational as the article makes them out to be.